The Sun. — London, England, 1832-02-25 00:00:00

have now, according to the unbiassed andl disinterested opinion of the twenty-guineas-a day gentlemen, got this hydra-headed mon ster in London ; in the metropolis of a community remarkable for science, for in dustry, and searching investigation, and par ticularly famed for medical science ; and yet are we to be practically told (as the present wretched, quibbling, and disgraceful mystifica tion, carried on by a set of men whose names were scarcely known before the cholera bubble was swelling out, seems to infer) that the medical profession is reduced so low in principle, is so lost to all sense of public duty, that the leading members of that profession, whose names at once place them above suspicion, and who, with pride we say, are not only an honour to the science they are devoted to but to the country at large—are we to be told, we say, that such men, now that the disease is said to be at our doors, and consequently when it could not take them out of their regular prac tice, nor materially interfere with their daily professional avocations, would not gratuitous/y, as we know they would scientifically and honestly, investigate such cases of cholera as can be found in London and its suburbs, if such there be be pond the common indigenous disease, and re port thereon to the Government, by which report it would be enabled to judge of the course that ought to be adopted ? Such a course would at once allay anxiety, and place the question upon its right footing. On the behalf of the com mercial interests of this great commercial em pire we strenuously call upon the Government, if there be a medium of common sense or the smallest possible portion of ligour at its disposal, to break down a system that is a mockery and insult upon the country, and substitute one for it that possesses some other qualities, at least, besides those of keeping the community in ig norance, and filling the pockets of ignorant and impudent pretenders. We wish that the flippant Mr. Poulett Thomson had investigated the com merce of the port of London as anxiously and carefully as we have done within the last few days, and then he would know what embarrass ments, inconvenience, and losses it has been subjected to by the late regulations. He and his colleagues had done enough before to bring it into decay ; they have now given the finishing blow to it. The only market not suffering severe depression is that for West India produCe, where holders are firm, in the expectation that supplies must be short by reason of the destruction of property in the chief island, occasioned by the insurrection of the negroes. A starving popu lation and an embarrassed commercial commu nity demand some change of system, at least, at the hand of the Government.—Morn. Post. The Standard of last night, remarking on the quotation we yesterday made from the pam phlet of Dr. Hincks, says 6. We will inform the Morning Chrenicle and its lo gical antagonist,' that there is neither common sense nor logic in the reasoning enounced by the one, and so gratefully accepted by the other. The existence of a right to apportion and distribute is no proof whatever of the existence of a right to resume, or ratber of the right to seize upon, for resump tion implies a previous grant by him who resumes, which is not necessarily connected with the right to apportion and distribute. Few family provisions are more common, in our law, than conveyances for the benefit of one, two, three children, or other relations, with power of appoint ment--that is, of apportionment and distribution, reserved to some person uninterested in the property—of course to some person who has no power of resuming or seizing upon the property thus conveyed ; and if we pass from those specific titles to property, separating the right to its possession from the right of apportionment and distribu tion which the law sanctions, to the more general principles of the law, we find that the principle is the same through out. The changes introduced, from time to time, by the Legislature into a law of property, whether as respects uses and trusts, entails or perpetuities, leasing powers or limitations—all these changes prove that the State, acting by the Legislature, claims and exercises a right in the apportionment and distribution of ALL property. The existence and exercise of this right are, if possible, still more strongly proved by the occurrence here and there of such heteroclite tenures as gavel-kind and borough Eng lish, &e Indeed, we suppose that no man will pretend to deny that the State has exercised, always, unbounded power in the apportionment and distribution of property amongst those to whom it has been once given by the so lemn act of the law. But we challenge the Morning Chronicle and its ' logical antagianist,' whose name we do t quote, because we believe that the man, though foolish, means well—for a single instance in which the State has seized upon property without some better warrant than the fact of its having apportioned and distributed that as as well as every other property. The truth is, no two rights can be more distinct than the right of regulation which the State possesses, and the right of possession, with which it has nothing to do." The argument of the Irish Divine was of a more technical kind than was at all necessary to justify the resumption of Church property. We have always taken higher grounds. It belongs essentially to the State to determine what public services shall he preferred, and who shall perform them. The religious instruction of the people is a public service over which the State never can renounce its controul, any more than it can re nounce its controul over the administration of justice, or the defence of the country. To certain Corporations may be entrusted the administra tion of justice, the defence of the country, and the religious instruction, and certain funds may