The Sun. — London, England, 1850-07-12 00:00:00

THE ASSAULT ON THE QUEEN, CENTRAL CRIiIINAL COURT. OLD COURT. (Before Mr. Baron ALDERSON, Mr. Justice PATTESON, and Mr. Justice TALFOURD ) TRIAL OF ROBERT PATE. (Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.) William Baker Lea, examined by Mr. COCKBURN—I drive a cab, and I remember I used to drive Mr. Pate in 1847 regularly every day. I was obliged to be at his house punctually every day at a quarter past three. I used to drive him down Brompton-road over Putney-bridge to Putney-heath, to one particular spot, where he got out. He then walked through the thickest of the bushes in the heath. He always went the same way, and I used to meet him at a pond on the other side of the heath. He used to stand at the pond looking in tently into it, and suddenly he would start up, jump into the cab and tell me to drive off as fast as I could. Soon afterwards he would tell me to pull up and go at a foot pace. I drove him along Roehampton-lane to Barnes common, where be would again take a wtlk amongst the bushes. He always got down and got up at two fixed spots. We returned home over Hammersmith-bridge. He always be haved very strangely in the cab, and no matter whether it hailed or rained, ho took the same walk. In winter it was dark before •he reached the common; he always had a small stick with him, which he used in a very strange manner, and people used to stop me and ask if he was mad. I have repeatedly been stopped by gen tlemen in that way. This lasted from fifteen to eighteen months every day. At first he paid me 10a., but one day he said he would only pay me 9v. He always paid me in shillings in a row, with the Lace of the man upwards, and always looking the same way. He paid a shilling and a penny for toll gates, which were always laid on the cushion of the cab. The cabmen on the Piccadilly stand always made ob servations about his conduct. Cross-examined—Sometimes he used to get wet through, which always pleased him, and after running over the thicket, he would return and say he had much enjoyed the hail storm. By the COURT —lt is now two years ago since I ceased to drive him. Mr. Charles Mason, examined by Mr. HIIDDLESTONE —I keep a livery stable in Park-lane. I know Mr. Pate. In 1846 he used to hire my horses. On one occa sion he had an accident with one of them. Since 1847, I have seen him three or four times a week. passing down Piccadilly, and latterly I have observed that he has been very strange in his manner; indeed, last May, I told my foreman that I thought he was losing his senses. _ Mr. Jas. Storton, examined by Mr. COCKBURN—I am a surgeon, living in Sutton-row. In 1849 the sister of Mr. Pate came to live with my family. Mr. Pate used then to visit me. In 1848 I met him once in Kensington gardens, and as I thought he was insane, I told my wife, who was with me, not to attract his attention. His look was always that of a man whose mind was vacant. I did not know him then, but when he came to see his sister, atter 1849, I had conversations with him which still induced me to believe that he was insane. On one occasion when he visited me there were some gentlemen of classical attainments present. I advised him uow,that he had left the army to go to college, and obtain a classical education to fit him for some other profession. He said, " Oh! I don't believe there is a man in England who could teach me or anybody else the classics." Ultimately I thought it ne cessary :o communicate with his father, who is a friend of mine, on the subject of his intellect. George Feron Gardner, examined by Mr. HUDDLE-. STONY—I am one of the Burlington-arcade beadles. I have frequently seen the prisoner passing up and down Piccadilly. His manner was always strange and eccen tric, so much so that people used to say he was mad. Mr. Inspector Squire, of the Metropolitan Police, examined by Mr. CocitrioaN—l have known the pri soner from his being much about town. He always car ried a stick with him, which he used in a very strange and wild manner, which induced me to give him the name of " cut and thrust." Cross-examined—l have known him for some two years and more. I never directed the police to watch him. John Murray, examined by Mr. HUDDLESTJNE—I am keeper of the Buckhill-gate of Kensington-gardens. About twa years ago he passed through the gate every day at oee o'clock. He behaved himself always in a very extravagant manner, but never spoke to any one. The O'Gorman Mahon, M.P., examined by Mr. CLARKSON—I am acquainted with Mr. Pate. I have known him 10 or 11 months, and I have had repeated conversations will him. From the first day I ever saw him I concluded that he was not sane, and subsequent experience confirmed me in that opinion. Cross examined—He always behaved as a gentleman. He had the instinct that naturally guides animals, and I do not think he would do an ungentlemanly or dishonest act. Re-examined—He is the last man in the world whom I thought would have been guilty of a disloyal act. The Rev. Charles Driscoll, Lecturer of Bow Church, examined by Mr. HUDDLESTONE—I have met Mr. Pate at Mr. Storton's, but before that I knew him in the street by sight. The conversation I had with him induced me to think he was not in his sound senses. On the evening of the 27th of June I was going to dine at the Army and Navy Club, when I saw Mr. Pate standing at the west gate or Cambridge House. He appeared more excited than usual, and his manner was altogether strangely wild. Cross., xamined—He generally threw his heels up so high that I was often surprised how he sustained his equilibrium. It was more his manner than his conver sation that induced me to think him insane. Dr. C9nnolly, re-examine by Mr. COCKBURN—I am a physician, and have devoted my attention very much to insanity. lam physicians to the lien well Lunatic Asylum. I was applied to by his family last Yivember, when his previous habits were described to me, and thinkinz he was improving in them by going int) society, I recom mended that no steps should be taken to irritate him. I have seen him since he has been in custody, and in my opinion he is of unsound mind. I form that opinion in a considerable degree from the conversations I have had with him. In his present state he presents an ex ample of a person of very slender mental power, of no ambition, and altogether unfit for any occupation of life. In conversation be is able t•-) distinguish between right and wrong, but otherwise I think he is not. Cross-examined—llis disposition is frivolous and idle. He is well aware that he has done wrong. - - By the COURT—He has no delusion, such as7fancying himself the Emperor of China. Re•examined—He does not deny having done this, but be can give no , account of it whe.:ever. He seems to have acted under some strange morbid impulse. Dr. Munro, examined by Mr. HUDDLESTONE—I have had five interviews with the prisoner since he has bean in custody, and from my observation of him, and what I have heard today, I certainly believe him to be of unsound mind. From his own lips I have had an account of how he left Ireland in 1844, and certainly then he was labouring under delusion. Cross-examined—He was aware, perhaps, that he was doing wrong in many things; he certainly is capable of distinguishing between right and wrong, but he is, never theles9, suffering from morbid insanity. R.,••examined—His whole history induces me to believe that he is decidedly insane. _ . Mr. Baron Monnsox remarked that that was a question which must be left for the jury and Court to decide. So long as he remained on the bench be would riot allow medical men to take upon themselves the func tions of the Court and jury. Dr. Munro had only given his opinion; he was not aware that he had done wrong. This was the defence. _ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL replied, reminding the fury that if they were of opinion that the prisoner was incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong, he would be subjected to imprisonment for life, while, if they found otherwise, the punishment would be of a more minor cnaractb,r. Now, it was said that as there was no motive for this act, it must have resulted from mad ness; but if he was not mistaken, from the earliest ages of which they bad any history or account, persons in elevated situations bad been the subjects of attack and insult at the hands of parties who were anxious to obtain a morbid notoriety. It was this very knowledge, backed by experience of similar oc currences in modern times, which induced the Legislature to pass the Act under which this prisoner was arraigned, and before the jury could acquit him of the offence with which he was charged they must be satisfied beyond the possibility of doubt that his mind had been so impaired that he could not distinguish between right and wrong. This was no new doctrine. It was a rule laid down by no less a judge than Lord Hale himself, and if the jury would just consider for one Moment they would see that the maintenance of this rale was for the interest of the public. Some short while ago. however, the rule of law in deciding sanity or in sanity in cases of this nature was settled by the judges upon questions propounded by the House -of Lords ri asing out of the doubts which had been created by AV Naughtdn's case. It was then laid down t h at if a party was sensible of doing injury at the time o f his committing an unlawful act he was l iable to be punished for it, and the immediate question for the jury now to decide was this—did the prisoner know and feel that he was doing wrong when he struck the Queen? if he did, then they