The Sun. — London, England, 1851-04-02 00:00:00

ving rials, eed was Oven. ually Lard -that have ray but cir f the , the tark had same ume. ding; I that con rtial- spe t that i the t waS übse e of a . ended Liable Kact b an) , 's an- Is not d not pro right Y by Lord a the lid to ice to . ed to ama- Lated, ached ted to most dings ed in 3 fact ourse t hint thong alght to be ~~ THE SU'N, 7 7 " t , 7 , 171, :" 7 r , en7l - 7! , 7 1, 1 4 r n. forms in its institutions, so ebsentiallv necessary, would be fearlessly and impartially carried out, and the general welfare , of the colony better advanced under your Lordship's admi nistration than under that of any strawrer. "Your Lordship has already been thanked by almost the entire independent European population, for the speedy ter mination put to the late rebellion, which at one time threatened destruction to all holding any stake in the colony, although some parties h ave en d eavoure d to ma ke it appear as " a mere vill age brawl. We have to notice the much improved drainage and cleanliness of the towns, and throughout the country we no tice, with great satisfaction, the successful introduction of the road ordinance, which must prove ultimately of vast im portance to the colony, and we trust that the peace and pros perity of our island will be insured by your Lordship still re maining amongst us. (Signed) " We have, &c., " D. Wilson, A. W. Heale, W. Thompson, C. Shand, James Swan, George Alston. James Smith, J. S. R. Shand, Ritchie, W. Mackwood, G. A Makenzie, A. Reid, J. Walker, J. B. Alston, J. 0. Halloran." Upon the fact being known of his 'ntention to quit the co _lony, he received the following '" ADDRESS FROM PLANTERS IN THE CENTRAL PROVINCE TO VISCOUNT TORRINGTON. " MY Lord , " Kandy, August 17, 1850. We, the undersigned European inhabitants ovfigeacentral province, beg to intrude upon your Lordship have deemeda"pression of our regret at the course which you it of to adopt in the resignation of the government of this" Putting colony. Minor toward aside entirely 'all considerations which from causes may have at any time influenced our feeling . s you, we now beg to express our sincere regret: that Lordship should have rendered it necessary for your Lordship to withdraw from among us. „ "We believe that such a step on your Lordship's part at d tatne present juncture will not he attributed by the nativean .tsed population to the right cause, consequently the feel ingswhbicehiagactuated your Lordship in tendering your resig nation capable of misconstruction by designing andlt disaffected persons, the course which you have now deemed Proper to adopt will have a most prejudicial effect upon h e minds of the people and the future welfare of the colony. " You r Lordship has shown a consideration for the interests Or t he agricultur a l community, to which under former Admi nistrations it has b een a stranger, by various ordinances cal culated to reduce the enormous expense of coffee cultivation 11 .5 1 U transp ort, v i z.—by the abolition of the export duty upon _ article of commerce, and the opening up of the country 0 Y the road ordinance. uP By the latter, bandy roads and bridle paths have opened What were formerly almost inaccessible tracts of country ; a nd even i n i ts infancy we can foresee the vast benefits w hfch must a ccrue to the country w h en carr i e d i n t o lull o p e ration. 4 ," The thanks of the inhabitants of the central province for . 141 ,n prompt measures by which your Lordship destroyed 12a the bud a rebellion, which, judging from the history of this 4 „ B „ ia ltcl, would otherwise have been both disastrous to the loyal, - '`"Pa , nful and protracted to the insurgents, are already on re cord ; but we take this opportunity of again tendering our lat n e ! h anks to your Lordship for a piney which p ro tects the iso- , d and solit ary p l anter f rom o u trage at the hands of tne re bel, and his property from destruction at a time when a tinivealial monetary catastrophe had already reduced too I nan3r to the verge of bankruptcy. 0 " We beg to conclude by expressing our regret, that rtan n at the moment when your Lordship's improvements th,e colony were beginning to operate, and the benefits t" , be hereafter reaped from them to draw upon the public circumstances should deprive us of your Lordship's 'wager sojourn amongst ns. " We have, &c. (Signed) " GEORGE ELPHINSTONE DALRYMPLE and 350 other persons." N ith'attt, then, making any extraordinary claim on his part, he might repeat that he expected some consideration at !heir Lordships' hands, from the fact that his administration, 'Joni 'beginning to end, had met with the universal appro elation and concurrence of all classes in the colony. Ire had n ow stated the material points of his case, he hoped fairly and boldly. H e b e li eve d t h at h e h a d t h us ta k en t h e most l ai ghtforward and manly course in coming down to the i ouse upon the present occasion. and making the statement their Lordships had just heard.—(Hear.) Unaccustomed as he wa s to address their Lordships, he hoped that they would afford him their indulgence in respect to the mode in which he had acqu i tted himself. If any Noble Lord had anything . complain of in reference to the propriety of his conduct, ` e '; hoped that such Noble Lord would but do him the jusitce Re expressing his opinion openly upon the present occasion. he,d heard it stated out of doors that his conduct was ' 3lll l as demanded judicial investigation. He was ready to meet_ such investigation, for he courted the fullest inquiry. : Hut the motion put forward by Mr. Baillie did not go that I:nogeth. He could have wished it had. After two years of 3211.,!ti0 examination into his conduct, Mr. Baillia's nothi: was simply censurable of his conduct, and suing else, In no one instance did the Committee concur o ' u attot t view of the case. They had in a manner pointed servants e Secretary of State certain disputes amongst public the tho which they said demanded attention. He might, (Lord confidently appeal to the Noble Lord opposite country Staple Noble 1,--m?u who was at the head of a great party in this appealed to the colonial experience of that 44. d, and he would ask him, whether in the difficult 4 1 0 which he (Lord Torrington) had been placed, fearfully artassments in the by certain ugrnented by the discharge of his duty were not in the be eourse which had been pursued Parties in this country? He felt that he acted and the manner for the preservation of the public weal might y interests involved • and, having been would character th I supported by f ' . c a o i r l o o n r y , ü b s e t ' would ask theeveNrYoblPeersLe weter it was e 'that he should have been thus . censured in such unmeasured 'terms, and his public conduct in the administration of the ffairs of Ceylon held up to the greatest obloquy?—(Hear, ) r• He had now done what he felt to be his duty, ;and he is _appealed to the Noble Lord for an expression of . e U r Pinton. He had only two other subjects to bring ceder the consideration of their Lordships. It was stated, :!_,lodmindustriously circulated, not upon the evidence of the 4%edTittee in the other House of Parliament, that he had Ita g ua ge of a peculiar character at the execution of a certa in awith He had had the good fortune of having :h ; him, at the time this alleged language was uttered by un, two gentlemen, Colonel Brown and 'his (Lord Toning / too's) no r t t t ; bat n .4 Muted to L -e erY, and they both concur with him in stating expressions had been used by him as were at ; and he 'said now, upon his honour and ord, that he had never uttered them.—(Hear, hear.) He ti_t it: one other su bj ect to allude to. In open i n g his address to sir Lordships he had to complain of his confidence being yitaolated, and his private correspondence being published. It ,_ a not for him to make any comment or to pass any censure nsln gentlemen of high character and honour. He would l'ot, however, shrink from expressing his opinion of the im- P folniety of making pu`„lic letters that were written in the ecresy of implicit confidence. He bad, however, to ac fis howledge the authorship of the letter dated in May, 1849. ; le admitted that letter, and at the same time he was ready stt ) c a cknowledge the impropriety of it.—(Hear, hear.) No 1. mg could have been more improper. He was now willing confess that he had then committed an act of impropriety ' l l the expressions he then used, for which he was very sorry. Z't Hear, hear.) He considered that he had done a great , 1 31 ustice to gentleman by writing that letter, and he was 'skEt only sufferer by that act, for he had lost that office which L . ,% le as his pride and happiness to possess. Expressing his tßai eep, contrition for that single act of indiscretion, he now tesd patiently for their judgment.—(Cheers.) u IA GREY—I do not wish to prolong I the discuss to ion on cue Matter, except to say what It hink am bound say 21 ree'vence to the statement which has just been made by by Noble Friend.—(Hear, hear.) Like my Noble Friend, it ;Could l'se more satisfactory to me if the ground of accusation i rought against him could have been stated in this House in nch a way that I might have an opportunity of answering ; but as this is not to be the case, as the Noble Lord oppo te (Lord Stanley), on the present occasion at all events Ind it is no more than I expected), will not take up this ase against my Noble Fri en d— as thi s case i s not b roug h t 1 Ward on the other side, it would ill b ecome me to enter i nto the details of it.—(Hear, hear.) But this much I must say, tha t I think my Noble Friend has taken the fitting and Prof ter course in making to your Lordships the statement he at just m a d e . H e rem i n d e d y our L or d s hip s o f th e circum ta ees in which he has been p aced. For two years and a al! he has been the mark for all the shafts of calumny in e° " l vs and n ews p a p ers , s h ow i ng a d e gree of malignancy a a disregard of truth that are a disgrace to the press of s '''' u ntrY, and which have not ceased to be brought for ward against him. And more than that, proceedings have "`"e11 place in the other House of Parliament calculated to give hacreased currency and effect to these calumnies, while t,st_the s ame time there was not the means of meeting them. kllear, hear.) To show the sort of position in which m y Z oble Friend was placed, let me mention this one circum tanee, and this one circumstance only. During the first t fi I lar of the in qu i ry , th e year 1849 , muc h ev id ence very h os s ul ° my Noble Friend was brought forward. At tend ~„e session a motion was made (this appears from the ti "ne votes and proceedings of the Committee) by one of re Ie members of the Committee, that the evidence should be e;\ Ported to the House, and of course published to the _ i . ld, Th e motion was rejected by a majority of 9to 1. I not sure of the majority, but I am sure of the minority. s motion was supported only by a single voice, and the tion was rejected on the avowed ground that the evidence i piast my Noble Fri en d on l y ha d b een h ear d , an d th a t it the unjust it should be made public until the evidence on tke other side had been heard also. Did that decision of b Venanaittee answer the purpose for which it was intended t oe Committee? No ; it w ou ld h ave b een b e tt er f or I t r i ? Noble Friend to have the evid ence pu bli s h e d com pl e t e i n emantry. Though it was decided that the evidence • 'eh had been given should be kept back and not published 1 0 this 'country, garbled extracts that could legitimately be °III Y in the possession of a member of th e C omm itt ee were sclent to Ceyl on an d published in the ne wspapers t h ere, t o t h e theB of my Noble Friend.