be assigned either by the State or by individuals, in and of the State, to these Corporations. That State, which has the power of determining as to the very existence of the Corporations, has, of course, the power of regulating the mode in which they shall be paid. If, for instance, it should so happen that seven-eighths of the land of the country had been assigned to the Corpo ration for the administration of justice, and that this extravagant endowment rendered the Judges so luxurious and lazy that they were unable to administer justice properly, the State might abolish the Corporation altogether, devise a new Constitution of the Courts of Justice, take possession of the lands, and fix on a different mode of payment. In the same manner, with respect to religious instructors, the State can not only determine who shall be reli gious instructors, but in what manner they shall be paid. Without now saying whether the clergy of Ireland receive too much or too little for their services, it is well known that at no distant period the clergy of some countries pos sessed so much property as to incapacitate them from discharging their functions. According to the work of Reset on ecclesiastical property, the clergy of what were called the conquered and united provinces of France, at the breaking out of the Revolution, possessed an incapacitating amount of property. In the Cambresis, for in stance, besides the tithes, they possessed seven eighths of the lands, •vhich was nearly everything. In Haioault, les trois avechs (Lorraine), and Artois, besides the tithes, three-fourths of the lands. In At4ace, Franche-Comte, and Rous sillon, besides the tithes, one half of the It is quite clear that this enormous property must have unfitted the clergy' for the discharge oftheir duties. The State resumed possession of the lands, which were sold for its benefit ; and the great reason why the people of the north and east of France have been so peculiarly at tached to the order of things which grew Dui 'of the Revolution, is the immense ad vantage they derived from the disposal of this immense property. The amount of property held by the Church of England before. the Reformation has been variously estimated. It must, however, at the lowest estimate, have been enormous, as at this day the property of the. Nobility is principally made up of it. Had the State not taken this property, but suffered it all to remain with the Protestant Church, that Church would obviously have had more than would have been compatible with a due discharge of duty. No matter from what sources the Church derived the property ; the State being the author of the Church, is necessarily the master of the property possessed by it. If the State should think the best mode of teaching religion is to leave each man to pay his own teacher, as the good of the people ought always to be the paramount consi deration, it might withdraw from the Church all its property. The army was originally main tained by land and tithes, as well as the Church. In Sweden, at this day, the army is chiefly sup ported by allotments of. public lands. In the middle ages, the soldiers contrived in time to be succeeded in the lands they held by their sons, and thus the possession of land became hereditary. We have no doubt that we should have had hereditary Priests in the same way as hereditary soldiers, had it not been for the law of Gregory, prohibiting clergymen from marrying. A very great pro portion of the tithes of France before the revo lution, for instance, called dismes infeodes, had been held by laymen since the time of Charles Martel, and were granted to warriors as fiefs for services in war. There seems more reason for giving tithes and lands to soldiers than to church men, because, without a payment from the pub lic, there could be no separate army, whereas, every individual feeling the necessity of religion, there can never be any want of clergy. There are as many in proportion in the United States as in any other country, though the State de volves on individuals the election and payment of them. The property held by any Church then differs essentially from the property held by individuals, inasmuch as the very existence of the Church and the mode of payment of the clergy, with reference to their efficiency, are matters for the determination of the State, and the amount of property they may hold must de pend on the determination as to the most ad visable mode of payment. The State, though it establishes general rules with regard to succession for the sake of the peace of society, looks no farther in the case of the property of individuals. The owner of an estate may pass his time in sleeping and playing on the Jews' harp, or in any other way, his functions are merely the enjoying the fruits of the earth. Whether he have,one hundred thousand pounds a year, or one hundred pounds ; his efficiency as a landholder is the same. He requires neither talents nor industry—he has no special duties in his capacity of consumer of rent. The Rev. Dr. Hincks has chosen to take lower ground, and from the general admission by the advocates of the inalienable right of the Esta blished Church in Ireland to her tithes and other revenues, that the distribution of them among the Ministers of that Church may be justly altered, he has inferred that that admission ne cessarily involves the right to take it away. This inference an Evening Contemporary has met by the argument at the beginning of this article. We do not exactly see the force of our Contem porary's reasoning from apportionment and dis tribution. As the law allows to a possessor of property the power of naming a successor, with variousinterests in it, it allows, of course, of all the means necessary to give effect to that end. The apportionment and distribution are merely the allowing the owner to ex ercise by others, after death, such acts as might have been done by himself during life. But