must convict him accordingly, but if, on the other hand, they did not think he knew what he was about, they must acquit him on the ground of insanity. Well, then, was the evidence they had to-day incon sistent with the existence of a state of mind capable of discriminating between right and wrong ? Certainly it istablished that the prisoner was an extra ordinary and eccentric man—it did not prove that he was so mad as to make him an irresponsible agent. The past conduct of the pri soner must convince everybody that he knew he was doing wrong. Fer instance, immediately after he was taken into custody, ho was so far alive to his own interest, that he warned the witnesses to think before they spoke, while he observed the blow could not have been a hard one, clearly showing that-he knew what he was about and laboured under no mental delusion or disease which should excuse him from the consequences of the act. Mr. Baron ALDERSON, in summing up the case, told the jury that there could be no doubt as to the fact that the prisoner struck her Majesty with some degree of violence, and therefore the whole question to be d.,cided turned upon the state of mind he was in at the time the se t was done. Now, it was clear the prisoner was in his sound senses to-day, and it was for him to prove that he was of unsound mind when he committed the offence. Now had the evidence proved that? The pry must take this as the law, that before they could acquit a prisoner on the ground of insanity, they must he satisfied that the prioner's insanity induced the com- SAW of the offence he was charged with. It Well a delusion to s oppotie that insanity necessurilr E rendered a man dispunishable for an unlawful act; be fore that state of things could exist it must be shown that the disease of the mind under which the prisoner laboured rendered him incapable of judging between right and wrong, or whether a' the time he was betrayed into the act he knew that tills, act was a wrong and un lawful act for him to do. Now, did the evidence adduced for the offence accord with those prin ciples ? True, at one period the prisoner appeared to have laboured under a particular delusion, but although that delusion might have been a very good defence, were they trying this unfortunate gentleman for the murder of the messman, it was no more a defence to this case than it would have been a defence to an action had he seduced his neighbour's wife at the time the delusion prevailed. A man might be insane on one subject, and sane on every other, and if he com mitted an unlawful act, which could have no possible reference to the particular point of delusion, it by no means followed that he was irresponsible for it on the ground of insanity. These were the principles which ought to guide the jury in disposing of the present defence. The Learned Judge, after recapitulating the evidence, commenting upon it as he went along, left it for the jury to say whether they were clearly satisfied that the pri soner was suffering from a disease of the mind, which incapacitated him from judging whether the act which he had committed was right or wrong for him to do. If they were convinced that he was unconscious of what he was about, they must acquit him ; but, on the other hand, although they might believe him to be an eccentric character, which made it a matter of regret that he had not been taken better care of, yet, if they thought he was sufficiently sane to distinguish between right and wrong they must convict him accordingly. The jury retired at 20 minutes past three, and did not return into court until five minutes past seven, when they gave a verdict of Guilty. The prisoner was immediately called up for judgment. Baron ALDERSON addressed him to the following effect:—Robert Pate, the jury have found you guilty after a very long and patient inquiry, and there can be no rea sonable doubtithat they have come tola right conclusion. At the same time it is quite clear that you are a person of very eccentric habits, and in some degree differing from other men, and it is probable that it has pleased God to visit you with some mental affliction, for which you are to be pitied. The offence you have committed, however, is one of a very serious and important character. You have been found guilty of striking a female, which, for a soldier, is a very shocking thing; but when it is con sidered that this female was your Sovereign, that she was one entitled to the respect of the whole country by her virtues and her exalted position, that act which, in an ordinary► case would be a very serious offence, under these circumstances became truly serious. How could it happen that you, a soldier of the country, could insult one beloved by all, on account not only of her exalted station, but by her domestic virtues? Yet, this was the object of your attack, and whom you insulted by a blow. Considering the station of your family and your own position, the Court will not inflict the disgraceful punishment of whipping upon you. The Court has some respect for you, though you had no re spect for others. It will still, however, do its duty, and pass such a sentence upon you as will prevent you, at all events for a long period, from doing any further mis chief. I would fain believe you were not in your right senses at the time you committed this act, and it has long been the boast of the country that no man of sine mind could be found capable of committing an attack on his sovereign, but at the same time I think the jury were quite right, upon the evidence that was adduced, in not acquitting you upon the ground of insanity. Under all the circumstances, the sentence that I feel it my duty to pronounce upon you is, that you be transported beyond the seas for the term of seven years. . . . . The prisoner heard the sentence without betraying the slightest emotion; and when the Learned Judge had concluded his address, he bowed to the Court, and im mediately turned round, and without uttering a word, retired to the gaol. The trial lasted nearly nine hours. FORGERY.—Jokn Jones, a respectably dressed young man, pleaded guilty to an indictment charging him with forging a cheque upon the London and Westminster Bank for 2501, and was sentenced to ten years' transpor tation. POST-OFFICE ROBISERIES.—Joseph Hillier, aged 35, a postman,wbo was indicted for stealing a post letter contain ing two half-sovereigns, the property of the Postmaster- General, having pleaded guilty, he was sentenced to ten years' transportation. Edward Hawkes, another postman, aged 39, pleaded guilty to an indictment charging him with stealing two post letters, containing two half-sovereigns and a sove reign, the property of the Postmaster-General, and was sentenced to ten year' transportation. LAW INTELLIGENCE. VICE •CHANCELLOR'S COUKT, Julyll. (Before Sir J. L. KNIGHT BRUCE, sitting fur Sir J. WIGRA3I.) THORNHILL V. TRORNHILL. Mr. LLOYD appeared upon a petition asking leave to take a ward of the Court (a young lady) to Boulogne. It was proposed that the lady should be accompanied by her stepmother. - _ _ _ The VICE-CHANCELLOR—I will not give her leave to go to Boulogne ; if she wishes to go to Dieppe she may. Why does she want to go to Boulogne? Mr. LLOYD—I am not instructed, Sir. The VICE-CHANCELLOR—Leave to go to Boulogne I positively refuse. Mr. LLOYD said that last year the Vice-Chancellor of England had given leave to the ward to go to Bou logne or Dieppe. The VICE-CHANCELLOR — The Lords Commissioners may give her leave to go to Boulogne, if they think fit, but I positively will not. Mr. LLOYD—Then perhaps your honour will grant leave to go to Dieppe, The VICE-CHANCELLOR—No; not unless you give me a reason. Mr. LLOYD—She has some stepsisters at Boulogne, I am informed. The VICE-CHANCELLOR—I will not give her leave. At this time of the year there are a great number of applications to take wards of the Court abroad. SHERIFFS' COURT, July 11. (Before Mr. Under-Sheriff BURCHELL and a Special _ . Jury.) RAILWAY COLLISION.-PHILLIPS V. THE LONDON AND BLACKWALL RAILWAY COMPANY. This was an action brought to recover compensation for injuries received by the plaintiff in consequence of the negligence of the defendants' servants. Mr. BEAVAN stated the case for the plaintiff, who is a commercial traveller, in the service of Messrs. Foster, of Friday-street. It appeared that on the 7th of No vember last,_ about five o'clock in the evening, the 'plaintiff was coining up from Blackwell to London by railway, and when near the junction line at Bow, a col lision took place through the negligence of the railway officers, and the plaintiff and several other gentlemen were severely injured. Mr. CLARKSON. on behalf of the plaintiff, objected to any statement being made as to accident to others, for the company had settled with them. Mr. BEAVAN then called witnesses, who proved the accident, and that the plaintiff had been laid up from the 7th November to the 31st December, and was still suffer ing from a thickening of the skin over one of his legs; his expenses for medicine, &c.. was 10/. Mr. CLARKSON, for the defendants, said it had been claimed on behalf of the plaintiff, that he should be paid for his loss of time, but it had been stated, and he would prove, that as to the loss of time, the plaintiff had been paid as usual by the respectable firm by whom he was employed. Mr. Prince Hoare, one of the firm, was called and proved this fact, and that they had paid another person tor doing his work. Mr. BEAVAN replied, and contended that Messrs. Foster and Co. ought to be reimbursed. The Learned UNDER•SHERIFF said that it was a matter of difficulty to say what amount of da mages ought to be given for bodily pain and injuries, bat in such a case it ought to be taken into consideration whether the injuries were caused by wilfulness or wantonness, or whether by sheer accident. The jury, after retiring, gave a verdict for 701. INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, July 11. (Before the CHIEF COMMISSIONER.) IN THE MATTER OF FREDERIC HOLDER. This insolvent, who had been a lieutenant in the 14th Regiment of Light Dragoons, was opposed by Mr. Hook, shoemaker, New Bond-street. Mr. COOKE supported the application for discharge. It appeared that the insolvent had been in prison since March, 1849. He sold his commission for 1,190/. in January, 1848, and placed nearly 600/. of the money in l. the hands of a person named Bloxam to settle with Is creditors, and he had been unable to obtain an ac count of its disbursem en t. Mr. Hook said he had no desire to prolong the impri sonment, but thought that e fforts should be made to ob tain an account from Bloxan3,eonocrurtrhed w the moitnheythfeor cre ditor, creditors. The CHIEF COMMISSION E R and adjourned the case fora week for the attend ance of Bloxam. A _ day, but oth er w en g agements T a il li ß e:t Li en E sn u t T in cu tit it s l4zs "NEY MOIIAT. T ieo h v is m ins c o a lv s e e n .