—(Hear.) My Noble Friend 'aid, how was it possible for a Governor to carry on 1„, - , government of a colony when his conduct was the sub -11,—" of inquiry and of statements of this nature ?—( Hear, 'hear.) I say if an inquiry were conducted as it should be, Persons having a due sence of the responsibility of the 1 1 1,at Powers entrusted to a Parliamentary Committee, that Public ser- O ui rY may be conducted without injury to the b le e, and frequently with great advantage; but if the mem ,,,e4 of a Committee are to disgrace themselves by permitting efcrbled evidence, or extracts from evidence, to b . e publish e d ii the c o l on i es to injure persons whose co nduct is under in and if every person for whom a command has been. 11 TPlied an d who has been refused, or for whom anl appoint s Vent h been asked and refused. or if some irregu kind is h hostility to e .' _ e l l Punished, and if every individual of that to be ttatitled to come and state his case and show his k°leo,eirfernor, then indeed I do admit that inquiries?' thisl beoou an scarcely be carried on.—( Hear, bear.) Having Itiii s the object of this kind of inquiry, and conducted. in „., spirit, Ido think my Noble Friend was right in bring- Vg the case before your Lordships.—( Hear, hear. ) He the waited patiently for many mouths; while he believed other ei was to come regularly under discussion in the bee, r r e "°use, he most properly abstained from bringing . it a erie . Your Lordships•• but when the notice given was in . th e l i t , elY Postponed, when those calumnies of which he was 0 ject were allowed to circulate in this manner, I think ahV e S ,,V o iew to his own honour he should state to your Lord ships 1 4 ,2 d! facts he has to-night stated.—( Hear, hear.) Being sh ould ef this House it was n, a becoming of him that ne orb 'a make this vindication of himself through the press, add Y o any other means than he has done.—( Hear.) I must Dr4errtword. I was prepared to maintain, whenever the rie ra i ~,1 4, 11 .1e had come, that ray Noble Friend's acts and ge his o .,,r_ u nlie administration of the colony redound greatly to -The colony credit, and have proved eminently advantageous to tl) Prostja l7 itself; that he found that colony in a state rapidly ster taQ c 'ag to bankruptcy • that in spite of the commercial th . 8 47 and 1848, 'Which no place felt more sever . e i l s y te;Co rt „T 4 .7O ll , he brought the colony through that , hlishm—e,,,‘,uefinances, and contributed much to the re-esta (Rear, hoar')'l oel as well as of financial . prosperity.- I Mte co He has shown that the rebellion proceeded Rested of discontent of long standing, and which had ath ; „,_ loftg previous to his assuming the Government, and -. *‘‘k Ron ) oPzei4ed by the energy QI the measures ho -1- r t-1.-(11- - -, ) A"d I will not hesitate to express my opinion that true humanity was consulted by the mea sures of my Noble Friend.—(Hear, hear.) Ha was not the only party on whom responsibility rested ; for though the Governor is indeed responsible for p roclaiming martial law when he thinks a sufficient case for it exists, yet having proclaimed it, it rests with the officers by whom that law is carried into effect to administer it with humanity as well as firmness.—(Hear, hear.) I say the whole of the evidence which has been taken goes to show that the officers to whcm those great powers were entrusted have shown throughout that they acted with a high feeling of the great responsibility that was thus imposed upon them.— (Hear, (Hear, hear.) It was their most e arnest ob j ect and desire to use those powers as promptly as th e y could to restore p.eace and tranquillity, to protect her Ma j est y 's peaceable subjects by punishing as small a number as was possible under the c i rcu mstances of the case. - (Hear , hear ) Tosay ebus had taken place during the e xistence of martial law is, as my Noble Friend stated, more than any man can take upon him to assert. We know that in time of war and periods of rebellion, when the ordinary administration is necessarily ar rested, and the restraints that curb the pal passions of man kind are to some extent withdrawn, it is impossible to sup pose that abuses must not some time take place. The Noble Duke knows that.—(Hear, hear.) To check such abuses the Noble Duke was obliged to adopt measures of great severity and of wholesome rigour. In the same way, when the Noble Lord first adopted the course he did in Cey lon, it was possible abuses did take place; but it is equally clear that whatever abuses did take place, it was against his desire and wish, and that nothing was left undone that was in his power to check and prevent such abuses —(Hear.) There is but one more observation that I have to make. There is one paint I am bound to allude to, painful as it is. It is that to which my Noble Friend has referred at the con clusion of his speech.—(Hear, hear.) My Lords, lam sure all of your Lordships must have been touched by the candid and manly—(Hear)—admission which my Noble Friend has made.—(Hear.) Undoubtedly I (lid feel that I never ex perienced so much pain in my life as with respect to that matter.— (Hear, hear.) Having found that my Noble Friend came out triumphantly of the ordeal of such an inquiry as never before I suppose was instituted into the conduct of any public man in reference to his public acts of administra tion, it gave me more pain than I ca n tell when the disclo sure as to that letter was made, which made it evident to me that my Noble Friend was placed by that letter in a position with regard to other persons holding o fficial situations in the colony of Ceylon, which rendered it impossible that he could, with regard to the public service, or with satisfaction to him self, continue to administer the affairs of the colony.—(hear, hear.) I felt mote strongly that the disclosure and publi cation of that letter was something I for one must deplore. ( Hear.) How the gentleman to whom that letter was ad dressed could have disclosed it—still more how the Com mittee could, not only have allowed, but I may almost say required the publication of that letter—how they could have taken that course, more especially as it is admitted that the letter was totally and entirely irrelevant to the subject of the inquiry of the Committee—how they could have taken that course I am for one utterly at a loss to understand.—(Hear, hear.) I can only say that those who did take it entertain totally different notions from those I hasai been always taught t a o nd bo t ld h e w m it a h n r n e e s r pe i c n t t w o h t i li ch e s t a h c e re in dn te e r s c s ou o r f se pr o i f p vat r e iv c a o t n e fi l d if e e n b c e e: ts , een one gentleman and another should be carried on. (Hear, , hear.) More than this I will not say.—(Hear.) The Duke of WELLINGTON—My Lee ds, as the Noble Earl has referred to my conduct in respect to the resu lts of martial law, I beg leave to trespass upon your Lordships' attention for a moment or two while I make an observation on the subject.— (Hear, hear.) I will not make any comment upon the conduct of the Noble Viscount; but I must say that i . is utterly impossible for this House at the present time to pronounce any opinion upon the case brought under our consideration by the Noble Lord.—( Hear, hear.) In the first place, we have not a single paper before us i elating to the matter. We know nothing about it.—( Hear, hear.) The cor respondence to which the Noble Lord alluded in some detail may have come regularly before the public, but I declare that I have not read a word of it. I think that the Noble Lord might as well have avoided making any observations on that correspondence until the House had it regularly in their hands.—(Hear, hear.) But what I rose for particu larly was to reply to the appeal made to me by the Noble Earl. I contend that military law has been, and is, nothing more nor less than the will of the general that commands the army. It is no law at all. The general who pretends to carry such a law into execution is induced to lay down such rules and regulations as he pleases. I have seen an enemy in a country compelled to submit to the government of mar tial law—that is to say, I have governed a large portion of the country by my own will—what does that mean? Why, I thought that the country ought to be governed by its na tural laws, and I governed that country accordingly by its own natural laws. I have, however, consulted the circum stances of the country, and the services of a government were performed under my direction. The rightful judges of the courts of la w have conducted the business of that coun try under my protection. I must here protest against being called into any comparison whatever with my Noble Friend. (Cheers.) [The illustrious Duke became unusually ex cited while making the last observation, and struck the table with great vehemence. Earl GREY—I thin the Noble Duke did not perfectly hear the reference I made to him. 'What I mean to say is, that in times of war and confusion those who act under the authority of a general or a governor cannot be always pre vented from being guilty of abuses.—( Hear, hear.) I did not mean to say that the Noble Duke so exercised the powers of martial law, but that when the Noble Duke was carrying on that memorable and glorious contest for which his name will be ever illustrious, there were cases of soldiers and officers acting under him being guilty of abuses contrary to the Noble Duke's wishes, and which the Noble Duke found it necessary to prevent.—(Hear, hear.) So, I said, there might also be abuses in Ceylon of which my Noble Friend the Governor of Ceylon knew nothing, and my Noble Friend was more ready than any other person to punish those abuses when they took place.—(Hear, hear.) That is all I said in reference to the Noble Duke, and I shall merely add that I was glad to hear what the Noble Duke said with reference to what is the true nature of martial law. It is exactly in accordance with what I myself wrote to my Noble Friend at the period of those transactions. lam sure that was not wrong in law, for I bad the advice of Lord Cottenham and Lord Campbell, and the Attorney-General, and I explained to my Noble Friend that what is called proclaiming martial law is no law at all, but merely, for the sake of public safety in circumstances of great emergency, setting aside all law, and acting under the military power; a proceeding which required to be followed by an act of indemnity.—(Hear.) That is all I have to express. The motion having been agreed to, their Lordships then adjourned. LONDON, LAW IN TEMA GE_ COURT OF CHANCE. Et*/ Aptfr MISS TALBOT'S C.ISF..