that a man can sell his own estate, or give away a part of it, or can name persons to dispose of it for specific objects, is a very dif ferent thing from the State interfering to take part of his property from him, or apportioning it among other individuals than those destined to succeed him either by his own will or the rule of law. The apportioning is the act of the proprietor. In the case of the Church, that corporation does not, either in its collective capacity or individually, give power to the State to apportion or distribute the Church property among the clergy. The State does not exercise a derivative power, but a power inherent in it self. The holders of the property interfered with are subject to its controul, and it determines itself the nature and the amount of the inter ference. And in fact, not only has the State taken the property left for the saying of masses, and transferred it to persons who preach against masses—not only has the State abolished one corporation holding the tithes and Church lands, and called another into being to enjoy them— not only did the State withdraw the best part of the tithes and the Church lands from the Church and bestow them on laymen at the Reformation —but almost in our own times it assigned part of the revenues of the Church of England to the teachers of schools. The State has always treated the property of the Church as peculiarly under its controul. The State may allow individuals an unlimited power, or it may lay down rules of succession, but it never interferes with the mode in which the person in possession of private property choose to enjoy it. The State does not say you shall pay so much to your steward, so much to your bailiff; hc. But the State chooses to determine what part of the revenue of a bene fice shall be given to the individual who dis charges the spiritual duties. It does not fix the quantum, but it fixes the minimum. The law fixing the allowance to curates, must, in many cases, have materially reduced the incomes of the holders of small benefices. But the paramount consideration was the spiritual instruction of the people, and the property of the Church was viewed as subsidiary to the object. A power to apportion and distribute does not, therefore, ne cessarily suppose a right to take away property, because the power to apportion and distribute may be derivative, and must be understood in that case with reference to the intention of the party whence the power is derived. But an ab solute and unlimited power to distribute, sup poses the power to take away, because the power to alter and distribute is in the supreme power of the State, which determines what Corpora tions shall exist, what shall be abolished, what property they shall hold, or whether they shall be allowed to hold any property. The State exists for the protection of the property of individuals, but Corporations are the creatures of the State, and the good of the State is the only principle to be observed in deciding with regard to them. —Morning Chronicle. Rumour, i of course, is n o t i nact i ve w i t h re gard to the intentions of Ministers, and the pro bable reception of the Reform Bill by the Peers. These, indeed, are substantially but one and the same subject, of speculation : for it is unques tionably on the will of Lord Grey and his col leagues that depends the immediate triumph of Reform, or its contumelious rejection by the Upper House of Parliament, and with it, so far as concerns the people of England, the main tenance or overthrow of the peace and well being of the realm ; but so far as concerns the interests of the existing Government, its pros perous, honourable, and lasting tenure of office, or its . total and disgraceful extinction as a political party, now and to all future time. Those who dare impute to Lord Grey, that he so de preciates the unanimity of King and people, and 'so magnifies the majority of the House of Peers, as ever for one moment to be induced by the op posite relations in which such belligerents stand toward each other to falter in his resolution of carrying Reform into a law, must suppose his Lordship to exaggerate most pitiably the influence and value of that " order" in the State to which it is doubtless possible for one of its members to feel a praiseworthy attachment, without attempting to prostrate before it the intelligence and affec tions, the rights and interests, the fate and for tunes, of 24,000,000 of men. The King, it is notorious, has granted to Lord Grey authority to create as many Peers as may be rendered neces sary by the present composition of that House to carry the measure of Reform. Why does the Noble Lord hesitate ? We know not that he does shrink. But when his enemies boast of the fact, and his friends, with downcast eyes, acknow ledge and deplore it, we do not strain the :cord too tightly by the mere admission that such an occurrence might be possible. Well ; take for granted that the creation of Peers is as much de precated by certain Whig-Tory Ministers as it is by their less hypocritical opponents ; why do they object ? It is said they might encounter an impeachment. An impeachment ! we once more exclaim ; and who are to impeach them ? The House of Commons, where, at this mo ment, Lord Grey's Cabinet has a majority amounting to three-fifths of the Members ; and where, after the first election by a re formed constituency, they will have, as against a Tory Opposition, a majority of at least three to one. But the people may cry out for an impeachment ! The people of Eng land, panting, gasping for Reform, are to impor tune their representatives in the House of Com mons to impeach the Ministers by whom that Reform has been obtained ! " Proh deunz atque hanzinunz fidem!" Then " it would dis grace the House of Peers to add at once, and largely, to its numbers." Then in what consists the honour or degradation of the House of Peers ? If it be honoured by having amongst