— t, prevented by wo or three had been in the battle of Aliwal and cineeitnealt, who in India, was to be heard to agements his detaining creditor sending his discha as r days ago, and on the case being called th g :omm r of the Queen's Bench reported that he was out of cus tody. Mr. COOKE (with whom was Mr. Sargood)com;l'ai of the trick which had been played to prevent Lieutenantned Mount, who had been some time in prison, from being heard. The lieutenant, who served in all the late battles in India, and had been wounded, had unfortunately b een mixed up in bill transactions, and had been annoyed by rossthiei`r,o6,o wphericehenhte. gentlemen notne to make him sell his com mission, do. Two days before his hearing his discharg e was sent, as it was known his leave of absence would expire on the 14th inst , and no doubt it was intended further to harass the applicant. He (Mr. Cooke) had an affidavit of facts, and his appli cation was that the Court would dismiss the petition and allow one to 'be filed under the protection statutes, by which the lieutenant would be protected when he re turned to his regiment. The Learned Counsel spoke warmly on the case, and said he felt for a man who bad been treated in such a manner after the services he had rendered in India. Mr. Dowse appeared for Messrs. Lyon, and stated that they had nothing to do with sending the discharge to the prison. The Cuiar CoaistissioNea granted the application by dismissing the petition. The insolvent would take what course he thought proper. 'A petition was immediately filed under the Protection Act, and protection granted to the ht August, when the case will be heard betore the Chief Commission r. It is OW firet case of the kind that has oceuued. ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE. HO,IIE ClRCUlT.—Hertford, July 11 . The commission for the county of Herts was opened on Wednesday, and this morning both Courts proceeded to business, the Chief Baron presiding on the Civil Side and Mr. Justice Erle in the Crown Court. The business is very light, there being only 18 prisoners for trial on the criminal side. On the civil side eight cases are en tered. one of which only is to be tried by a special jury. The Chief Baron did not sit until twelve o'clock, and he bad nearly got through his list at the rising of the Court. None of the cases disposed of yesterday contained any matter of interest to the public. POLICE INTELLIGENCE. MANSION-HOUSE. William Robins was brought, in the custody of John Forrester, before Alderman Gibbs, charged with having stolen a cheque for Bq. 10s., the property of Mr. Newton, as the secretary to the St. James's Mu tual Association, their bankers being the London and 'Westminster Bank, in St. James's square. Mr. Muliens, of the firm of Bush and Mullens, at tended for the prosecution. It appeared that Mr. 'ewton was in possession of some cheques for the purposes of the association, which cheques had been signed by three of the direc tors, but which should be countersigned by Mr. New ton, as the secretary. These cheques had been placed by Mr. Newton in his desk, which he had considered a secure receptacle, and he considered them safe, in asmuch as the additional signature of himself was required to make them negotiable. The prisoner had been at work for Mr. Newton in the room in which the desk was kept on the Bth and 9th of July, in the afternoon of which latter day that gentleman missed the cheque above referred to. The cheque was presented in the usual course at the bank, and paid, the omission of the secretary's signa ture not having been noticed by the cashier. On as certaining his loss, Mr. Newton immediately repaired to the London and Westminster Bank, and was in formed that the cheque had been paid in SI. and 101. bank notes ; in consequence of which steps were taken to stop the payment of the notes at the Bank of England, and on Wednesday a man named Kennedy presented three of the 101. notes in question, for which he required gold. His answer not being deemed satisfactory, he was detained and introduced to Mr. Forrester. _ _ - ---- - - Mr. Mullane stated that after calling this evidence to substantiate the above facts, he should be com pelled to place Kennedy in the box as a witness against Robins. Kennedy was accordingly sworn, and he gave the following account of the matter :—I am a working upholsterer, and reside in Church-row, Stoke New ington. I know the prisoner, and have known him for nearly 18 or 20 years ; we have worked together. On Tuesday afternoon I saw him at the Admiral Dun can, in Soho. He said he wanted me to assist him in a job, and was to go with him. I said, " how about the money for the materials?" He said, "Oh ! that is all right enough." He then produced a cheque, and asked me to go out and get it cashed. I was tired at first, and stayed a little while, and then I said well, if he would go with me I would go. He said it was all perfectly right, but objected to go himself. The thing appeared filled up in the usual form, and although I at first hesitated, yet knowing the man so long, I went and got it cashed. He went as far as Waterloo-place with me, and said he would meet me at the Bell, in Pall-mall. I got the notes and money from Mr. Bardmore (a witness), and went to the outside of the Bell public-house. I saw the prisoner, and handed him the money, hut he did not take it then ; and we went to a public-house at the corner, I believe, of Blue Cross-street, and he took a portion of it, and left 441. 55., exactly one half, in my hands. We then went and purchased some hair-cloth for chairs, and we were together very late that night, and yesterday morning I took the three 101. notes produced to the Bank, to be changed, and I wrote my name and address on them, and was then detained. I afterwards gave to Mr. Forrester an account of how I came possessed of the notes, and . gave him up the money remaining in my pos session . Cross-examined by the prisoner —You had seen me 'our or five days prior ? Witness—Yes, several times. Did I not say to you what a pity it is that people should leave their money about, and that I had seen a cheque, and you said why did you not take it up, and we would square it ?—I do not recollect any such words.—(A laugh.) I do not recollect your men tioning such a thing to me before. Did you not take me to a friend to get that friend to go and get the cheque changed ?—No. I did not. I went to show it to a friend, because I had some doubts whether it was right, and I thought it was too large a cheque for one to pass in my position of life. Did you not say that if that party would go you would give him 201. to get it changed ?—No. The money did not belong to me, so I could not give it to him. Did not you, after you bad got this cheque changed, when we went to the public-house, put a 51. note apart for the person who gave you a little bit of advice how to change it ?—No. That was your doing altogether.—(A laugh.) You said there was a third party in the business, and we had better give him the Si. to keep him quiet. Did you not say, after the money had been paid, " Get a 101. note changed and give me 51., and I will give you a Si. note ?"—I might have said that. The prisoner—One party is as deep in the mud as the other is in the mire, my Lord, and no mistake. Did I not give you the five sovereigns and you gave me the 51. note? Witness—Yes, yes, that is clear. When we were at Mr. Lloyd's, where we had a glass of brandy-and-water, you pulled out of your pocket and gave me three 101. notes, one Si. note, and six 151. Had you not in your possession the same amount, with the 51. for this same party ?—Yes, that is right.—(Laughter.) I never had the whole of this money in my band, if you recollect ?