--DOYLI v WRIGHT: At the conclusion of the SoLicrroa-Ceiettatee's argumentee The LORD CHANCELLOR, in giving judjement, said the cir cumstance under which this case came Word him rendered it almost impossible to dispose of every pah of it satisfactorily. The case had travelled very widely, but the dlficulty was how far the Court could on some occasions interfere in order to limit the course of the argument to what was the real point on which the judgment of the Court was to be pro nounced. In all cases in which feelings were embarked that became very difficult; statements were made on one side cal culated to produce impressions which were disliked on the other, and it did not seem just to restrain the answers to them, though both the statements and the answers were beside the real point in the case. The petition before him he had found, in the last half-hour, was much more limited than the petition he had supposed was under discussion. The petition upon which he had to pronounce the conclusion at which he had arrived prayed that a ward of that Court might be removed from a convent named in the petition, and placed under the care of such person as should be deemed to be proper, and that the petitioner, Mr. Berkeley, might have access to the ward at all reasonable times; and that the costs of his petition might be paid out of the fortune of the ward, or that such order should be made as to the Court should seem ment. It did not often happen, and when it did, he appre hended that it ought always to be looked at with consider able restraint, that under the general words of the prayer of a petition some substantial distinct subject for relief was advanced. There were occasions in which that might be done, but, independently of those general words, the petition consisted of a prayer that the lady should be removed from the convent, that Mr. Berkeley might have access to the lady, and that he might receive the costs. That was the prayer. The petition was very short in substance. It con sisted, in part, of recitals of previous proceedings, and then passed to a statement that the young lad y having been taken from the convent in the year 1850, and become an inmate of Lord Shrewsbury's, her uncle's, a marriage was proposed to her repugnant to her feeling, that the gentleman was dis agreeable to her, that there was a desire to force her into the marriage against her will, but that she had the firmness to refuse it ; that upon that she was put into the convent by way of punishment, and to coerce her to take the veil. That was the whole statement of the petition, independent of the recitals ; there were no other facts upon which the Court was called upon to adjudicate. He found, as he had before men tioned, that the prayer of the petition had been altered from that which was its form when he had the communication with Mr. Berkeley, and the Learned Counsel who appeared for that gentleman had informed him that the amendment or alteration of the prayer had arisen out of the communication made by him (the Lord Chancellor), but he could not help feeling that the judgment that led to the alteration of the prayer in consequence of that communication might have led much more distinctly to an alteration in the body of the petition ; inasmuch as the petition was limited to what he had stated—an imputation to coerce this young lady by those who were so nearly connnected with her, and who were under the most imperative duty to protect her • that not only had that protection been withdrawn, but that the power given for the purpose of protection had been abased into that of coercion in a way repugnant to and inconsistent with every honour able feeling; that, passing by everything like affection and duty, they who had thus abused the power given for the benefit of the individual were afterwards ac tuated by such m , lignant feelings, that totally regardless of the best and permanent interests of the person thus com mitted to them, they had, in a sense, forced her into a con vent with a view of compelling her to abandon the world at her age, and take the veil and dedicate herself to a religious life. He could not conceive a charge more deeply affecting the character of a man of rank and education and high station— s charge more seriously affecting the moral character and honour and feelings of an individual than that. Such was the substance of the petition. That petition had been, beyond all doubt, answered—answered in part; but the knowledge which he could not reject, though he had acquired it in a private capacity, also assisted him in forming an opinion upon it. He could not forget, whenihe was communicating, certainly under the sense of official duty, with the young lady, though at Lord Shrewsbury's as a visitor, that when he heard the subject of marriage mentioned, and some gene ral statemen s made about it which would come before him, he did think it right to call the young lady's attention to some circumstances connected with that marriage, which did not appear to him to give her the fair prospect she was entitled to. It would have been impertinent for him as a visitor to have entered fully into the question, as he felt, from his official character, that only a short time would elapse before the matter was brought into court, and that he would be the person to decide upon it. But, hav ing acquired that knowledge under the circumstances which he had mentioned, he could not reject it, nor help its influencing his judgment on the present oc casion. Now, there was an entire absence of evidence in support of the allegations of the petition. It was true there was not an answer negativing those allegations; but the parties who almost alone could have made that answer were Lord and Lady Shrewsbury, and theree was a physical and possibility to their having presened uch an answer ; and, moreover, when such grave charges were made the onus was not upon those who had to answer, but upon those who made them to support them. There was, however, the personal knowledge which he (the Lord Chancellor) had acquired, as he had before stated, and he had been told that his repre sentations had been o far acted upon as to lead to an altera tion in the prayer of the petition, allowing, however, the substance of the petition, which was the most serious part of it, to remain unaltered. Such was the state of things. There was a short petition—short, but the subject-matter of it most important—containing an imputation to force a ward into a marriage against her will, and on her re fusal placing her in a convent, where under no circum stances ought she to have been placed, and placing her there with a view the most important. The petition was not supported, but was repelled by the circumstances he had mentioned. Such, however, was not the whole of the case. The effect of this petition had been to bring to the knowledge of the Court a state of things which called on the Court imperatively to act, and the result of this petition he felt had been not unaccompanied altrgether with some disadvantage, but upon the whole of great advantage to the ward.—(A slight murmur of applause.) He thought the Court had derived considerable benefit from it—he thought the ward had derived considerable benefit from it. What effect that ought to have in a case such as he had de scribed, when a petition containing grave charges against honourable absent parties not supported, but satisfactorily repelled, and which could not be otherwise, for the reason he had stated, satisfactorily . answered,—how far, he said, the benefit the ward had derived or the assistance the Court had derived from this petition ought to operate on the ultimate decision of the Court might be matter of grave consideration. Now, in the course of the discussion a great deal of matter had been brought forward. First, much had been said in respect to what occurred in 1843. He owned that his mind was not impressed with the importance of what had oc curred in that year to so high a degree as were the minds of some of the Learned Counsel. All that took place then —atl that took place antecedently to the subject-matter in the petition, only bore qn the petition on which he had now to form his judgment, so far as it tended to give a collateral colour and support to that peti tion; in itself it was net presented in a form properly to be the subject-matter of charge and complaint. Now, the view he took of what had occurred in 1843 was this—lt appeared that there had been an arrangement made for the ward, under which there was to be an allowance for her of between 5001. and 6001. There had been a previous discus sion, to which he did not think it necessary to advert, as to the disposition of the ward; but in 1843 the young lady re mained under the order of the Court, by which a sum of 500/. or 600/. was allowed for her maintenance; and that maintenance having been regulated at a time when she was under different circumstances from those which sur rounded her in 1843, a petition was presented, in which he did not discern any complaint with regard to the previous management of the ward. It was true, it was said that the lady was in a convent; but it appeared to him that the main substance of that petition was relative to the reduction of the allowance—a thing desirable to be attended to all times, and which the Court must always desire, consistently with the comfort o' the ward, seeing that it was placed with regard to infants in the character of a trustee; at the same time, the guardian had not come to the Court, as he (the Lord Chancellor) thought, in strictness, according to his duty, he ought to have done. When an alteration took place in the position of his ward which rendered an allowance which was adapted to one state of cir cumstances more than was required for the advantage of the infant in another, it would have been proper for him to have come to the Court to reduce the allowance • but, consi dering the manner in which the guard ian dealt with the amount, and that there was an entire absence even of in sinuation that he acted under any corrupt motive, and that he had invested the surplus fund, he (the Lord Chancellor) could not say he looked on his conduct with any great de gree of censure. In the petition of 1843, the fact of the lady's being in a convent was mentioned, but only inci dentally. It prayed that an inquiry might be made whether the convent was a fit and proper place for her; but that was not the result of any charge of its being unfit and im proper; it appeared to be only part of the inquiry when any alteration of the scheme was made part of the prayer, but without any serious objection on that ground. But a discussion took place on that occasion, terminating in an order of the Court. How was he to deal with that order? In a matter in which the future conduct or management of the ward bad rendered necessary a change for her secu rity or h a ppiness, was he to suppose that the order was not properly drawn up, or was he to suppose that the solicitors, according to their judgment and respective views of what the interests of the ward required, per formed their duty to their clients and the Court by taking care that all proper matters were embodied in the order ? He must suppose that those matters were so em bodied. He was well aware that orders were perhaps oc casionally drawn up that did not precisely correspond with what was understood on the occasion ; but when that was ascertained an application was made to have them corrected, and seldom was there any difficulty in that respect; but no application was made to correct the order of 1843. It ap peared to have been an order made after a good deal of altercation and discussion ; and therefore it was the more reasonable to suppose that it embodied all that the parties deemed to be right. Then it was said that, as to that order, no matter hew obtained, or whether it contained all that it ought to contain, so as to carry into effect the inten tion and agreement between the several parties —or, as it had been called, the understanding—there was matter connected with it now brought before the Court that bore seriously on the decision of the petition now under consideration. That order was founded on the unde-standing that Lord and Lady Shrewsbury would undertake the manage ment of the ward, subject to the interposition of the testamentary guardian. It was said that the infer ence to be drawn from that older was, that the ward was to be an inmate of Lord and Lady Shrewsbury's. He did not draw that inference. Looking to the whole order, he did not think that the inference was war ranted. In the first place, "care and management" did not necessarily import any such thing.' What he understood by that was, that Lady Shrewsbury, a lady of rank and in telligence, the ward being a female o was to control and direct the acts of the guardian—what should be the course of education,: what should be the course of management. Some impression had arisen in the present case, from the frequent occasion there was to advert to the word "convent," which would not have arisen if the word ",school" had been ap plied instead of convent ;" but he perfectly well knew that, from the