its members 20 men of splendid fortune, ancient family, unblemished reputation, and high public principle, would it not be twice as much ho noured by containing forty such? Suppose there were an assembly consisting for the most part of men in distressed circumstances, of no distinguished origin, of no personal merit, de void of all natural elevation or influence over others, and having no claim to respect or con sideration, save only the titles given them by the Crown, and, with those titles, the privilege of making laws for the community. Now we ask any Englishman, be he ever such a worshipper of the aristocratic principle, would a body of ' persons thus- composed, limiting their numbers to even less than 100 individuals, possess his confidence or reverence ; or would it be even tolerated by his reason ? We are far, very far indeed, from asserting that the House of Lords in this country, as it now stands, presents to us an assemblage of worthless or insignificant noblemen. There are amongst the Peers great abilities, great integrity, fortunes more than in dependent, and elements of all that aristocracy ought to combine; hut we are pursuing an argu ment, and desiring to show that it is not the small numerical amount of the Peerage which determines its estimation with the people. If the House of Lords, for instance, were to com prehend within it from 200 to 250 individuals, raised to the Peerage with little regard to for tune, with less to general character in society, and, as for their public principle, with no other care than that they should follow through thick and thin, per fas et nefas, the party politics of a certain succession of Ministers, who have for the last five or six and thirty years, through the instrumentality of the faction to which they themselves belonged, and for its interests exclu sively, continued to hold dominion over Eng land,—if such a class of Peers should really exist, can any man in his senses say that the Peerage " would be degraded " by giving it a counterpoise to such tools of a particular fac tion, in the persons of 40, 50, or 100 gen tlemen of old and respected families in their several counties,—of the largest fortunes that could be found, in union with popular principles, of men who had habitual regard for the inte rests of democracy, as well as of the genuine aristocracy of the empire, in contradistinction to those of an oligarchy composed, in some part, of political partizans who have wielded the power of the executive Government for a genera tion, as if it were theirs by descent ? Answer us, would the House of Lords be disgraced by an accession to its numbers of an hundred Peers, already possessing the distinctions of family and fortune (we now say nothing of poli tical opinions) in a more ample proportion than the existing average of that House ? If there were in an assembly of4oo Peers, 200 individuals of mean and dependent fortune, would it not tend to strengthen and ennoble, instead of humbling, the Peerage so adulterated, and areatly to elevate its average estimation, if the King were graciously to introduce amongst them 50 or a 100 more Peers, whose fortunes raised them above dependence, and whose characters were looked up to by the people, even though the list of Peers should be thereby consi derably extended ? The question will not bear to be stated twice. But, setting aside a general and abstract view of the best ingredients for a Peerage, let us look at the present crisis. We ask, then, what are—what can be—the excuses for the non-creation of Peers, when, in addition to the general motive for bringing the Lords into harmony with the people of England, this Bill, this key to the destinies of the kingdom, comes to be gravely pondered—when it is known, and known apparently quite as well to every labourer and mechanic in Great Britain, as to any Member of the Cabinet, or to the whole of that enlightened Council, that on the success or failure of the Bill depends the fur ther reign or deposition of peace and law within the realm—when to the country itself, a very disastrous consequence, but to Lord Grey one of which the bare imagination must be horror, is inseparably identified with the defeat of this Reform, at least to his Lordship—we mean his own ruin and that of the Whig interest, beyond all human remedy, and for a century to come. It is said, What if we create Peers, and yet are defeated ?" Better, a thousand times, we reply, make Peers, though in vain, than leave the sole avenue to safety unattempted. If, after adopting that one direct and energetic measure, the Tories still prove too :powerful for you, and the best clauses of the Bill be lost, why Ministers it will be. Said have done their duty, they have fought, like men, and have been defeated because victory was impossible. They retire from office amidst the thanks and blessings of their countrymen, and are still the chosen leaders of the British nation. But if they die not " game"—if they lose the Bill because they would not try to pass it,—if they sheathe the only remaining weapon in their magazine, and then, being beaten, exclaim, " It was not our fault,"—what but contempt and infamy is their portion,--what are they but hypocrites, if they be not idiots ?—what but traitors, if not cowards ? Who will offer them sympathy ? who forbear from execration of the craven Whig Ministry of 1832 ? God preserve King Wil liam from faint-hearted friends ! From open ene mies, his gallant people will defend him.