—I wanted you to take it, but you said " Put it in your pocket and come on." The witness answered other questions in such a manner as clearly proved that his proper place was the bar of the court. John Forrester said I took the prisoner into custody last night, outside the Admiral Duncan public-house, in Compton-street, Soho, and conveyed him to Mr. Ne wton's house, where he was identified as the party who had been working there. I then told him he was charged with giving a cheque to a man of the name of Kennedy. He said he knew nothing at all about it. I then went to his lodging in Kingsgate-street, Hol born, and found a purse containing 23 sovereigns and a half-sovereign. The prisoner said the fact was, that he never would have thought of doing the thing if his co-partner, Mr. Kennedy, to whom he talked about the cheque, had not urged him to do it by saying they would square it. He said they applied to a third party, who, upon looking at the cheque, did not, being an experienced hand, like the appearance or date of it at all, and that they stopped his mouth with 51., but Mr. Kennedy was the most to blame. Alderman GIBBS said he would send the prisoner for trial, and ordered the depositions to be made out accordingly. SOUTHWARK. Yesterday Mary Ann _Herbert, a young married woman, was brought before Mr. A'Beckett, charged with swallowing poison, for the purpose of destroying herself. Mr. Humble, a surgeon, residing in the London road, stated that on the preceding night he was sent for to a house in St. George's market, where he was informed a woman had taken poison. On his arrival he found the defendant surrounded by several persons, and they pointed her out as having a short time pre viously swallowed some poison, contained in a paper, which she afterwards destroyed, in order that it might not be detected. He questioned the woman herself on the subject, but she refused to give him the slightest information as to the nature of the in gredients she had swallowed, and expressed her de termination not to submit to any operation to neu tralise its effects. He, however, told her that he should insist upon using the stomach-pump, and produced the instrument, telling her at the same time that he should have her held down if she did not submit quietly, and finding that she closed her mouth to prevent the introduction of it, he threatened on rhreienrasdolet: to remove her front teeth for the purpose. She, however, now became alarmed that he was about to put his threat into execution, and confessed that she had swallowed a quantity of white precipitate powder. Upon being made acquainted with this fact, instead of having recourse to the stomach-pump, he administered the necessary antidotes, which had the desired effect ; but as she had expressed an inten tion to repeat the offence, he considered it incumbent tae g nl i y v y e her into custody of a policeman. The witness added that he felt it his duty to complain of and more particul ar l y the conduct of the persons in the room, who refused t. ,( ! rn n l yc not eowt that when eonf submittinghh e er f o h un u s d tbo t a h nm e d defendantmedical chaol aaidi ‘ b as en si yett h though n g a h t o a n w aware r chair h that a ir she int h e had eomr onsetr taken o f ft a h e deadly room smoking Mr. A'BECKETT asked the de f endan t lereet apat hy . what .ah a pipe of tobacco with the e had to say in answer to the charge, and she replied that she was 'excited at the time, and that having the powder in the room she swallowed it, and now re gretted the act ; and she added that she had taken some spirits previously which caused her to do it. Her husband, who said he was a smith by trade, on being asked why he exhibited such a total want of feeling, knowing that his wife had t a k en po i son , which it w as probable would have killed her, and yet, he being acquainted with the fact, sat, smoking, regardless-of the consequences, not even offering to render the least assistance to the medical gentleman through whose instrumentality ber life was pre served ? in a careless manner, said that he could not help his wife takill i g Pawn) and that he knew right well that if he interfered in the business she would be likely to fly at him, and scratch his face ; and as he did not wish to be clawed, he thought it the most advisable plan not to interfere, but to let her have her own way. He knew her temper better than any one else, and when she had a drop in her she was very passionate and self-willed. Mr. ATECKETT—Then because you were afraid your wife would have scratched your face, that is your excuse for not rendering assistance when you knew she had swallowed poison, which might have speedily ended in her death. The magistrate then said that he should call upon the defendant to find sureties not to repeat the attempt upon her life. The defendant expressed her regret at what had happened, and said that she should not act in such a manner again. The hu — sband tendered to become responsible for her future behaviour, and his recognisance to the amount of 201. was accepted, and she was liberated, and they left the court together. LAMBETH. A respectable-looking young woman, dressed in deep mourning, waited upon Mr. Norton for bis as sistance in recovering property detained by Mr. Meddle, which belonged to his unfortunate house keeper, who was found dead in the kitchen of his house, the particulars of which extraordinary occur rence must be fresh in the memory of our readers. The young woman stated that she was the daugh ter of the murdered woman, and had frequently ap plied to Mr. Meddle for her mother's clothing, and what little money she might have left. He refused to give them up, and a short time ago he attended at this court before Mr. Elliott, and promised to give up all her property to her brother, who resides at Ipswich. She (applicant) had received a letter from her uncle authorising Mr. Maddle to give ber the property, and he still refused. She now, therefore, wanted his worship's advice and assistance. Mr. NORTON said that, if she wag the daughter of the deceased woman, Mr. Meddle ought to restore the property to her, and not to her brother. Saunders, one of the summoning. officers, informed the Magistrate that the applicant was an illegitimate child, and when Mr. Elliott was informed of that he agreed with Mr. Middle that he had better give the property up to the deceased's brother, or his order, as Mr. Maddle resolutely refused to give it to the appli cant. Mr. NORTON asked the latter whether she had the authority of her uncle with her ? She replied that she had a copy of it, which she produced. It clearly authorized Mr. Maddle to give the property up to the deceased's daughter. Mr. NORTON asked her whether she had applied to Mr. Maddle with the original note ? Applicant replied that she had, and had left it with him. He still refused to give up her mother's property, which mostly con sisted of wearing apparel, which might turn out use ful to her in her present position. Mr. NORTON said it was most extraordinary con duct on Mr. Maddle's part to refuse giving up the property to the daughter, especially after his promise to Mr. Elliott on the last occasion when he attended at this court. He thought some officer had better go with the young woman and see him about it. Saunders said that would be almost useless. Mr. Maddle would not give it up unless compelled by law. Mr. NORTON said the young woman had the au thority Mr. Maddle required, and he ought to keep his word and give up the goods. As he so often re fused he would see what a summons would do. His worship directed a summons to be served upon him directly to attend at this court and answer for his conduct. The young woman thanked the magistrate for his kind interference, and left the court. The summons was instantly made out and pliced in the hands of Saunders for service. [The following appeared in our Third Elition:of [ast night :—] FRANCE. In the Assembly yesterday the discussion of the Law on the Press was resumed. The whole of the first article was adopted. The President then read the second article, which was similarly voted. It was as follows : " The proprietors of journals and periodical publica tions, at present existing, are allowing a delay of one month, from the date of the promulgation of this law, to accomplish the above formalities." " Art. 3. When the editor of a journal or periodical publication shall have been sent for trial before a Court of Assizes by a decision of the Court of Inquiry, for a crime or offence committed by the press, if a new deci sion of the same kind should intervene against the edi tors of said publication before the decision of the Court of Assizes, a sum equal to one-half of the maximum of the fines he msy have incurred for the new off-nee must be lodged, within the three days of the notification of each decision, even were the Court of Cassation appealed to against the sentence." de Tinguy moved the following amendment : " Every article on political, philosophical, or religious questions inserted in a journal, must be signed by its au hor, under the penalty of a fine of 500 f. for the first offence, and of I,ooor. for the second." In order to prevent all false signatures,:lll. de Tin guy asked that the author convicted of that fraud should be sentenced to a fine of I,ooof. and an im prisonment of six months. M. Lavergue supported the amendment, but on the condition that the cautionnernent and stamp be sup pressed. Its principle, he said, was eminently re publican, and he claimed for his political friends the initiative of a measure which must tend to moralize the press. M. Heurtier combated the amendment, which was supported by M. Laboulie, who contended that if journalism was a rostrum, as it was generally de scribed, the writer should boldly ascend that rostrum and fearlessly present his breast to the man he at tacked. If he was obliged to sign his article, the vile pamphleteer, who insulted the National Assembly, would consider before he dared to do so. Messrs. Canet, Larochejacquelein, and Chasseloup Laubat were next heard, atter which a division having been called for there appeared for the amendment, 313 ; against it, 281. The amendment was accordingly declared to be adopted. This decision occasioned great agitation in the As sembly, and the proceedings were for a moment sus pended. When the sitting was resumed, M. Charancey, in the name of the committee, proposed the following additional paragraph : " The signature of the author shall be affixed to the original manuscript of the article, the communication of being ow cgonsulteits publication."d, took the paragraph into which can only be required by the Attorney-General within e o t n Ah s e i s d sm e e r rno a nb t t i lh o y n f and referred it to the committee. SPAIN. Madrid journals of the sth have been received. The accouchement of the Queen was hourly ex pected. MADRID BOLSA, JULY s.