difficulty of Catholic children being placed and edu cated with those of the Protestant religion—the difficulty of a school being conducted according to the diversified senti mentspupils—according to the religious principles of parea of thetsgenerally—Catholic families had not that advantage for the education of their children which Protestant fami lies enjoyed; Catholic f amilies, too, deeming the spiritual education of the . r children more important than their temporal education. What, then, was the course with respect to Catholic families? It was well known that ladies of considerable intelligence and attainments devoted themselves to a r eli g ious life, took the veil, and deemed it . a part of their duty to, assist in the work of education ; and therefore attached to convents were esta blishments for the education of the children of Catholic pa rents. Upon this occasion it appeared that near Taunton there was a convent, to which was Attached a school, and they had beard mentioned the names of ladies there compe tent enough to undertake the task of educating the children who were placed in the school. Lady Shrewsbury either PARLIAMENTARY DIVISIONS From the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons TUESDAY, ARIL 1. PATENTS. _ Motion made, and Question put, " That an humble Ad dress be presented to her Majesty, that she will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House Return of the Expenses incurred in taking out a Patent in England, Ireland, and Scotland, respectively, independent of the specification, distinguishing the items or heads of that Expense ; and specifying the several offices in which fees are demanded and made payable, and manner in which the fees are appropriated: also the highest and lowest expense of specification : "Also, Return of the Expenses incurred at the Attorney or Solicitor Gen.ral's offices for taking out a Patent in Eng land, distinguishing the items or heads of those Expenses : " Similar Return for Scotland : And, Similar Return for Ireland." The House divided : MINORITY-AYES, 39. Arkwright, George Gore, W. R. 0. Ruehout, Captain Barrow, W. 11. Grace, 0. D. Scully, Francis Beresford, William Greene, Joins Seaham, Viscount Blake, M. J. Gwyn, Bowel Sturt, Henry G. Burghley, Lord Hodgson, W. N. Tettison, E. K. Cabbell, B. B. Ilornby, John Tyrell, Sir J. Chatterton, Colonel Keating, Robert Verner, Sir, W. Clifford, 11. M. Keogh, William Waddington, David Conolly,Thomas Lennard, T. B. Walter, John Corbally, M. E. Mackenzie, W. F. Yorke, E. T. Crawford, W. S. Nugent, Sir Percy Wynn, H. W. Dunne, Colonel O'Brien, J. TELLERS. Forbes, William O'Connell, John Sibthorp, Colonel Gallwey, Sir W. P. O'Connell, M. J. Sidney, Alderman MAJORITY-NOES, 70. Agllonby, H. French, F. Paget, Lord C. Anson, Colonel Frewen, C. H. Palmerston, ViS. Baring, Sir F. Greene, Thomas Parker, John Bell, Jacob Grey, Sir G. Pigott, Francis Berkeley, Admiral Grey, Ralph W. Plowden, W. H. Bernard, Viscount Harris, Richard Portal, Melville Blackstone, W. Hatchell, John Price, Sir R Boyle, Colone. Henley, J. W. Prinsep, H. T. Bramston, T. W. Heywood, James Salwey, Colonel Brotherton, J. Heyworth, Lawrence Smith, M. T. Burke, Sir T. J. Hobhouse, T. B. Smollett, A. Campbell, W. F. Hodges„T. L. Somerville. Sir W. Carew, W. P. Holland, Robert Stuart, John Christy, Samuel Ker, Richard Thompson, Colonel Cowan, Charles Labouchcre, Henry Thomely, Thomas Darner, Colonel Lacy, H. C. Townshend, Captain Deedes, W. Lewis,, G. C. Tufnell, Henry Disraeli, B. ` Loveden, Pryse Williams, John Duncan, George M'Neill, Duncan Wood, Sir CharleS Dundas, George Mahon, O'Gorman Young, Sir John Dundas, Sir David Maine, Fox Fitzpatrick, J. W. Milner, W. M. TELLERS. Fortescue, J. W. Morris, David Hayter, W. G. Fox, W. J. Naas, Lord Hill, Lord M. Freestun, Colonel Napier, Joseph PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS (From the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons.) STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE. The following Resolutions were reported from the above Committee :- 1. That in the case of the Glasgow and South-Western Railway (No. 2), petition for leave to deposit a petition for a Bill, the standing orders ought not to be dispensed with. 2. That in the case of the Taw Vale Railway and Dock Bill, petition for additional provision, the standing orders ought to be dispensed with :—That the parties be permitted to introduce their additional provision, if the Committee on the Bill shall think fit, on proving before the said Committee that the notice has been inserted once in the London Gazette, and for three successive weeks in the county newspaper, and that a copy of the said notice has been served upon the sue; vevors of the highways crossed on the level. That the Committee on the Bill do report to the House how far such order has been complied with, on the Report of the Bill. 3. That in the case of the Sunderland Improvement Bill,' petition of the Lord Bishop of Durham for dispensing with standing orders Nos. 105 and 166 , the said standing ord er s ought not to be dispensed with. 4. Th a t i n th e case o f th e B r iton Ferry, Docks, and Rail.' way Bill, petiti on o f Griffith Llewellyn, Esq., for dispensing'. withs. orders oughtstanding no o t rd th er b s e N d o is s p . e l n O se s d a w n i d th. l6 6 , the said standing That in the case of the South Wales Railway (No. 2) . Bill, petition of Griffith Llewellyn, dispensing with Esq., for standing order s Nos. 105 and 166, the said standing orders ought nut to be dispensed with. Second Resoluti on agreed to.—Report to lie on the table. [ADVE RTISRAIE NT.:I—HoIIoway's Pills wonderfully, efficacious in the cure of a disordered Liver.—Mr. R. W.' Kirkus, chemist of Prescot-street, Liverpool, lately informed, Protesser Holloway that a customer of his (a lady to whom he is at liberty to refer) has been cured by the use of these in valuable Pal! of a liver complaint with which she has been troubled for several years ; and so virulent was the last attack that even her life was despaired of. In this alarming state she tried Holloway's Pills, the first dose of which relieved her, and by continuing their use for a short period she has been restored to the enjoyment of perfect health.— Sold by all Druggists, and at Professor Holloway's Establishment, 244, London. Strand, THE GREAT ExTunnunc.--We understand 010 the agricultural jury yesterday resolved, " That in conse quence of many of the foreign agricultural implements not . I being unpacked on the day appointed by the jury for selec tion, the foreign commissioners be informed that no imple-; I ment can be admitted to trial or receive a prize unless it be j unpacked and ready for inspection by five o ' c l oc k l 'a' 4 on , Friday, the 4th of April." _yVEDNESDAY toted the ward, or, with her assent, the ward was placed '44,:ihat establishment. Had he anything before him to show 11,reet that was an improper establishment ? Certainly not a 'Word. From having gene that circuit, the name of the convent had frequently been mentioned in his hearing, and he had always heard a very high character of it. There was eothing to show that the place was improper. Some circum stances had. been adverted to -namely, that the ward had been found becore 1843 not in that state and condition, as to her person and clothes which he could expect. He could not enter into that on the present occasion, because although that might have been proper for discussion in 1843, and was disposed of, yet ; as no order nor any change was made, he must suppose it WV not borne out. With that exception, how ever, k.e did not find any remark made in any degree detract ing from this convent being a proper piece for the education of Catholic young ladies as well as others. Well, the lady was placed there. Now, a remark was made with regard to the little attention she had received. He was not in a condition precisely to measure that. Nothing was of more import ance, he apprehended, than to do that which Lord Cotten ham was most eminently anxious in observing-to see that the charge relied on was always brought forward in the b 11 or petition. No man ever paid more attention to see that a person was not taken by surprise by the case being set forth on the record; and he agreed in that strict rule of justice. It must be remembered, therefore. What did this petition challenge—on whom did it call for explanation? Much must occurr in the discussion of a set of affidavits, out of which observations might be made, but he could net agree that an advocate was not to look through the record which purported to contain the charge, but was to look to the affidavits to see out of what line some charge might be extracted. He said that an advocate could not successfully do that; he would always be taken by surprise; and he would say that he should look in a different way for answers given by a series of affidavits, and to particular parts of them, from what Le should regard as the main subject of the charge on the re cord. He must, therefore, look to what it was the parties had been brought into that court to answer. Now, the affidavits would be very loose and unsatisfactory in one view, which in another might be deemed reasonable. If the petition had charged Lord and Lady Shrewsbury with having only once been to f Taunton: themselves, and had forborne inquiry, and that Dr. Doyle had made no inquiry from 1810 to 1850, he should have expected an explicit answer ; but when there was no such complaint made, then he should look to see if there was any suggestion in the affidavit, and how far the general suggestion was met by the general answer. He found in two affidavits, at least, it was stated that Lord and Lady Shrews bury paid occasional visits, but it was not said how often ; but those who made the affidavits were not called upon to state how often. The general effect of the affidavit was, that the ward was visited occasionally. Now, he must con fess, without anything to impeach the character of Lady Shrewsbury, he should be very much inclined to suspect that she was perfectly competent to form an opinion of the lady with whom it was proper to place this young lady; and, be fore he censured or judicially acted in a manner to import censure, he should desire to know every particular of the matter for which that censure was to be given. He said the same of Lady Shrewsbury that he should say of any lady of education and in high station, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that she was perfectly compe tent to undertake the duty which Lady Shrewsbury had undertaken in this case. He could not say at once, without knowing more, whether Lady Shrewsbury was in communication with the Lady Abbess or with the ladies in structing in the convent,—that Lady Shrewsbury would be unfit for the care or management of this young lady. Now, all that was to bring the case up to 1850, and he was to use that to . appreciate the conduct of the parties towards the ward up to that time. In 1850 the young lady was taken away, and having passed the time apparently without ex ception through the summer and autumn of last year, she was then placed again in the convent. And now came the material part of the case, which was certainly a part that did nit stand in a satisfactory position. The lady entered the convent. She remained there until Mr. Berkeley made the application for a habeas corpus, or for an order to change the residence of the lady. He must say that, looking to that order of 1843, which committed the ward under war h dto the care and management of Lady Shrewsbury, superintendence and subject to the control of her guardian, he thought, when Lord and Lady Shrewsbury found it ne cessary for their arrangements to go abroad, there ought to have been some application to the Court for some alteration in that order. The situation of the ward being so substantially