— Times. We publish in this day's Paper the sentence passed by the Court-martial on Captain War rington, which will be read, no doubt, with at tention. The sentence, we regret to say, finds the prisoner " Guilty," but it is necessary to add, with regard to certain inferences which have been drawn from the condemnation of Captain War rington, to the fears and perplexities under which all officers must be supposed to act in future, that neither the charges nor the sentence involve any question concerning the general powers with which military men are invested, or the restraints imposed upon them as to the suppression of riots. The preamble of the first charge contains a re cital of the dreadful outrages which were com mitted on the night of Sunday, the 30th of Oc tober, the consequent emergency which called for the utmost exertions that could be made by the troops under the command of Captain War rington for the protection of property, and the repeated orders which had been given by the Magistrates to the officer in command of the garrison to quell the rioters by force. But the gravamen of the offence alleged against Captain Warrington relates to the circumstance of his having omitted or delayed to convey to Colonel Brere ton a verbal requisition for military succour, which was brought to him by Mr. Kington, a merchant of Bristol, the object of the application being to save the Custom-house ; while the second charge accuses him of delaying for up wards of an hour to transmit or convey to Colo nel Brereton a written requisition signed by the i\layor of Bristol, directing the officer in com mand to use the most vigorous and decisive efforts towards the repression of the riot, and the preservation of property. Here there was no accusation of not acting voluntarily and at his own discretion, without the special authority of Magistrates, but merely of having failed in the duty of forwarding, to his superior officer, information of the most urgent importance, and thereby rendering altogether useless the force which he might otherwise have received orders from his commanding officer to employ. On the two charges so constructed Captain War rington is found " guilty." The third charge goes to blame the prisoner, not for having refused to act, or for having withheld the as sistance of his troops when required, but for having delegated the command of them on two critical occasions,—viz., on Sunday evening, and early on Monday morning,—to a young Cornet, instead of conducting them himself; 2. For ab senting himself a considerable time from his quarters ;3. For having gone to bed. Of sub stituting the Cornet's services for his own, at four o'clock on Sunday evening,—of absenting himself from his quarters,—and of retiring to bed, Captain Warrington has been also found " guilty." But it will be remarked, that in these charges, which embrace the whole subject matter of prosecution, there is no where to be found laid down, or even implied, in anything like the extent to which Sir Charles Dalbiac, in his ex cursive and voluminous dissertation upon the evidence, thinks proper to assert it, the doctrine that military officers at the head of armed bo dies, ought to be punished for refusing to act without the presence of a civil authority. We say that no fair deduction from the official charges themselves can be brought to justify those dicta of the prosecutor, which were tacked by him to his commentary on certain portions of the evidence. Enough, however, has transpired throughout these painful transactions to show, that some distinct exposition of the law should be afforded, if not, indeed, that some perspicu ous declaratory law should be speedily passed, for the essential purpose of pointing out to mili tary men what they are bound to do, and what they must refrain from doing, in cases of public disturbance ; otherwise, between courts-martial and juries, no officer can reckon on twenty-four hours' security for his commission or life. Our own feeling upon the subject is, that troops should in no instance be permitted to use mortal weapons against their own countrymen (a case of self-defence being always an exception) without the actual presence of a Magistrate. The effect of such a prohibition will be—not the impunity of mobs and rioters—but the activity and effici ency of the civil power ; for let it be understood, that if military men be amenable to courts-martial for neglect of duty, so magistrates ought to be, if they are not, subjected to an equally prompt visita tion by the law of the land; and that the monstrous abuse of common sense and j ustice whereby the su perior Courts have managed to withdraw inferior Magistrates from all risk of retribution by re quiring that direct proof of malice or "corruption must be forthcoming before they shall be punished for even the most flagrant misbehaviour, ought to be repaired before the lapse of another session. For Captain Warrington we do not quarrel with the finding of the Court, as a mere technical verdict, in so far as it states that certain charge§ have been proved against him. But with de ference for the judgment of so experienced and honourable a tribunal, we should have deemed its decision entitled to an equal respect, had it not inflicted the severe penalty of expulsion from s f a d vo u u ty red wh i i r c io h re mo o s f t pe ople the service will fboer of opinionfailure o .irarsorsutlbiamn of crime. itted totbe T l b t ro is ne t : u a e s t i h s ra l t ve t l l l ie kn C o o w u n r: an earnest and forcible recommendation to mercy in favour of Captain Warrington; and it is like wise reported that the grounds for the recom mendation are strong enough to suggest some wonder that they did not serve to qualify the sen tence itself, as well as to extort from the Court a recommendation that his Majesty should be pleased to remit it. The grounds of that recom mendation are described to be—. The extreme difficult situation in which an in experienced young man was placed,—between a military superior and civil authorities,—both acting so as to per plex and paralyze him. 2. That his offences were mere errors of judgment, not proceeding from want of zeal to do his duty. .. 