—Th e Th ree per C en t s . were done at 33 for paper; the Four per Cents., at 12} for cash ; the Five per Cents. 12 13-16 ; the Debt without Interest, at 3f; and the Coupons, at 7i. ITALY. The Giornale di Roma of the Ist announces that the Pope has pardoned Count Carpegna and Signor Buzzi, who had served in the revolutionary army. Capanna, formerly in the service of the Republican police, has been given up to the Papal authorities by the French. The Messagere of Modena of the 2d states that Signor Gaggiotti, the notary who had made the inventory of the Pontifical Palace during the revolu tion, has been released from prison. In its sitting of the sth, the Chamber of Deputies of Turin voted the Bill for the issue of 6,000,000 of Rentes by 119 votes to 28, a result doubly im portant, as it implied a vote of confidence. The National Bank Bill was afterwards passed, a s amended by the Senate, by 116 votes to 8. Th e Minister of Finance hen deposited the budget for 1851. Signor Gavotti then addressed a ques tion to the Minister of the interior concerning th e re-organization of the artillery of the National Guard of Genoa. The Minister answered that the National Guard could not possess special corps without autho risation to that effect. A discussion arose on the sub ject, and was adjourned to the following day. PRUSSIA AND DENMARK. A telegraphic dispatch from Berlin of the 9th in stant in the Kolner Zeitung announces that the official Staats Anzeiger of that day contains a copy of the protocol which accompanied the Treaty of Peace between Prussia and Den mark as ratified by the two contracting Powers, while the Treaty of Peace itself is published by the Hamburgh papers of the sth inst. The same papers publish a proclamation which the Stadtholders have addressed to the inhabitants of Schleswig and H dstein. In this document the Stadtholders say— " The treaty of the peace infers a recognition of the rights of our country, while the protection of those rights is left to us." The Stadtholders protest that they will do their duty, and that any attempt at invading the Duchies on the part of the Danes shall be opposed to the last in their power. The Com mander of the Schleswig-Holstein army has published a proclamation, inviting the officers of the German Federal Contingents to enter the Schleswig-Holstein army as volunteers. o fl O f t : 011 :: E f i m o rPi necarri a ger s. ° o G f a letter from Vienna, was made in the reign of Charles, for the marriage of his daughter, Maria Therel.a. Since that time it has been used for the County . corona ion of the Emerors. The gilding alone cost 180,000 florins. The pain t ings on the doors are by Rubens, and cost h This Bill , A w h u .s h s n i t c a r s s says be used at the coronation THE CHARITABLE TRUSTS BILL. —Among the Bills ynesterday printed was the Charitable Trusts Bill as amended mmittee.which gives additional powers to the 5 1 4 01414 Courts, is expected to pass this session, the third • U 1 4%419111 izto Gee g 91340 9f G9Ruilus. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, July 11. Their Lordship met at Five o'clock. PETITIONS. The Earl of FALMOUTH presented several petitions against any alteration in the original Ten Hours Bill. The Earl of LONSDALE presented several petitions from miners and others against the Coal Mines Inspec tion Bill. L9rd BEAUMONT presented a petition in favour of a Ten Hours Bill. Lord BROUGHAM presented several petitions to the same effect. METROPOLITAN INTERMENTS BILL. The Earl of CARLISLE brought up the report on ;his Bill. Lord REDESDALE would consent to the bringing up of the report, and would reserve what he had to say on the subject until the third reading. The Duke of BE A.UFORT presented a petition from tho inhabitants of Erich, praying that the cemetery might not be established in that neighbourhood. After a few words from the Earl of CARLISLE, the report was received. THE LORD CHANCELLOR. Lord BROUGHAM had expressed his high satisfac tion at the putting of the Great Seal in Com mission. He understood that an end was to be put to that arrangement, he still continued of opinion that that arrangement was a good one ; but if any arrangement was to be made by which that Commission was to he terminated, and the Great Seal to be intrusted to any individual, he knew no person more fit than one of the most learned, able, and efficient lawyers in West minster Hall, and he begged to add that he did not know a more honourable or more honest man to whom it could be intrusted than Chief Justice Wilde. ZNCUMBERED ESTATES. The Earl of GLENGALL presented a petition from an individual whose estate had been brought under the jurisdiction of the Commissioners of Encumbered Es tates, complaining of the sale of his property to pay off the encumbrances. It was a disgraceful and scandalous system to sell these estates in this mariner, to pay off encumbrances. The Marquis of WESTMEATH said he held in his hand a paper containing twenty-one columns, and twelve of them were appropriated to confiscation, being adver tisements for the sales of encumbered estates. The Government had brought upon their heads the im precations of the higher classes of Ireland for having reduced them to a state of beggary and destitution. If Ireland was reduced lower than she was this magnificent country would go along with it. It was most unac countable that England should refuse to assist them. The Bishop of OXFORD presented a petition from the Church Union against the opening of the Post-office on Sunday; also several petitions from the clergy of various places against the appropriation of the educa tion grant. The Marquis of BREADALBANE presented several petitions against a Post-office Sunday delivery. BENEFICES IN PLURALITY BILL. The Earl of POWIS, in the absence of his Noble Friend (Lord Lyttelton), moved the third reading of the Benefices in Plurality Bell. The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH said he entertained considerable objection to the Bill. He believed it would leave to clergymen nothing more than a bare compe tence; and the effect of that would be to bring into the Church an interior class of persons, just as such persons were at present introduced into the Church of Ireland. The Archbishop of CANTERBURY defended the Bill, the principle of which was, that wherever the in come of a clergyman was sufficient to support him, the parishioners were entitled to have the benefit of bis ser vices, The measure would, he thought, be productive of much good by enabling them ultimataly to increase the incomes of the holders of small benefices. After a few words from Lord REDESDALE, The Earl of POWIS said the Bill proceeded on the very fair and intelligible principle that no two livings wince were not contiguous should be held by the same person. The Bill was then read a third time and passed, with some verbal amendments. On the motion of the Marquis of LANSDOWNE the Elections (Ireland) Bill passed through Committee. INSPECTION OF COAL MINES BILL. The Earl of CARLISLE then rose to move the order of the day for the House resolving itself into a Commit tee upon the Inspection of Coal Mines Bill. In doing so he said he thought it was hardly necessary for him to do more than remind their Lordships of the appalling accidents which had taken place from time to time for many years past, attended as they were with so many consequences of penury, misery, and ruin, in the coal mines of the country. In 1835 a report had been made to Parliament on that subject, by which it appeared that for the twenty-five years previous no less than 2,015 per sons had perished from explosions in collieries. In the year 1845, the number of victims had been 100; in 1846, 35 had been sacrificed ; in 1847, seventy-three persons had lost their lives in a similar manner; and in 1849, no less than seventy-five had perished from the same cause. But even these reports did not convey an adequate idea of the mischief dune in this way. There were many persons not mentioned in these reports who were maimed for life, and many who died in a few years afterwards from the result of those lamentable accidents. He thought those were sufficient reasons for some judicious and moral interfer ence on the part of the Legislature on that subject. And .the attention of the Legislature and the Government had not been withheld from the question; but they had, for a long series of years, instituted inquiries into the matter, and made various suggestions on the point. In 1835 a Committee of the House of Commons had sat to investigate that subject, and had endeavoured to explain the nature and extent of those explosions. In 1843 va rious individuals had formed themselves into a committee on ibis question, which had endeavoured to impress on the public mind the necessity of making further ar rangements to try and put a stop to the evil. Several distressing explosions had taken place in 1844 