altered, she having ceased to be a pupil, having been introduced into the world, and having taken up a position different from that she held before, still, if Lord and Lady Shrewsbury had remained here, and had exercised their superintendence, all might have been well—the necessity for care continuing, and Lord and Lady Shrewsbury continuing equally co m p etent to render it. But when they left, and the young lady lost that care, and it was uncertain how long they would be absent — though it rather appeared there was some expectation of their return during the present year he thought there should have been an application to the Court. There was none. There was one circumstance which it would be unfair not to advert to, namely, that the proposed marr ia g e havin g continued to be in agitation up to almost the moment of Lord Shrewsbury's leaving England-only a few days before he received the letter from Lord Shrewsbury to which he had referred—there might have been difficulty in making an immediate arrangement for the reception of the young lady under proper circumstances; but there was no difficulty an coming to the Court to make a propsal for an arrangement. That, however, was not done, and there he thought was the first palpable omission on the part of Dr. Doyle. When the young lady lost the assistance of Lord and Lady Shrewsbury it became him to be more diligent, as he was the person to whom the Court must look. This young lady was placed in the convent. Undoubtedly, after what had occurred. it would have been more desirable to have had a distinct statement of the circumstances under which she was so placed there. The case was very peculiar. It com menced at that period with an application for the young lady to be received as a boarder, and, according to the affidavit of the Lady A bbess, Dr. Winter, through whom the application was made, was told that, by the rules of the convent, ladies could not be received except as postulants, and with a view of their devoting themselves to a religious life, unless they afterwards changed their minds. Dr. Winter was referred to Dr. Hendren, but what was brought forward in his affidavit? He found that Dr. Hendren did not deal with it as an ap plication of a young lady to be received as a boarder at all. He could not collect from any part of Dr. Hendren's state ment that it ever was suggested to him that the young lady was to be received as a boarder. He said the app lication made to him was, that she should be received as a postulant. He said, " I objected to that ; I did not wish for that ; I did not think she was qualified for that ;" - for what? to be received as a postulant—" but I said, if the nuns and Lady Abbess thought fit to receive her, I would not ob ject," and accordingly she was so received. Now, hero was a sad blank. There was an application for the young lady to be received as a boarder ; it was referred to the ecclesiastical superior for his consent to dispense with the old established rule of the convent which did not admit of the reception of boarders ; but that gentleman considered it an application to him in which he was only to see whether, under all the cir cumstances, it was proper that the'lady should be received as a postulant, and she was so received. Now that did not put the case in a satisfactory position. The Lady Ab bess, in her affidavit, said the application was for the young lady to be received as a boarder, and that she informed Dr. Winter of the rule of the convent which prohibited it. He (the Lord Chancellor) was not acquainted in particular with the degree of authority and control which an ecclesiastical superior exercised over a convent, but if it were such as made it necessary for an application to be made to him for leave to receive a ward either as a postulant or boarder, be could not see how the Lady Abbess could receive her into the convent without some more distinct authority than that which she appeared to have received. But he could not help retaining the impression that the Lady Abbess must have much better means of informing the Court how she came to receive, contrary to the rules of the convent, a young lady as boarder, The Lady Abbess stated she had an impression that Dr. Hendren had given his consent as far as she was concerned ; but was it by letter, was it through Dr. \V inter, or was it by personal communication ? That was a blank not satisfactory. When he came to Dr. Hendren again he was at a loss to account for a gentleman in a situa tion entitling him to credit, not likely to be doubted in the absence of very strong grounds, stating that the ward wrote a strong supplicatory letter, not to be received as a boarder, but as a postulant, and that he unwillingly assented and she was so received. How wus he to reconcile that with the other part of the case? What then did it mean? Dr. Doyle was absent at that time; he did not know what was going on ; he returned. He was a gentleman of emi nence and character, and, as had been truly stated, must be supposed to know the rules of the convent, and there fore that this yong lady,if received as a boarder, must have been received under some dispensation for a departure from the ordinary rules. He thought he had a right to expect that that gentleman, as a guardian having the care of a ward, looking at the very serious matter of a young lady of her age being placed in a position in which her steps and conduct would colour her future life, and determine its nature and course at the most important period of it, should have possessed himself of some information as to the circumstances under which this young lady was received into the convent. Dr. Doyle said that Lady Shrewsbury informed hint that she had been received as a boarder. He did not doubt one word of that statement, and he had less reason for doubting it as such was the com munication by Lady Shrewsbury to him (the Lord Chan cellor). He had heard of ladies being boarders at convents, and of the children of distinguished families of the Catholic religion being placed there in the occasional absence of their parents as the safest and most respectable asylum ; but, his attention having been called to this matter, he knew not under what order this young lady was placed in the convent, or what were the regulations of the convent except in the most loose and general way. But Dr. Doyle did.' Lady Shrewsbury had told him that her niece was gone as a boarder while she was away. Little more than a sentence passed ; but it became Dr. Doyle to do more. When he (the Lord Chancellor) found that during the:period:laetween 1843 and 1850 the young lady had thought something about being a nun—when he found that, on the 13th of March, Dr, Doyle was aware that, from circumstances that had occurred, the idea of her becoming a nun was passing through her mind, and that, above all, it had passed through her mind, and that she was wavering at that moment, con sidering that she was a young lady between 18 and 19, wavering under spiritual influence, or impressions on her own mind as to so decided a step, a lady with regard to whom the world contained so much attraction, such powerful means of influence, - considering that the views she had received front the society in which she had been educated were overcome and she was wavering, he thought the Court had a right to expect to see that person immediate l y withdrawn from that place. He thought, under those circumstance', that she could not safely remain there, and that Dr. Doyle ought to have given him more information when first he heard of that impression passing through her mind. It appeared that, shortly before that, for some reason not explained, Mr Berkeley had gone to the convent, and that had passed be tween him and the young lady and the Lady Abbess which led to the application on his part. Without imputing any in tention to either par y to deceive, quite enough passed on that occasion to lead Mr. Berkeley to suppose that the lady was in the convent as a postulant, and he thought Mr. Berkeley performed a worthy service in the course he had taken. When he looke I to what the Lady Abbess said, and what Mr. Berkeley 'said, as to what passed at the convent, and com pared the one statement with the other, he thought Mr. Berkeley was led to the conclusion that the young lady was there as a postulant, and he did not think it was an un reasonable conclusion. How did it appear she was there? She was not there as an ordinary or usual postulant, but she was there nominally as a postulant. But she was never there believi. g herself to be an ordinary postulant. Postu lants had to undergo certain religious ceremonies in order to prepare br taking the veil ; they were required to change their dress and assume some dress conformable to the particular order of the particular convent, and it was said that this young lady was received not as a postulant but as a boarder, and that she never underwent the religious ceremonies and never changed her dress. Now, in that state of things, what was the conclusion? That at which he bad arrived was this : that this young lady was received there as a boarder, but that she was received there contrary to the rules of the convent, and was passed off as b, postu lant. He should have been better pleased if the Lady Abbess had made a statement calculated to prevent any wrong conclusion. Whether she was apprehensive of incur ring any ecclesiastical censure, and therefore shrouded her statement in ambiguous language, leaving it to be taken one ~.~, ~ . EVENING, APRIL 2, 1851. •B way or the other, .01'%010 VAS the reason for her language, he did not ketow ; tAilOrk* being no evidencs of Lord Shrewsbury ever havinef laced this young lady in the can vent, as a postulant, he saw no reason to impute to him any such conduct. In the absence of Dr. Winter, and from the nature of Dr. Hendren's communication, he defied any one to reconcile the statements that had been made. That the young lady was called a postulant was clear; but that she did not adopt the dress was equally clear. Why, then, was she called a postulant? and, being so called, why was she not dealt with in a manner corresponding with that charac ter ? It might be supposed that she was a favourite in the convent, and that she was received out of favour to Ledy Shrewsbury; but he (the Lord Chancellor) did not the less disapprove of her being there, whether as a boarder or a pos tulant. Because she was in a different position from what she was in when she was a pupil in the school, she was not more connected with general society, except of those ladies who were there as nuns, and that, too, at an age when the mind was likely to be materially in fluenced by the impressions it received. Therefore, whether as a postulant or as a boarder, it was not the place where sho ought to have been in. How came it, then? He thought Dr. Doyle had given credit to Lady Shrewsbury's statement. He thought it probable that Ur. Doyle might know, that dthough not consistent with the rules of the convent, she had been received, and under what circum stances the rule might be dispensed with • and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, he felt bound to give Dr. toyhs credit fbr believing that the lady was there as a boarder; but he thought Dr. Doyle was remiss in a proper discharge of his duty. Dr. Doyle was the testamentary guardian. He stood in the place of the lady's father, the man selected by the parents of the child; and the Court never removed such persOns except on grounds made out toits satisfaction to be such as rendered it the interest of the ward that the guardian should be removed. What he (the Lord Chancellor) now looked to, therefore, was this—the young la fy was in London, she was under the care of a lady, and he apprehended would never again be out of the power of the Court until she attained her majority. What remained for Dr. Doyle