3. That when under proper command, both at Bristol and elsewhere, ample evidence had been adduced of Captain Warrington's active and proper discharge of his duties. " 4. That the strongest testimonies to his general cha racter were laid before the Court, by several officers of high rank and others, under whom he had served." Surely, under such circumstances, an admo. nition or a reprimand would have answered the justice of the case. We dare say that their Wor ships, the wise corporators of Bristol, will run small risk of being cashiered for their offences. We wish, and all friends of the . Government wish, that they would take more pains to refute 1 the opinion promulgated by their enemies, that they are strong against the weak, and weak against the strong.— Times. COURT OF KING'S BENCH, FEB. 24. TODD V. THE 'IVATERMEN ' S COMPANY. The plaintiff claimed to be admitted a freeman of the Waterinen's Company, by a servitude for seven years, under an indenture of apprenticeship to a master lighter man, named Coleman. The Company refused to admit him, on the ground that he had not served his apprentice ship, upon which he obtained a rule in this Court for a mandamus to compel them to admit him, and upon the return to that rule, which denied that be was a freeman, the present issue was directed, in order to ascertain whe ther the plaintiff had or had not duly served his term of apprenticeship. A vast number of witnesses were called to prove that the plaintiff was duly apprenticed to Coleman, who was in the employ of his (the plaintiff's) father, and that he had served the whole period, navigating the craft in the Thames. The defence was that there had not been a servitude, and that the plaintiff's apprenticeship to his father's servant was only to give a colour to an apparent servitude, in order to his obtaining his freedom. The Learned Judge, in his charge to the Jury, left them to decide whether the plaintiff's service under his indenture was a bona fide service. The Jury found for the plaintiff. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, FEB. 21. SURGICAL ATTENDANCE.-YORSENALL li. BLICKIC. In the April of last year, the present plaintiff, then a footman in the service of Mrs. Abbott, fractured the tibia, or both the tibia and fibula of his leg against the bars of a gate, and was immediately sent by his mistress, for greater convenience, Ece., to the King's Head public-house, and a surgeon, Mr. Blicke, the present defendant, immediately sent for to his assistance. Blicke not being then at home, his assistant attended the patient, and did what he could ad interim for the dislocated tibia ; and Blicke, on his re turn, attended in person, and seeing the leg at the ancle considerably swollen, ordered that the patient should be fomented with warm water during that night till he should call on the ensuing day. The attendants did so foment, but fomented so as to produce an ulceration, and a prevention of an immediate setting of the fractured bones. This and similar treatment was made the basis of the present action by the plaintiff (who, it appears, has now an everted foot) against the defendant, for a want of care and skill—as it is pleaded that from the inattention or inability displayed by the defendant in adjusting the fractured bones, the eversion of the foot has occurred ; and in consequence, to the plaintiff an incapacity for his former employment as footman. For the defendant, Serjeant Sealaxix contended that he was beset by persons of his party in the public-house, so as to discompose his mind, and thence retard his cure. And as to the using of warm water, it was solely a matter of opinion, a choice of practice; and as to using it in this instance, Surgeon Blicke had directed the attendants to use it so warm only as they could bear to their own cheeks, thus affording a test of the warmth necessary; and if such bumpkins (said the Counsel) exceeded their orders, the defendant was not liable. Again, as to any negligence, it was proved that the defendant had attended during the plaintiff's stay at the public-house as often as he was essential to promote the cure; and it was proved by his assistant, front the books, that aperient medicines had been given ; yet it was proved by some medical gentlemen during the evidence, that costiveness could not retard the cure, if it did not injure the constitutional habits of the patient. And Mr. Titley, under whose care the plaintiff placed himself, on the 10th of June following, found the cure proceeding, the feet parallel to the knees, the splints pro perly adjusted, and the only sign of irritation was a slight turn-faction. Dr. Titley advised the splints to be continued on till the month of August, when no appearance of au eversion of the foot was evidenced, and he thought it might have arisen from a loosening of the callus subse quently, or from an accident ; so thought surgeons Earl, Brodie, Lawrence, &c. But so long as he had been in specting the foot, no appearance of deformity was evinced. The Jury retired about half-past seven, having heard the case from half-past nine in the morning, and returned a verdict for the defendant. POLICE INTELLIGENCE. MANSION-HO USE. Benjamin Mark and Herman Wilhelm were charged by Mark Williams with having obtained four dozen fur caps, under false pretences. The par ties were all German Jews, and from what could be gathered from their odd sort of gibberish, it appeared that the defendants had given an order for the caps for ready money, and taking advantage of the prose-' cutor's absence, Mark had persuaded the wife to let him have them ; but under such a clumsy pretext, that he had clearly made a swindle of it. As Wil helm was the partner of Mark, though not present when he got the goods, the prosecutor had given both into custody. Knowing, therefore, the charge could not' be brought home to him, he made a pro digious cackle, and in broken English asked " For vy he was charged vit de poles ?" " Ask your conscience," said Mr. Hobler. "Ax ma conscience, s'help ma Got. I vil ax ma conscienc," said Herman, " I puy de coats in de regular vay—den for vat you pring ame here ? De prosecutor sure be von rogue bigger den me."