and 1845, and a report on the subject had then been laid on the table of the House. Sir H. de la Beche and Dr. Lyon Playfair had made a comprehensive report on the same question in 1846. They had stated that the evil prin cipally arose from a want of proper inspection, and a vicious system of ventilation in mines. In 1847 another report had been made in consequence of a fearful explosion which had taken place - in the neigh bourhood of Bath (as the Noble Earl was understood). Now, all the reports made in this matter concurred in the view of the Government, and recom mended that inspectors should be empowered to con stitute an investigation, and hold communication with proprietors, with a view to carry out essential improve ments for the management of collieries in the best pos sible manner. In addition to all the other information which they had on the subject in the way of reports, there had been two from Messrs. Blackwell and Phillips, who had been appointed by the Secretary of State to investigate that matter. In Professor Phillips's report it bad been said that immediate measures ought to be taken to examine into and obviate, if possible, the sources of danger in every colliery; that Commissioners should have the power of examining the various mines, or deputing others to do so. The measure they proposed was, that authorised persons should be appointed, not to interfere wi;h the management, but to look into and exranine and report upon the condition of these mines, and see that proper designs should be furnished for the working of the mines, in order that all those engaged in the collieries should know what they were about. The Bill which they had laid upon the table of the House proposed nothing more than what had been recommended in all the various reports. What the in spectors were to do was to point out what was defective or dangerous in the mines, and if not remedied they were to report the same to the Government. A map of the various mines was also required to be furnished. But the Bill proposed to inflict no expense whatever up on the owners of mines; neither did they attempt to im pose any restrictions nor dictation with respect to the management. They only asked for the right of inspec tion, and the production of papers, maps, and plans, showing the position and locality of the mines. There might be cases where the working was carried on in a dangerous manner. In such it was to be hoped the Go vernment would be allowed to interfere by having the power of inspection, and the right to ask for the maps and plans alluded to. In conclusion, he would only ex press a hope that their Lordships would not oppose that endeavour to provide for the welfare, comfort, and safety of so many of their poor fellow-countrymen.—(Hear.) The Earl of LONSDALE (who was very indistinctly heard) was understood to say that he could not see how the interference of Government in that matter could have the effect of preventing those melancholy accidents. They might take what powers of inspection they pleased, and what treasures they could - devise to prevent thorn, and yet accidents of that kind would occur. Could the Bill of the Government prevent those accumulations of gas which sometimes took place? He should say not. The Noble Earl here referred to, and read extracts from, one oe two of the reports presented on the subject. In Bel gium, where a system of Government inspection pre vailed, the number of deaths from explosions from 1844 t) 1848 had been 580. In the district of Newcastle for six years, according to the returns, the number of deaths (as the Noble Earl was understood) was 562. Some time ago certain parties were called upon to make a. recom mendation with respect to the means to be adopted where there WAS an accumulation of foul air; and what they had suggested was the formation of linen pipes. Oise professor in his report had stated that he found no colliery well ventilated, and that all were in a bad state ; while another had asserted that the cases in which bad ventilation existed were exceptional ones. It would be said hereafter that they had admitted the principle of the present Bill, and if the power it sought for was con ceded, it might be contended that more power was ne cessary to carry it out.—(Hear, hear.) To show that the agitation which had existed in some parts of the north of England on this question had not extended to Wales, where collieries were extensively worked, he had to remind their Lordships that he had that day pre sented a petition from persons engaged in the collieries of Wales praying that they might not be subjected to any interference of the kind proposed. It was the interest of the coal owners to have their pits well ventilated, and to adopt every precaution against accidents, because the loss entailed upon thorn by the stoppage of the works, and by pensions to widows and children in cases where the accident 1,119 attended with loss of life, was very considerable. Objecting therefore to the Bill, he had to move that it be committed that day three months. The Marquis of LONDONDERRY complained that a Bill of this important nature should be introduced at so late a period of the session, when there was scarcely time to give a fall and fair discussion to the Bill itself, much less to the numerous amendments which the Noble Earl opposite proposed to make in it. What they had to consider was, whether the Bill would remedy the evils complained of. In the first place he had to remark that though many new collieries had been opened of late years, .the number of residents had by no means in creas4 iu poportiou to the ; -,, ber of pus9us cm' 12, 1850. ployed. It was proposed to give to the Secretary of State a power of appointing an inspector of mines, who r hculd examine them and make his report to the Secretary of 'State. He wished to know what course the Secretary of State would pursue in cases in which a difference of opinion existed between the inspectors and the managers of coal mines. It was only fair, if Government took upon them the duty of inspecting and providing for the security of coal mines, that they should bear the expenses of any loss arising from acci dents in those mines. He strongly objected to the powers proposed to be given to the inspector, more especially to that power which would authcrise his call ing for maps and documents connected with the col lieries, and, if he thought fit, publishing them in his re port. He also objected to making the coal mines liable for the expenses of the inspection. It was highly objec tionable to create an impression in the minds of the per sons employed in collieries that the proprietors were not so anxious as they ought to be to adopt all precautions necessary for the safety of the persons so employed. He much doubted whether any good had arisen from the agitation of this question. It would be impossible for the Secretary of State to appoint any person as an in spector who could know as much of the state and work ing of the collieries as the managers of the collieries. Objecting strongly to the power proposed to be given to the inspector of calling for documents he hoped some limitation would be made in that respect. Ile trusted the Noble Earl would postpone the further consideration of the Bill. Lord WHARNCLIFFE said the objections to the Bill were founded entirely on misconception, and he be lieved th© northern and midland districts to be quite friendly to the measure. The Bill then passed through Committee with amend ments, which were ordered to be reprinted. On the motion of the Earl of CHICHESTER, the Larceny Summary Jurisdiction Bill passed through Committee. On the motion of Earl GRANVILLE, the Sheep and Cattle Contagious Disorders Prevention Continuance Bill was read a second time. On the motion of Lord LANGDALE, the Court of Chancery Bill pasted through Committee. Their Lordships then adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS, July 11. (Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.) CONVICT PRISONS BILL. Sir G. GREY moved the third reading of the Convict Prisons Bill. Lord MAHON said that no opposition had hitherto been made to this Bill, and he believed none was in tended, but he could not allow the Bill to pass its last stage without expressing the happiness he telt that the opinions ho had always held with respect to the treatment of convicts had been responded to, by so great an authority as the present Earl Grey. He could not, however, but express his regret at the course that had formerly been pursued by that Noble Earl with reference to transportation; he alluded to the forcing of convicts upon reluctant colonies. The Noble Lord in adopting that course had damaged greatly the system of transportation. Sir G. GREY expressed his opinion that the present measure was of a kind which, while it maintained the punishment of transportation, would ultimately contri bute to the prosperity of the colonies to which convicts were sent. After a few words from Sir J. PAKINGTON, Mr. SLANEY expressed his conviction that the sub ject of prison discipline was regarded with more san guine expectation than could be justified by the circum stances. In his opinion measures for the prevention of crime were much needed, and he hoped to see one brought forward in the course of next session. Mr. HENLEY expressed his general approbation of the present Bill; but he objected to one of the clauses towards the eud of the Bill, which concentrated the powers of the governors of Parkhurst, Pentonville, and Millbank in one individual. After a few words of explanation from Sir G. GREY, The Bill was read a third time and