probably was not of very much importance ; but at the same time, as having had the confidence of her parents, as a gentleman to whom, although he considered him remiss in his duty, he could impute no bad motives, he (the Ie rd Chancellor), although he felt bound judicially to express the opinion he had stated, did not think the interests of the ward required that he should be removed. The bar had one and all agreed in that ; but he could not fail to say that a very high contempt of the authority of that Court would have been committed by allowing a ward of that Court either to become a postulant, or to take any other step calcu lated to bind its future life to any particular course. He believed that ever since the statute of Westminster it bad been a very high offence to make a ward of Court take the veil—an offence liable to indictment, heavy forfeiture, and imprisonment. That statute continued. If a marriage were contracted without the approbation of the Court, it was a contempt of the Come ; A fortiori, much more so was it to make persons devote themselves to a religious life; because marriage was consistent with persons retaining their ordi nary position in life; but taking the veil was eo serious a change, that to allow a person not arrived at the age of maturity to bind its future life, not probably by actual vows, but by some influence or other more cogent than physical force, was a much greater offence, and he (the Lord Chancellor) declared that he should have no hesitation, and should feel it his duty, to commit bishops, priests, go vernesses, clergy men, or any one else who should be con nected with such a transaction, and, in so doing, he should be acting in strict conformity with the practice of the Court and his duty. He would be doing the greatest injury to de prive the children of our Roman Catholic fellow-subjects of the protection of that Court, equally with that of every other class; nor should it be supposed that it was any part of the duty of that Court to interfere with the religious sen timents of a ward, and to make any attempt to withdraw the ward from that faith in which the parent desired it should be brought up. The effect of such a course would be to deprive Catholic children of the protection of that Court. It was equally part of the duty of that Court to prevent persons in terfering with the religious faith of its wards; and it would equally deprive Catholic children of the protection of that Court if these children were permitted to take the veil, or to bind themselves directly or indirectly to do so. Now, he was asked by this petition, not in the particular prayer, but under the prayer for general relief, that Mr. Berkeley might at tend the Master while prosecuting the order under Dr. Doyle's petition ; he was asked also that Mr. Berkeley might have access to the ward; also to suspend Dr. Doyle from his office of guardian and that Mr. Berkeley might have his costs. If he decided it on this petition alone, and on the answer it had received, he should say the petition ought to be dismissed with costs. There was no evidence to support it; it contained matter highly and deeply reflective on other parties and he (the Lord Chancellor) was satisfied, un founded in fact. But he repeated it had been the means of rendering a worthy service to the Court and to the ward. He therefore did not feel that he ought to make Mr. Berke ley pay the costs of having elicited an inquiry which he thought was attended with so much benefit. With respe&, therefore, to Mr. Berkeley's costs, he only regretted the case bad been encumbered with much matter not properly be longing to it. He thought, therefore, he ought to allow Mr. Berkeley his costs. As to Mr. Berkeley's attending the Master, he saw no necessity for that. Mr. Berkeley's situation and circumstances were not those of a gentle man possessing any peculiar knowledge which would tend to the advantage of the proceedings. On the contrary, he thought from all that had passed that Mr. Berkeley's attendance there would lead to contests in the Master's office not tending to the benefit of the ward, and it, there fore, did not appear to him that Mr. Berkeley should be allowe Ito attend in the prosecution of that order. He thought he could rely that Dr. Doyle was not likely to present any scheme inconsistent with the benefit of the ward. He thought that, notwithstanding what had occurred, he might safely and properly rely on his not doing that; and he (the Lord Chancellor) would also have the protection of the Master, and would have to form his own judgment of the case. With re4pect to the access of Mr. Berkeley to the ward, he did not think a young lady approaching 20 years of age was to be treated as a child, and as he did not suppose that she was likely to receive any particular instructions from Mr. Berkeley, so as to make his approach beneficial in any other sense than as a gentleman taking an interest in her welfare, he (the Lord Chancellor) should be governed by the young lady's own inclination. She would be in a situ ation in which, if any person wished to have access to her, upon a reasonable application, she could assent to see such person if agreeable to her. That was a matter soon settled ; but the young lady must herself be consulted. The order would be in the following terms :—Mr. Berkeley's petition dismissed; then, order on Dr. Doyle's petition—costs of both to be paid out of the estate. Reference to the Master to approve of a scheme for the future residence of the young lady. His Lordship, in conclusion, said that although the order might not be consistent with all parts of the case, it was the best, under the circumstances, he could make. I am quite innocent." Levi Harwood, again speaking, and shaking his head earnestly, said—" The jury have not looked strictly into this matter." Mr. Baron PARaE, assuming the black cap, and in a low tone of voice, which was freqently inaudible from the emo tion which Le felt, passed sentence o f death upon the two prisoners found guilty. He said—James Jones and Levi Harwood, you have been convicted, after a long and careful investigation, of the crime of wilful murder. Though neither of you fired the fatal shot, both have been found guilty of the intention that it should be fired in case of resistance. I have told the jury, as I was bound in point of law to do, that the offence of which they have convicted you amounted to murder; and not only law, but reason, indicates the soundness of that conclusion. It is my duty, and a painful duty it is, to pronounce upon you two young men the sen tence that, for the crime which has been proved against you, you suffer death on the scaffold. Your death will be a warning to others never to engage in such wicked acts as those by which, in this instance, an unoffending clergyman has lost his life. You will be allowed by the humanity of the law time for repentance, and in the meantime I exhort you to employ the portion of life left to you in endeavouring to make your peace with your God. You will be assisted in your efforts to bring about true repentance, and I beseech you to avail yourselves of that aid. The Learned Judge then pronounced upon the prisoners the awful sentence of death, which they listened to in silence, after which they were at once removed from the dock. Samuel Harwood, on being discharged from custody, was at once arrested on the charge of being concerned in a bur glary committed in Sussex, the chief evidence in which case will, it is said, be given by an approver. Hiram Smith remains in custody awaiting her Majesty's pleasure with regard to him. MEETING OF THE MIDDLESEX LAND TAX COMMISSIONERS. On Friday a general meeting of the Land-tax Commis sioners for the County of Middlesex was held at the Sessions-house, Clerkenwell, to determine in what man ner the land-tax should be levied within the county for the ensuing year. There were about 70 Commis- sioners present. Mr. POWNALL, chairman of the county bench of magis trates, moved that Mr. Offer, the chairman of the Tower division, should take the chair in the absence, through illness, of Mr. Mann. Agreed to. And on the motion of Mr. W. PAYNE, the City Coro ner, Mr. Burchell, the Under-Sheriff of the County, was appointed to act as clerk. The CHAIRMAN said he regretted for two reasons that he had been called upon to take the chair; the first, that their friend Mr. Mann, who was so well versed in the great variety of Acts of Parliament relating to land-tax, and the peculiar nature of the subject they were about to consider was unable, in consequence of illness, to attend and take the chair as he did at the meeting last year ; and the second, that Mr. Pownall, the Chairman of the Sessions, had de- clined to preside, on the ground that it was more fitting that the chair should be taken by the chairman of a division of the county contribnting the largest quota to the land-tax. At the meeting held last year a committee was appointed to inquire and consider in what way the Commissioners could carry out the duty assigned to them by Act of Parliament, and that com mittee had found it necessary to form themselves into a deputation to wait upon the Chancellor of the Exche quer, in reference to the objects for which they were ap pointed, and the answers received to that deputation would be laid before the present meeting. The Commis sioners were aware that until 1798 there was no fixed quota of land-tax upon the county, and when a quota was fixed, it was the sum of 107,6021., which the Commis sioners were instructed to raise by equal apportionment or a proportionate pound rate. Row the Coinmissioners had to decide what was the meaning of the term proportion," used as it was in the Act of Parlia ment. But since the subject was last under the con sideration of the Commissioners, a very important case bearing directly upon this subject, had been de cided by the highest legal authority in the king dom—the Court of Queen's Bench. In that case a particular parish, thinking itself aggrieved by being assessed at a higher rate than another parish in the same division, called upon the Court of Queen's Bench to grant a mandamus directing the Commis sioners to raise the quota upon the division by a fair and equal pound rate, and the Court was decidedly of opinion that in the divisions of a county, the tax ought to be equally and proportionately levied, so there was now no doubt that each division should have the tax equally distributed over it by a pound rate. It would, no doubt, be with pain that some of the Commissioners would see the assessments upon some parishes more than doubled, whilst the assessment upon others were considerably re duced; but the law was that the tax should be raised by equal and equitable assessment.