— (Laughter.) Mr. Alderman WILsoN, however, being about to commit Mark, the defendants consented to allow the officer to pay 3s. 2d. out of the moneys taken from them. " lab, hah !" said Herman, shaking his fist at the officer, " I shall damage you all vit my actions— vich I pring against y . ou--for you have prove me a rogue." It was here intimated to the Alagistrate that the defendants had been taken to Lambeth-street Office last week on a similar charge, and that there were two parties outside who had been defrauded out of their goods in a similar way. The defendants no sooner heard this stated, than they bolted with great expedition out of the office. MARY LEB ONE- OFFICE. An Irishwoman, named Collins, applied under the following circumstances :—She rented a house in Ossulston-street, Somers-town, and not paying her rent, her landlord gave orders to a broker to levy a distress. She, however, by dint of number less stratagems, kept possession. On Tuesday even ing she was sitting by the fire, when she was startled by a young sweep dropping down the chimney, and running to the window, which he opened, and then commenced crying out murder. She was so startled and frightened, that she also called out murder. A crowd of people collected, and the door was forced. The police got in, and what the matter was Mrs. Collins could hardly tell. When it was ascertained that no murder had been committed the crowd dis persed, and the mystery was cleared up by a broker and his man keeping possession. The sweep had been sent down the chimney as a dernier resort. Mr. RAWLINSON said, the only advice he could give was for her to pay her rent. Q UEEN- S QU ARE Yesterday a young lad, apparently about eighteen years of age, was brought before Mr. WHITE, by Sergeant Barton, of the B division, No. 8, charged with attempting to gain admittance into St. James's Palace, for the purpose of having an audi ence of his Majesty. It appeared from the constable's statement, that he saw the prisoner at the Palace, and that one of the sentries was endeavouring to keep him back, but he still persevered, and e ndeavoured to force his way in. Witness went up to him, and asked him the reason for such extraordinary conduct ; when he replied that he had a message to deliver to his Ma jesty, and he had come a long way out of the country for that purpose. Mr. WHITE asked the prisoner who and what he was ?—The prisoner replied that his name was John Rogers; that he was by trade a whitesmith ; and that he arrived in London on the previous even ing fromChickster,having been two days in walking to London. Mr. WHITE asked him what his business was in London ?—The prisoner had lately had a call, and the Spirit had come over him. A few days ago he had a vision, and the Lord had directed him to come to London and seek- the King, and inform him that at the end of the present year the-world would be at an end ; and to recommend him to advise the people to repent of their sins and wickedness—for this pur pose he had walked from Chichester. Mr. WHITE asked him how old he was ?—The prisoner was exactly 200 monthi old last Sunday. Mr. WHITE told him that he also had a " call" and if he did not go about his business, and make the best of his way to Chichester, he should send him to the House of Correction. The prisoner said, that as a proof to the world that his message was correct, the Spirit had in formed him that as soon has he had delivered it to his Majesty, he (the prisoner) would die, and in three days he would come to life again. Mr. WHITE told him to get about his business, and the officers took him out of the office. Several females outside, who heard the lad's story, actually gave credence to his mission, and de clared that it was the most wonderful and extraordi nary circumstance they ever heard of. Some old women offered him something to eat and drink, but be refused to take any thing, declaring that if it was the pleasure of the Spirit that was within him, he could live without food. . • LONDON MARKETS. (From the Loam; New Price Current of yesterday.) &max.—The destruction of property in Jamaica ha produced a little rise in our market; the ultimate efect is likely to be much more considerable ; the ad►ance in Muscovades this week is fully is. per cwt., with a very firm market; the estimated sales are 2,700 hhds. and tees. The demand for Refined considerably abated last week, owing chiefly to several reported cases of cholera morbus having occurred here, but, as this disease does not spread, it is expected that vessels sailing from hence will shortly be allowed clean bills of health ; with this idea several purchases of large and small Lumps were made at the prices of last week ; fine crashed of good quality is still held for 31e., but for this description there are but few buyers, and 30e. is the highest price offered. EAST INDIA Suaarts.—The public sales have offered 1,364 bags Manilla, 322 bags Bengal; the first were finis yellow, and bought in from 225. a 235. 6d. ; the latter were sold, ordinary white 225. 6d. a 235. 6d., good white 245. 6d. a 25r. 6d., fine white 26e., being about former prices; 4,656 bags Mauritius have been reported this week. FOREIGN SUGARS.—The public sales offered 700 Ants Havannah, and 50 chests 57 bile Pernamv, the first were of soft quality, ordinary white were bought in from 295.6 d. a 30s. 6d., the damaged white sold from 20s. 6d. a 294.6 d. fine yellow soft bought in from 225. 6d. a 230 , ordinary yellow sold at 21s. 6d., which is rather lower; Pername, brown sold at 155., yellow soft from 17s. a 18s., ordinary white 21s. 6d. a 221. 6d. By private contract nothing has been done. COFFEE.