passed. POOR RELIEF BILL. On the motion that the House resolve itself into a Committee on this Bill, Sir H. WILLOUGHBY objected to that part of the Bill which gives power to the guardians of any union or parish to raise out of the poor-rates funds for the pur chase of burial-grounds. He did not object to the en largement of any existing burial-grounds out of the rates, but simply to the creating of particular burial-grounds to be used specially for the burying of paupers, which, in his opinion, would be distasteful to the feelings of the poor. Sir JOHN PAKINGTON took that occasion to ex press his earnest hope that this was the last of those an nual poor•law Bills, because ho was convinced that the present practice of introducing such Bills for the pur pose of amending the poor-law had the effect of render ing the law on that subject extremely complicated. Sir GEORGE PECHELL also expressed his dissa tisfaction with the present complicated system of poor laws, which those annual Bills only tended to aggravate. Mr. SLANEY likewise expressed his wish to see an early consolidation of the poor-laws. Mr. BAINES said it was his intention to ask for leave to bring in a Bill to improve and consolidate the law of settlement; and with respect to the present Bill, one consideration operating on his mind in asking the House to pass it, was the circumstance of the Committee of the House of Lords now sitting to inquire into the opera tion of the law relating to parochial assessments, and which Committee had not yet made their report. The necessity for ' every clauso which he had introduced into this Bill had been impressed upon his mind by circumstances which had arisen, and for which the law in its present state afforded no adequate remedy.—(Hear, hear.) He hoped the House would permit the Bill to go into Committee; and, if so, he would then be prepared to make a statement which would disarm much of the opposition manifested towards it, especially that of the Hon. Member opposite (Sir H Willoughby). The House then went into Committee on the Bill. Mr. MILES expressed a hope that when the lion. Member (Mr. Baines) brought forward his Bill next session with respect to the law of settlement, he would bestow his consideration on the necessity of reconstruct ing the urban as well as the rural unions. Clause 1 was then agreed to; but clause 2 was with drawn. Clause 3 was agreed to, with an amendment that the parish children between the ages of ten and sixteen, in tended to be sent out under it to the colonies, should, previous to their emigration, have given their consent to such emigration before two magistrates. The other clauses of the Bill were then agreed to with some verbal amendments. _ _ — Three new clauses were proposed and agreed to. On the motion of Mr. BAINES, The CHAIRMAN reported progress, and the House adjourned at four to five o'clock. The House resumed at Five o'clock. PETITIONS. Sir H. VIVIAN presented a petition from a place in Cornwall against certain clauses in the Savings Banks Bill. Sir W. JOLLIFFE presented a petition from a place in Surrey against certain clauses in the Highway Bill. Several petitions were presented against Sunday labour in the Post-office. Mr. DISRAELI presented a petition from the clergy in the diocese of Oxford, praying for a better court of appeal in ecclesiastical cases. - Mr. HUME presented a petition from Paisley praying that no restriction might be put on the increase of beer shops. KENSINGTON-GARDENS. Mr. B. COCHRANE gave notice that to-morrow he would ask the Government whether they would support an address to her Majesty, praying that she might allow a part of Kensington-gardens to be set aside for eques trian exercise. SANITARY STATE OF BRISTOL. Mr. H. BERKELEY wished to know what progress had been made by the Board of Health to bring Bristol under the operation of the Health of Towns Act? _ Mr. BOUVERIE replied that inspectors had been sent to Bristol, and upon their report a provi sional order would be made, which would be sub mitted to the approval of the local body; but there was no reasonable probability of Bristol being dealt with by Act of Parliament this session. ACCIDENTS IN MINES AND COLLIERIES. Mr. HUME presented a petition from Ashton•under Lyne signed by between 6,000 and 7,000 per sons employed in mines and collieries, pray ing that inspectors might be appointed to inquire into and report upon the state of mines and collieries. The Hon. Member took the op portunity of asking the Secretary for the Home Depart ment whether there was any probability of the Bill which bad been introduced into the House of Lords, being passed this session? Sir G. GREY said the Bill which he had prepared was read a second time in the House of Lords the other day, and he hoped it would be brought down for the consideration of this House at an early period. EXPORTS. In reply to Mr. ANSTEY, Mr. LABOUCHERE said a return had been prepared by the Board of Trade with re gar d to foreign tariffs, and to the tariffs of o ur own colonies, and the reason it had not been laid on the table was that some of the colonial returns had not been received. The Secretary for Foreign Affairs had sent instructions to our consuls abroad to send copies of all foreign tariffs to the Foreign-office. CAPE OF GOOD HOPE. In reply to Mr. ADDEBLEY, Mr. HAWES said that according to the letters patent both Chambers in the Cape of Good Hope would be elective; but he could not say what construction lawyers might put on the Charter. PUNISHMENT OF DEATH. Mr. E WART, after presenting petitions in favour of the abolition of the punishment of death from Liverpool, Brighton, Shrewsbury, Sunderland, Glas gow, Colchester, Edinburgh, King's Lynn, the Liverpool Peace Society, and other places, proceeded to bring on his motion for leave to abolish the punishment of death. He said he assuredly should not again have brought forward that motion, if it were not for the increasing conviction in his own mind of the justice and expediency of the measure he advo cated, and unless he bad been convinced that there was an increasing public opinion on this subject through out the country, and that that public opinion con tinued to receive accessions from day to day. On former occasions this question had been argued by figures, which had been triumphantly ap pealed to on both sides. He believed that on both sides of this question it was a drawn battle; but be thought, on the whole, the weight of statistics was on the side of the abolitionists, and that the mitigation of the punishment of death, wherever it had taken plug', had pith been attended not only without danger, b ut als°osld security to society. On this occasio n he -do. take no statistical view of the subject. He b h " eld or your to show that the present system of retaining od ds;, t nishment of death was inconsistent with that great ,„,„ t, of all punishmnnt—nnmely, the certainty of Puni s " -- n p er which was laid down by Blackstone as being the Pr ° ,r ii . principle of all punishment, and with which no mint could be said to he effectual for its egir• -fis He believed if any gentleman would consult the n he which wer e l a id u p on t h e ta ble of the IDl se „ ns ti would find many cases of murder in whic h p a ined had been acquitted, not because juries enterainOe doubt of the crime, but a dread of the punishme nt ' d st would refer to the cas e s of J a ne Mitchel l, Newcastle tritely. b on the 20.11 of February, 1849 ; that ° , is e e cca Smith, tried at D ev i zes on the 9th of A u g 9" o f th same year; and Sarah White, tried at the 0 ; 0 t he Criminal Court on the 10th of January, 1850. two first cases the jury recommended th.%Prios°lltbet to mercy in consequence of their antipat.. 7 it punishment. In the last case the same feeling.iti. ducod the jury to return a verdict of not guild' When we have such cases of the law becoming P ° `: - coa t• i for its own severity, he thought the time vre - f Jur or some interference. They bad the testimony ° b e lt tices Coltman and Alderson that juries often ga ve u t eice verdicts in the teeth of law and evidence in e° ll ; eci ,sod of their great dislike to the punishmeny,;rour t beyond this the prison e rs we r e of t entimes more ueiessel being tried for murder rather than for a smal ler :: beg' b ecause they had a feeling that juries would actr i r :feet They had the opinion of Chief Justice Wilde. oti-ofibe Wightman and Coltman, besides several meMberedestb; Irish bar, against the p un ishment nt. t inc If eo there was one thing on which he was more nen oic h than another, it was the purity of the m otives fst influenced the Right Hon. Gentleman the Seeretandublit' the Home Department, but it did happen that the robs; were very much perplexed to know lb& so° reason one criminal was reprieved by 'O O another criminal punished. He was at a loss O tle isoll on what ground the Right Honourable 0°404, would oppose the motion which be now Prnoorteu On a former occasion the Right Hon. Barone t su r i 'a i tl y capital punishment ought on the ground of a eetoftbe finite idea, which he supposed existed in the 1 33 ir i Lt Se e , population on the subject. That, however. WS "tiott!, the case. Another opinion which he formed wa g ,' if ° A ' public were in favour of capital punishmen t , 7,1 -I° ' were to call public meetings all over the tou li „;it e li take their opinion on the subject, he would find t • °. were h decidedly opposed to retaining this 51:%-oliti man f t. D r.The Johnson, lion. toe t pthuemismes ofstibou capital punishment:— Shall then these fears await, no wishes rise. No prayers assail the justice of the skies? • Enquirer