—(Hear.) And if it was right that assessments should be fair and equal as re garded divisions, in his opinion it was equally right that the assessment upon counties should in the same man ner be fairly and equally apportioned on the divisions; in other words, that an equal pound rate should prevail throughout a county. After a few other remarks, Mr. Offer concluded by desiring the minutes of the proceed ings of the committee, the answers received by them from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and a petition pre sented to the House of Commons by the committee, ask ing for an Act explanatory of the existing Land Tax Act, should be read. These were read accordingly, as also was the seventh section of the Act 38 Geo. 3, c. 5. Mr. COPPOCK said that was but the second time the Commissioners had held a general meeting since the Act, a clause of which had just been read, was passed in 1798, although they were directed by that Act to bold meetings every year. A. COMMISSIONER—There were meetings in 1801— THE FRIMLEY MURDER. RESUMPTION OF THE TRIAL OF LEVI HARWOOD, SAMUEL HARWOOD, AND JAMES JONES. (Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.) Mr. BALLAITINE proceeded to address the jury. He said that whatever opinion the jury might at present en tertain with reference to the evidence which had been submitted. they would readily admit that he had a most difficult duty to perform. In a case like this, which had been so fully canvassed, and which had created so great a sensation throughout the country, they no doubt had fre quently made remarks upon it, not knowing that they would be called upon to discharge the painful duty they had to perform. He should now proceed to direct their atten tion to details, and he felt convinced that he should satisfy them that Levi Harwood, for whom he appeared, was not guilty of that crime which would call upon them to hand him over to execution. He should show in the first place generally how the evidence stood independently of that given by the accomplice, and then would show how that evidence added to the facts of the case. It was clear that on the night in question Mr. Hollest's house was broken into, and that the burglars cruelly and barbarously murdered Mr. Holiest. He contended that Mrs. Hellest's statement that Levi Harwood was the man who attacked her, and held the pistol to her head, was open to objection, inasmuch as he might have murdered her if he had pleased; but instead of that he ran away. Having gone into the details of the evidence as far as related to Levi Harwood, and contended that it was entire insufficient to convict him, the Learned Counsel said he had no doubt of being able to prove that the approver Smith was the real murderer, and that he had com mitted perjury in the case now before them. He pro ceeded to contend that Smith's evidence was a tissue of falsehoods, and went through a lengthened and careful analysis of it, comparing one portion with another, and com paring his evidence with that of the other witnesses. It would be a fearful thing to save that man and to let loose so great a criminal upon the world, while punishing men who bad been the unhappy victims of his suggestions. He de nied that Levi Harwood was at the place at all, and even if he ware there, that he wee not the murderer of Mr. Holiest. Mr. CHARNoCK addressed the jury on the part of the prisoner Jones. He contended that his client had not been fairly treated by the magistrates, who, during the preliminary investigation, had been de prived of the advantage of legal advice. Ho questioned whether it was right to offer rewards, which made men overstep the bounds of prudence and justice. He drew atten tion to the circumstances which weighed against Jones, dwelling particularly on the fact of the penny token being found in his possession. On this point he did not think the evidence was sufficiently strong to commit the prisoner, the coin being a very common one, and the witnesses being unable to speak positively as to its identity. (The Learned Counsel had a large number of similar tokens on the table, but was prevented from handing them to the jury for inspection, inasmuch as if he had done so he would have conceded to the counsel for the prosecution a right of reply.) Mr. WooLLErr also addressed the jury on behalf of the prisoner Samuel Harwood, contending that there was no real evidence against him. Mr. Baron PARKE then proceeded to charge the jury, which he did at great length, but in a tone of voice so low and indistinct, that little of what he said was audible where the reporters sat. Even the jurors had, for a co nsiderable t portion of the time, to stand up and stretch forw ard to cic _ his sentences. He said that the painful inquiry in whic h am D : t they had been engaged now drew to a close , and it became the duty of the jury to pronounce their verdict uponethewtnicilh was t or innocence of the risoners at the bar. The question they had to decide one deely interesting to the prisoners and also to the country at large, which it closely co . nhcerned unpunis ed. If that great offences should not be allowed togaos verdict to entertain careless however, they were satisfied in this case, doubt, they would have to pronounce theirrO consequences. If they had a givedoubttbheeyhiswbousulidnessto lay the benefit of it to the prisoners. It would before them the facts which had been proved, and theirs to decide upon the value of them. He need not repeat to them what had been already so properly explained in the temperate and able speech of the Learned Gentleman who addressed them for the prosecution, as to the state of the law in such cases. H a called on them to dismiss all previous impressions from their minds r in conside r i ng w h a t verdict they should pron ounce. the th ree pr i soners were charged with the murder of Mr. Holiest on the 28th of September last. To convict them it was not necessary that the jury should be satisfied that one or all of them had discharged the pistol by which the fatal wound was given. It was sufficient to con titute the offence, that several persons, acting together for a felonio us putTo3e, should agree to carry out their felony by violence dangerous to human life. if resistance were offered. Under such circumstances, if life was sacrificed, all were equally responsible for it. If, therefore, they came to the conclusion that the prisoners at the bar went to commit the burglary armed, and prepared to use those arms in case of opposition, and if they found that death followed in consequence, they were each guilty of murder. Now, this was sought to be established by two kinds of evidence ; by circumstantial evidence, and by the direct evidence of an accomplice. With reference to the first, it had been admitted by the Learned Counsel for the prosecution, that that testimony alone could scarcely be considered sufficient to convict with regard to two of the prisoners. The Learned Judge then entered into an ela borate and lengthened analysis of the circumstantial proofs adduced, showing its bearing upon each of the accused, pointing out that the prisoner Jones was moat strongly iDa 6-25.—( A laugh.) _ Mr. COPPOCK—Conceding that this was but the second meeting since 1825, and when it was seen that the Act required the Commissioners to perform an imperative duty, which duty had been neglected for such a number of years, was it to be wondered at that not only that Act, but the other Acts relating to the land-tax, were misun derstood, and misinterpreted; or was it to be wondered at that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should refuse to embroil himself in their interpretation? There was no lawyer who could dispute that where au Act of Par liament directed the performance of a particular duty by a body of Commissioners, if the first and preliminary step were not taken, every subsequent act performed by these Commissioners under that statute was illegal and if any of the Commissioners of Land-tax for Middlesex signed a warrant of distraint until last year his so dg was illegal, and they were responsible for that action.m By the application of a few of the princip les of common sense to the matter, much of the diffic ult y by wnicb it had been surrounded would be avoided. There were three points of consideration, the first as regarded the imposition of the tax on parishes within a division ; the second as regarded division and division; an d the third as regarded county and county; th e l ast not being a matter of local, but nat ion al importance, con cerning, as it did, every county in the kin g d om; and the counties of England might be rel ieved to the ext e nt of half a million a year , if t he as sessment of the land-tax were properly effected.—(Hear, hear.) Th e C our t o f Queen's Bench deci ded on the 3 0th of January last that what he had in vain urged upon the Commissioners last year was right. (The speaker then read from the short hand writer's notes the decision of Lord Campbell and the other judges of the Court of case of " The Queen V. the Commissioners of Land-tax" for the division of Bradley Haverstoe, Lincolnshire.) In that case a parish in the division of Bradley Haverstoe was assessed at Is. 2d. in the pound, whilst another parish in the same were unanimously of opinion that the Commissioners ought to have made an equal pound rate over the whole division, and bold indeed would be the Commissioners who would set at nought the dictum thus laid down. He admitted that they could not alter the q uota upon the county, but they had authority, under the Acts of Parliament, under which they acted, to raise that quota by a fair and equal pound rate throughout the county, and if they required high judicial authority for equalis ing the tax, they had it in the case of Bradley Haverstoe. Mr. Coppock referred in detail to the several Acts of Parliament, and in conclusion moved the following re solution:— " That the unredeemed portion of the land-tax payable by that portion of the county of Middlesex, which, by the Act of Parliament made and passed in the 38th year of King George the Third, c. 5, is charged with the sum of 107,602/. lie. 7d., be assessed by an equal pound rate upon all property liable to the tax, within every hun dred, lathe, rape, wapentako, ward, or other division, witbiu that part of the said county." Mr. OVENDON seconded the motion. Mr. GRANGE opposed the motion. tie agreed w i t h the principle of equa!ising the tax in divisions and pa rishes, but he did sect think it would be just or lair for the Commissioners to include in the Holborn division the parish of Marylebone, w hich, though originally a portion of that division, had long been a division of itself. Tt separation had taken place with the assent of the Hol born division ' an d now that a great portion cf th e tax iu Marylebone had been redeemed, it was attempted to again include that parish in the Holborn division, and the reason urged was that ono was rich and the other poor— The CHAIRMAN called th e s p ea k er to or d er. Th e sub ject before the m ee ting had no reference to individual puriihes. Mr. GRANGE continued—They required a direct Act of Parliament to equalise, and if they carried the motion Harwood by the penny token found on his person; that Levi the low taxed parishes would resist as much as the / Harwood was chidly ali cted by the statement of Mrs. Hol- could.