-British Plantation continues in very limited demand, but for Foreign sorts there is more inquiry, and some business concluded by private contract, at prices about 31. a 4s. lower than at the highest price in December last, about 2,000 bags St. Domingo of very good quality liav ing been sold from 545. to 555. The public sales have been limited to 196 casks British Plantation, and 1,404 bags Foreign ; the former was all withdrawn, excepting a few lots of good ord. Jamaica and mid. Berbice, which were sold at a reduction of 2s. a 3e. ; Brazil, good to fine ord. was bought in from 535. 6d. a 571. 6d. ; damaged sold from 451. 6d. a 475. ; St. Domingo, good ord, bought in at 545. This day's public sale, 350 bales Mocha, about one. third sold at a decline of '7ll. a Ss., and 10s. a 12s. from the late highest point of the market, 725. a 735. is now taken for what sold some time ago at 83s. and 84s. Rust, BRANDY, AND HOLLANDS.....The news from J =Lica has occasioned more firmness in the Rum market, and, if the trade of the country was not in such a depressed state, the rise in Rum would be immediate and consider.. able ; several parcels of Rum have changed hands this week at prices a shade higher, and many houses will not sell at present prices; proof Leeward. 2 to 3 over Is. sd. Brandy is held with confidence, owing to the re newed opinion of the duty being reduced, also the im provement of the demand, on account of the cholera morbus. In Genera there is no alteration. TALLOW.—The market is very dull, and the prices declining. SiLic. - --The market is still very flat, and very little doing ; there is no alteration in prices since our last. Tan.—Boheas in large chests are at 44. Id. ; Congou chests at 44. I id. There continues to be some inquiry for cheap Congoua. _ ... SricEs.—Pimento sells more freely, the fine 6d. and 6id., mid. kid. In other Spices there is little doing, and no alteration in the currency. RICE.—The prices of Rice are a shade higher. Corrow.—Cottons are held with firmness, but there are no purchases by private contract this week worth report ing. The sales to-day have gone off with spirit at full prices --say 41d. a 4id. a few 5d., ord. to good fair ; 1,750 sold. FRUlT.—There is still very little doing, and the sales continue confined to small parcels of the common descrip tions. IRISH PROVISIONS.-For Butter there has been a fair sale during the week, but no improvement in price can be noted, except in some partial instances ; tke stock being heavy at the wharfs, and the cheesemongers impressed with the idea that there is still a considerable supply to come forward from Ireland before the end of the season, deter them from purchasing but to meet their immediate wants. Bacon is leas saleable than it was in the early part of the week, and for any other article under this head we cannot note any material alteration in price or demand since our last. INDIGO PUBLIC SALE, FEE. 23 AND 24.—The sales were composed of 1,322 chests Bengal, Tuhoot, but mostly Benares;of ord. quality ; 600 Oude, and 60 Madras, of which 350 Bengal (mostly by the William, recently imported), were withdrawn ; the remainder sold with more spirit than could be expected, at about last Company's October sale's prices, or on an average at a discount of 4d. on the last sale's prices. PRICE OF SUGAR. The average price of Brown or Muscovado Sugar, computed from the Returns made in the week ending Feb. 24, is 245. 7d. per cwt., exclusive of the duties of customs paid or payable thereon on the importation thereof into Great Britain. PRICES OF HOPS.—Feb. 94. 41. 15s. 61. Os. to 41. 10s. 51. ss. to 41. 10s. 51. to 'arntiam Ditto, Fine 9/. Os. 121. 155. Os. to Seconds 0/. Os. 71. Os. to 41. Os. 51. 10s. to 41. 4s. 41. 15s. to —15 s. 51. Os. to Sussexpitto !,ux Diti 81. Os. 51. 14a. 61. 15s. 01. oe, 91. Oa. 61. 10e. 51.: Os. 5/. 12s. Kent Bags.... Sussex Ditto Essex Ditto.. PRICE OF OIL. Rape Oil, brown X 351. O. Refined £37 0 Linseed Oil - , 22 0 Linseed Oil Cake at the Mill, per thousand 12 0 Rape Cake, per ton 6 0 COUNTRY CORN MARKETS DURING IHE WEEK. Per Quarter. Ashburn Basingstoke Bath Bridgewater Bristol Chestertield Derby Devizes Doncaster --.... Dorchester Exeter Hungerford Leicester Newbury Ramsey Shaftesbury —.... Shepton Mallet Sherborne*. Taunton Yeovil Per Bushel. Shrewsbury Wheat. Barley. Oats. 126 34 20 25 24 30 26 ..20 23 26 32 22 25 20 28 18 25 27 34 18 20 18 25 20 29 29 20 32 21 28 27 20 26 Beans. 62 72 54 '7O 46 65 56 70 56 60 64 70 62 65 34 40 28 37 30 38 26 29 34 39 40 48 39 46 38 50 28 36 40 47 46 52 39 4'2 39 43 40 44 52 48 34 44 34 44 48 34 42 56 44 36 46 35 44 38 32 40 s. d. 3.d• 00 00 39 41 57 68 54 75 61 64 48 66 46 64 75 44 69 56 64 56 52 62 56 62 58 72 56 8 . (1. s. d. 89 91 27 33 30 40 30 38 28 37 2 6 39 27 36 44 2 5 37 30 36 37 34 43 32 38 35 34 40 B.d. B.d. 58 60 20 24 s. d. s. d. 50 60 BIRTHS. On the 24th inst. the wife of T. G. Kensit, Esq. of Skinners' Hall, of a daughter. On the 21st init. at Tunbridge Wells, the lady of J. It. Esq., of a daughter. On the 2:ld init. the lady of George Basevi, jun., Esq. of a son , M ARRIED. On the 23d i ns t . at St. Pancras, .1. Dunlap, Esq. ,M I)., to Mary Ann, third daughter of W. Walker, Esq., of Barton-hall, Suffolk. 0- Jn the 23d inst. at Christchurch, St. Marylebone, the Rev. Willoughby, of Frittendean, Kent, M.A., to Marianne, youngest daughter of J. Tringham, Esq., of St. John's Wood road, Regent's -park. On the 21d inst. at Wandsworth, W. W. Saunders, Es q ,, se _ cond son of the Rev. Dr. Saunders, of Kirtlington, Oxfordshire, to Catherine, daughter of J. Saunders, Esq. a E as t H il l , Wandsworth. DIZD. On the 22d inst. Mary, at Boulogne-sur-Mer, Mary, the wife of Lieut. Garbatt, R.N., and sister of General Sir E. Kerrison, On the 20th inst. in Stephen's-green, Dublin, Miss Plunkett, sister of the Lord Chancellor. On the 23d inst. in Upper Montagu-street, Russell-square, F. Hughes, Esq., late Commander of the Hon. East India Com pany's ship Bridgewater. Lately, at the Vicarage House, Dorney, Bucks, the Rev Mr. T. Buxton, Vicar of the above place. PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY MURDO YOUNG, AT Dna StiN OFFICE, 112, STRAND S LONDO N .