cease-petitions still remain, ; est Which Heaven may hear, but s peak to 1135° He moved for leave to bring in a Bill for the s of the punishment of death. t eeirr d ; Mr. HUME seconded the motion. It was il l a i dt ed collection that punishment of de a th was ie v ers trifling offences, and so they continued until:js oism' oaths refused to find verdicts sanctioning su e lf e ss u e :i ments. They saw the same occurring in case s der. For five years ending in 1844 the nuneher_ d s pet of murder and acquitted on the ground of ilis' re forli i i twenty-three, and from 1845 to 1849 there *toed h . ', eight so acquitted; whilst last year sixteen b b v- d pes il/ f r o l murder were permitted on that plea to escape t'A 'fre; ment of death. Look what improvement theYh f/ t -e 0;1 by abolishing the punishment of flogging is -b e e et and the navy, and yet that mode of punishe'bodswf been strongly advocated in that House. lie d lrs efficacy of the capital punishment, and he 'was %s," d i might do far more good to society by giving, P .: A Or t y - ' pie of a merciful spirit on the part of the u ° o r lsSi ° ,,,;, itself. That would tend to humanise the P ° Pores'' t All should be taught that life was given by t he i i and that no man had a right to take it awsP e i f e oia, e nt o that revenge ought to be altogether exclude. ht legislation, and that the safety of society cut s ee to be the rule and guide, he should be bawl t he punishment of death abolished. :ek e t Sir G. GREY conceived it to be his duty t o 00 / e e t same course upon that which he had taken tWel.ls a deie tot e occasions when the Hon. Member for Ewari) had brought forward his motion, nanie, l /,' oft the House not to entertain a Bill for the abc e- ber t e punishment of death. The grounds upon whic h peSS• d t this request were these : that he believed th e o f 1 0 " nance of that punishment as a par t the r i penal law was indispensably necessary f or abet terests of society, and imperatively demanded El ie 0, 1 Bard to the protection and security of hums°, ' l oofei the community had a right to expect from , i tu e „ ment and Legislature of this country.--( o ' i nes r e' They were not now, it should be remembere d ` v eis, n r; with those cases in which capital punishre e° ," t ett flicted fur crimes of a comparatively light char g e d tlek since the year 1841, not one person had suffer e d e tle!; in this country, except for the crime of wilful s „,beqp berate murder.-(Hear, hear.) The Hon• Igewies he iP Montrose said we had no right to take 1 01 1,0,7 0 , wbich God had given; but upon that point he be Pv to express a totallydifferent opinion. Did ; to ti) Gentleman mean to say that if a person ca m "lee'', o 9 away his life he would not be justified by th e ' t per; if of God and man in taking away the life of tu s- jerd in order to preserve his own?-(Hear, hear.), no .° so, did it not necessarily fellow that the state 11 P - lig' fled in imposing capital punishment for the Pr e ,, v eso;be of innumerable lives; for he believed that th e i r d 'elcd Lion of innumerable lives was the result of conti", -l a° l punishment of death. The abolition of this Is' e teissl have the effect of increasing the destruction o f be life, and he contended that human life was ° ,. 11-7 0 0 :1 sacred by the maintenance of this law as a P n il ti - lilLe il criminal code.-(Hear.) It was said that thi s ,P,T e l o s f r o e had no terrors ; but, judging from the opiss 2( ' - n eis' - el eons who were the most competent to form a l s 1 ; 0 01 he believed that it was the most terrible, at te s- d; t P c i dreaded, of all punishments that could be ie u e e P- for 8 "01 he thought, therefore, it should be preserle" d itS d e n o, crime for which alone it was now inflicted- 4b l'; e wilful and deliberate murder.-(Hear, hear.) ;;; b llo"d t e Gentleman said that it was a most uncertain P ° :„ -s eilt il l , - ef but test it as he might, he would find that it " n - v oSP certain in its application and infliction than i ' - e'ss_ e ee . ill 1) penalty on the statute book. Out ofnineteed capital conviction last year fifteen were execs_r o -e ree h if regard to the remaining four, he was ne' in 'e 'OO with the particulars to explain the reasons '; not being carried into effect. He could s g- f ur Vee t. House that the duty of the Secrete) , °- tei was not that whi c h i t was sup posed : n u l His Honourable F r i en d seeme d to eeded it was a mer e l o tt ery w h et h er t h e ca pita l de Ped lb was carried into exe c uti on or not; that it -of kelt; upon the indvidual character of the SecreterY eas g f who, if ha were a person of benevolent cheraet e l l' e el li "e supersede the law altogether and refuse 10 s' f dio A ,l capital punishmf nt to be enforced. But ae cti n e" efv,l l o his (Sir G. Grey's) view of the duty he had t ° , n r ja d e . he conceived that he should be grossly vlO of Ped trust reposed in him if he allowed the feelingsjni rad li volence to interfere with the execution of she h lit ' ll_ d i r d less after full consideration and communication " wr i t judge he was satisfied that the case was such,. ° oB ls i justify, according to the principles upon whie% reSfe ought to be executed, either a commutation or e ve 00 , sion of the sentence.-(Cheers.) What eiroul,d he 0,1 result if this punishment were abolished? Gentleman said that revengeful and vindictive 10,10:0 ought not to enter into the execution cf,i b lia tii , h il but vindictive feelings formed an element dw nature, and the Hon. Gentleman must be a n .,'„" - ,, vindictive passions existed in human nature. I. '„ it eSi d Gentleman said that a murder was never e ° ', ( l without calling forth expressions of abhorrenc e I neil: 1 ta 01 . cration against its perpetrator on the part of t b ,.";e0,,,d, But what was the effect now? The public saw tß: r rer, o l; of justice towards the offender. They saw hiso g :;" SP A It was known there would be a public and '.. - t r be i that the evidence for the prosecution and fe' l 0° 0 11 ; fence would be brought before ajury, and that A i d es .d (J viction took place the law would inflict s P h - 1 3, ', i f punishment. But suppose this law were abelis' h e o es n ' o t that it was generally known that a murder , - ,01 4 "01 atrocious or revolting She circumstances of it, f i n - „tist l e d be followed by the capital conviction and ei el ' h "dtiSs. o ' d the criminal, then private revenge would be I s l . ; efr d ld for that legal adjudication which now took P c ovd - • personal violence, as the result of that reverig e 'ar‘ follow. Having quoted an ext rac t f rom the m il - or a l t Committee of the House of Cc mmons i n fa v ° ' - d r ef' taining capital punishment for th e cr i me o f sour; to Right Hon. Gentleman proceedei to sa y, in anas l ;; r ast e "%' Hume, that he denied that p u bli c op i n i on w as la c if continuance of the punishment. True, the ell" . '„ bl l c ; e u s b s t e d i t o w p a i s n ion easierW was in abolition of the • - a g in et fav p our m o e f eti i n ts g i a n bo fa li f t o i ° o : o ,: ic e o f,y e j punishment of death-and he refereteio it-than it was to ge t up a meet i ng i n f avo ur e, pee i s n g the punishment. Never in his expell e ,;oo" - t o ecretary of State had any individual, or el," de 3 o l of individuals, asked that the sentence ° ;.;0 0 ,,,11 passed upon a person convicted of the 13- r c htt murder should be carried into execu tion. fo ree c e a thing had never been heard of. And ther e Ato asked the House not to be led by th e petitions CPIS had been presented, by applications in partical sr ,bol l, or by public meetings on the subject, to believ'eL stP 9 , general feeling of the country was in favour Of wiees ° , 4 l lion of the punishment of death. He had strong for believing that such was not the case, 613 0011' very great terror would be spread abroad t hr° be e B the country if the crime of murder were not t ° tbe CO tio lowed by the punishment of death. F °l. , reasons he trusted the House would not asse s ' de motion. t 0 0 , if Mr. BRIGHT said, that though the subje e- ja ` f 1 )0 1 4 discussion might not have made much progre ss e d 13,44 House, yet that out of the House intelligent s;•, o e3P o il men in vast numbers were of opinion that the i r t i come when capital punishment might with 69 , e „ of propriety be abolished. Admitting, for the ssineis°,, - ,i guinent, that society had the right to take aw ° J e atte life, ho would ask, was it politic and expedient t' bt la' v e punishment of death should continue? The 1 " 0 11 e es Baronet had told the Hou se th a t th ere w as now "bO t oe crime punihhahle with death in this count* . ;.„ee tff must be aware that withi n th e l ast 90 years, at °f ib o accession of George 111., t h e cr i m i na l ce cle es be r ,eil country had exclud e d capital offences to the eu- et not less than 240. It was found that the wh olo .ol, toi brutal and cruel system was an entire failure: 1,01 cordingly, during the last 90 years capital eir: ll . - e s ec t o f of been reduced from 240 to one. But le - o".e. P. were ec eoc r i now than we were 50 or 60 years ago on 0 n 'io' the mildues of the criminal code?-(Cries s ed hear.") The Right lion. Baronet bad drawn _., ° „eo s t y tare of what would happen if the punishmen t 1 1 00 0 n 0 fished. Let him remind the Right Honourable ef'" man that the same arguments were used, s' co b ol l : 4 le' more fearful picture still of the consequence s 0 ^ ae 0 trig it was exhibited by the Right lioeourataeee Yee( man who filled the office of Home Secretary a u c or ago ; but these was no ream whatever r