—(Laughter.) liugton ; and that against Samuel Harwood, apart from the Mr. PAYNE (the coroner) would admit that an equal statement of Smith the approver, there existed no sufficient division and apportionment of the tax was desirable and case. He then pointed out to the jury those facts which necessary • but the question was, could the Commiseion might enable them to form a correct opinion as to the cre- merely the authority they at present possessed, dibility of Smith' s ev id ence , an d i n d o i ng so h e i n timated the era, with grave doubts entertained by himself as to whether it was legally equalise the tax? His friend Mr. Coppock not the approver's own hand that had fired the fa'al shot. thought the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench, in He concluded an elaborate charge by calling upon the jury to the case he had quoted, was conclusive upon the point. hold the balance fairly between the country and the accused. He thought differently; for that decision was at variance The jury retired to consider their verdict at 7 o'clock, and with dicta laid down by Lord Mansfield, Lord Kenyon, were absent till nearly 9 During the greater portion of and the Lord Chief Baron, in cases analogous to the this interval the prisoners remained in the dock, their eyes present. (He here referred to the cases, and to various intently fixed upon the door at which the arbitrators of Acts of Parliament.) Could the Commissioners throw their fate were momentarily expected to appear. The overboard those authorities, and those Acts of Perlis crowded audience in the court appeared to have forgotten during that pause the solemn issue of life and death pond- merit, because Lord Campbell threw out an opinion that ing. The hum of general conversation rose high, end only an alteration ought to take piece? An alteration was, died away as the jury returned to the box. lights had been no doubt, desirable, but the Commissioners, in undoing brought in in the meantime, which hardly illuminated the what had bsen done by their ancestors—and they were gloom of the court-room, but served to bring out with strik- not fools—by carrying this motion would get themselves ing effect the last scene of this remarkable trial. into hot water. They wanted further powers to enable The jury were asked if they had agreed upon their verdict, them to effect the equalisation. and Mr. NEATE contended that what had been quoted as a The Foreman replied, that they were; that they f oun d decision of the Court of Queen's Bench was, in fact, no Levi Harwood Guilty; Samuel Harwood Not Guilty; James . . aleerston, but merely an expression of opinion by Lord Jones Guilty. He also announced that the jury were una. C nimously of opinion that neither of the prisoners founddampbell, when the essential points of the question were Guilty had fired the shot by which Mr. Holiest lost his lite. pot before him. The Hon. Commissioner was proceed- On being asked if he had anything to say why sentence lug to give a version of what passed between the Chan of death should not be passed upon him, cellos. of the Exchequer and the deputation, when Levi Harwood, his body stretched forward over the dock, Mr. Powz raLL sai d h e reco ll ec t e d no thi ng of the kind, said—" lam as innocent of the murder of which I stand in- and dieted as any man in this court. lam as innocent as this Mr. Corpoex said the speaker was stating what was man (pointing to some person who stood near), or even as passing in his own mind, and not what actually took your Lordship, both of the burglary and of the murder." place at the interview. Joces also said—" lam innocent of the charge against me. Dlr. NEATE, after a few further observations, urging that the Commissioners could not depart frcm - the pre sent mode of assessment, moved as an amendment:— "That at part chargeable for the year 1851, ent relating to the land-tax for f Middlesex, described in the undertht h t o e („ Acts raisect the s oc ounty th e rar samtn of said Acts as the test of the county of Middlesex,' the sums charged upon every hundred and division be in proportion to the sums which were assessed on the same hundreds or divisions respectively, b.. an Act passed in the 4th year of William and Mary; and that the sums and proportions payable by each division be es est. lows:—Tower division, 34,0411.125. lod. ; St. Giles's, 12,2731. Os. 4d.; Duchy Liberty, 6,4761. 10s. 6d.; Mary lebone, 564/. ss. ld.—(A laugh) — Holborn division, 11,6281. 2s. Bd,; Kensington, 7,6421. Os. Id.; Edmonton, 4,856/. 12s. id.; Brentford. 3,4551. 7s. 3d.; Staines, 3,0231. 19s. 31.; Uxbridge. 4,010/. 12s. 10d.; Finsbury. 11,4271. 19s. 9d.; Gore Hundred, 5,1411. 3s. 2 d.; Eats Liberty, 3,062/. ss. Bd." Mr. METCALF seconded the amendment. Mr. POWNALL said he was not prepared to support the amendment, nor did he think that anything had been shown to justify them in continuing year after y ear the one cuckoo cry, " the same , th e sa m e , the same. -- (Hear, hear.) Ho had great respect for their ancestors, but they were men, and liable 'to err, and ho could not subscribe to the doctrine that those who had public and official duties to perform, were to shrink from the per formance of those duties, and not to do justice to those over whom they had jurisdiction, on account of respect for ancestors. He respected them, but he respected his own conscience and duty more.—(Loud cheers.) Thero ought to be an equal rate throughout the county, and those who had said so much about injustice were those who were striving to continue what had been wrong and unjust from the first.—(Hear, , hear.) The land-tax was raised in a way never contem plated by the Legislature when it enacted the laws upon the matter. It was unjust and unequal, and had been bitterly complained of; and it was said, that because it had been wrong from the first, it was to be continued so. Were the Commissioners to be deterred from doing what, in their consciences they believed to be right and their duty—(Hear, hear)—because a wrong had been com mitted by those who had gone before them.—(Applause.) The Hon. Commissioner proceeded to urge that there was nothing in any Act of Parliament which authorised Mary lebone to constitute itself an independent division, paying a quarter of a farthing in the pound whilst other parishes had to pay from 6d. to 2s. in the pound. He called upon the Commissioners present to exercise their own free and enlightened intelligence, and to make a fair rate, and if they did wrong the full question would be brought before the tribunals of the country. If the decision were adverse to them, they would then have a good case to go to Par liament with, and to say, " You have given us certain powers, as commissioners, which the efficient ad ministrators of the law say we have no power to exercise fairly and justly, therefore pass an Act author ising us to so exercise those powers." (Applause.) In the present day they were to read the Acts for them selves, they were not to be guided by those who lived in the days of Queen Anne, and the early part of George the Third's reign, and he certainly did hope that the Commissioners would not any longer permit one rich parish to be comparatively free from the tax, whilst another and a poorer one had to bear a very considerable share of the burden.—(Hear.) Mr. OXENDON thought no Commissioner could lay his hand on his heart, and in voting for the amendment, say conscientiously, that he was not making an unfair and an unjust rate. Several Commissioners spoke to the same effect. Mr. SIMPKIN supported the amendment. He believed the houses on the Duke of Bedford's estate in Covent-gar den paid about 101. a year land-tax, whilst those on the Duke of Portland's paid about a farthing in the pound. Now, if the tax were equalised, instead of paying 10/., the Duke of Bedford's tenant would pay 5/., and the Duke of Portland 5/.; and, whilst the Duke of Bedford would increase his rents 51. a year, syhen the leases fell in, the Duke of Portland would havelo reduce his to the same extent.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) Would that be fair or just? The CHAIRMAN said, if he rightly understood Mr. Simpkin, his argument was, that if one Noble Duke had, for a long time paid too much, and another Noble Duke too little, it would be a greater convenience to make them pay equal.—(Much laughter.) Mr. WOODWARD thought a change desirable, but could not vote for the motion. Mr. Comex then shortly replied. He said it had been intimated that if the conduct of the Commission ers, in equalising the tax were brought before the Court of Queen's Bench, they would be supporied by the Board of Inland Revenue. He hoped a crying injustice would not be tolerated, and that the Commissioners would not perpetuate what on all hands was admitted to be a grievance. The amendment was then put. There were 24 hands held up for it, and 39 against it. The original motion was put and carried amid cheers. Mr. NEATE begged to enter a protest against the adop tion of the motion. The CHAIRMAN refused to receive the protest. It was then moved by Mr. Coretex, and being duly seconded, was resolved—" That too several divisionsar the county be re-arranged, and that such divisions shall contain the same places and be comprised within the same bounds as in the year 1693, according to the duplicates brought into the Remembrancer's office for that year." Some routine matters were then disposed of, and thanks having been voted to the chairman and to adjourned M t Mr. . Lush, the to theBth of clerk t o the Aprilto e committee,iece receive the lie ret urns o meetingwas f rentals. TO THE SECRETARY OF THE BRADFORD REFORM ASSOCIATION. (EVERY M ONDAY AND WEDNESDAY.) Sir,—On Monday the 3185, was (tau usual amount of resistance on the qu estion of Suppl y. As stated in my last, it appears proper and right to maintain a salutary resistance to act as ballast; but when the system is ex tended to m aking an opposition which can have no ten the propriety in a Protectionist Ministry, an honest man I am bound to have appears to be the other „y. I will not go for a Protectionist M . • iwdnehi which hh is what e Ministry,—till the people of Bradford give it • me under their hands that they desire it. On Tuesday leave was given to bring in a Bill to ex• tend the provisions of the Private Money Drainage Act of tion and repair of farm buildings on lands in Great Britain and Ireland. The Chancellor of the Exchequer intimated that he should ultimately oppose, though he would not oppose bringing in the Bill. Time was, that the question would have excited interest among the Free- Traders in the House; but all feud on such subjects seems by the actual conflict of political events to be for 1 the present set at rest. A motion relating to Patent, brought out from the Goverment the declaration that they intend to introdaee the subject of the Patent Laws in the other H ouse. I will take this apportunity to mention a s u b ject not exactly coming within the limits of myParliamentary report; at the same time not counting much upon the dispersion of the information, as having had frequent ex perience of the extent to which a secret will be kept by publishing it in a newspaper. Possibly the principle which operates, resembles that on which Bonaparte when First Consul, formed an army at Dijon with the avowed purpose of crossing the Alps; for which very reason nobody attended to it. I believe many of the com mercial community feel :ta it the sources, I could lay before any so happens, th at w i t h ou t s t o pping in concerned in the prog ress of f riendly communications with China. place to N cl o friend my individual- reasons for being persuaded, that the story of the hostility of the Chinese people to amicable re l at i ons with Europeans is a mere tradition of what the Edinburgh Reviewers called the Twankay-Twaddle in terest- It will be maintained, for the same reasons that i t was begun; besides which, the army and navy will always have a claim to be allowed every now and then to cut down a few hundreds of your customers, and be paid by you for it afterwards. But to give up your practicable operations in China because you have no moans of hindering this, would be as unwise as for Euclid to have waited for the demonstration of the Theory of Parallels. Men in a future age will laugh at the idea of warlike establishments being CO employed and so paid for. But as YOU cannot be the men of a future ago for wishing, you must be content to do what is permitted to you EOW. The shepherd in the East does not forswear the care of sheep, although he is every now and then obliged to allow a troop of predatory horse to eat his mutton, and pay them •` at terwards for doing it. You cannot o without such estatili s h mc nts. You have paid for them in Borneo; you must Cape; why pay for them at the _ should you distress yours elves if y ou have to pay to r them in China elso? I am, Sir, yours ve A ry sincerely, - Isl OLD REFORMER. London, 2d April, 1851. THE TiAM Es on Futz.—The eccentric but talented Dr. Crofts, of Coventry, intends at the coming E x . hibition to set the Thames on fire in reality. It appears that he has invented a composition to make water blaze on the application of flame, and will experimentalise on a portion of the Thames, and at the same time explain his inytntiou fo. the benefit or amugenient of the public. _ ~'-`` have con- eople ;el by [ had sufli- cions wish and than :e, to gor into efore alN'r using !lye of So u fee, rich' !licit the re' tl-1°