The Sun. — London, England, 1847-07-20 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE. 1 ARCHES' COURT, July 19. :"LE OFFICE OF THE JUDGE PROMOTED BY FARNALL v. CRAIG, CLERK. This was a cause of office promoted by Mr. George itooke Parnell, of Burley Park, in the county of South ampton, against the Rev. John Kershaw Craig, a clerk in holy orders of the United Church of England and Ireland, and minister of the new church of St. John the Baptist, at Burley, in the said county, touching his soul's health, and the lawful correction and reformation of his manners and excesses, and more especially for haring been guilty of the crime of adultery, fornication, or incontinence. Although the pleadings and evidence have extended to very unusual length, yet the substance of the case lies in a very narrow compass. A libel was given in on behalf of the promoter, which after the usual formal articles went on to charge the Rev. Gentleman, being a married man, with entering the bedroom of his female servants in the years 1844 and 1845, and remaining with them frequently for several hours. That on or about the 3d of June, 1844, he com mitted mitt,ed adultery with a woman who had been one of his servants, in Ridley Wood, near to his residence. That in December, 1844, and Janua r y , 1845, he fre quently in the kitchen of his house sat before the fire between two of the servants; and that on some of such occasions one of them laid her head upon his lap, and also sat upon his knee. That on a Sunday, shortly before Christmas, 1844, two or three youn g girls, who were his parishioners , and among them one Ann Smith, went to drink tea in the kitchen of his house, and that after tea his wife played to them in the drawing-room upon the organ, and with him sang or chanted part of the service of the church. That the girls having had their supper in the kitchen, Mr. Craig being in the kitchen pulled back the chair whereon Ann Smith was sitting, and putting his hands round her kissed or attempted to kiss her; and that with one of his hands he tickled the knees of Jane Shelley, saying that ho did so to see if she was jealous, or to that effect. The libel then referred to the proceedings which had taken place before a commission of inquiry instituted by the Lord Bishop of Winchester, under the Church Discipline Act, and concluded by praying that Mr. Craig might be duly and canonically corrected and punished according to the exigency of the law, and also be condemned in the costs. In answer to this libel a plea was given in by Mr. Craig, setting forth that since his residence at Burley he had faithfully and diligently discharged his duty thereat as minister, had acquired the geod-will, and had conducted himself to the entire satisfaction of the great majority of the inhabitants of the district committed to his care, among whom he was held in high esteem and regard, as well for the manner in which he performed his public ministrations as for his attention to the schools, and also to the poor and sick of the district,and such esteem and regard continued undiminished up to the present moment. That Mr. Craig and his wife, who had been married 14 years, and had issue of their mar riage four children, had always lived and cohabited to gether, and still did so on terms of great and uninter rupted affection. That Mr. Farnall, the promoter of the suit, had entertained and manifested in various ways a feeling of great personal enmity and ill-willltowards Mr. Craig, and that all the charges made against him had been wickedly and maliciously brought against him by Mr. Farnall, and were utterly false and unfounded. That he had never been guilty of any act of adultery, fornication, or incontinence, and had never taken any indecent, improper, or unbecoming liberty or familarity with any woman whatever. That the charge of adultery in Ridley Wood was falsely and foully pleaded. That the only person examined on that charge before the commission deposed to the offence being com mitted on the evening of the 3d of June, 1844, at the hour of seven o'clock. That the weed consisted of full grown beech trees, without underwood of any sort, had a public road leading from Ridley Wood directly through it, and was crossed by paths in various direc tions ; that it was the play place of children in the neighbourhood ; was much frequented by such and others, especially on summ er even i ngs , and was exposed throughout to public observation. That on the 3d of June, 1844, Jane Shelley was at home with her parents, from between five and six o'clock in the evening until she went to bed, and that during no part of such even ing was she at all in the company of Mr. Craig, either in Ridley Wood or elsewhere. That he did not enter the bedroom of his female servants, neither did he ever sit between them at the kitchen fire, nor did any one of them lay her head upon his lap. That the charge relating to Ann Smith, contained in part a perversion of the truth, and in part an averment of what was absolutely false. That what really then and there occurred was as follows : namely, that Ann Smith having, with her father and brother, recently become an attendant at the church, was asked by Mrs. Craig to come to their house to drink tea with the servants, which she accordingly did, on the 19th of October; that, between tea and supper, four young girls, including, Ann Smith, had gone up stairs, into the parlour, and assisted, or been present at the singing of some hymns whilst Mrs. Craig played upon the organ, and just as those four girls were preparing to leave the house after supper Mr. Craig had some con versation with Ann Smith relativ e to purc hasing a couple of prayer-books, which she requested him to do for her; but neither on this nor on any other occasion did he either kiss or attempt to kiss Ann Smith or tickle the knees of Jane Shelley. That Mr. Farnall, previous to the institution of the suit, had been repeatedly told and assured by Ann Smith, that neither on that nor on any other occasion had she been treated with or had ever witnessed any impropriety whatever on the part of Mr. Craig. In reply to this statement a responsive alleg ation was brought in by Mr. Farnall, pl ea di ng th a t M r . Craig had been and was in the habit of n', hl j alituisi.raLlOnS In an irregular rieeLiee,„:llw„hit,he a li d to therein read the lessons, and had on many Sundays omitted to read the Ten Commandments and the prayers immediately connected therewith. That, partly owing to such irregularities, the church, which was capable of containing about 2SO persons, was during the year 1845 seldom attended on the mornings of Sun day by more than six or eight person, and in the even ings by more than tv.'enty persons, exclusive of children , many of the inhabitant s h ar i ng attended, since the com mencement of 1845, a Dissenting chapel, built in 1841. That in or about the year 1840 several of the subscri bers to the parochial school discontinued their subscrip tions in consequence of the inattention of Mr. Craig, and that the school had d'creased from about sixty boys and girls to about eight girls and two boys, while in 1845 a school in connexion with the Dissenting chapel was opened, and was attended by about forty-six boys and girls. That Mr. Farnall had not manifested in various ways a feeling of great personal enmity and to wards Mr. Craig; that the charges had not been wick edly and maliciously brought against him; but that Mr. Farnall had exhibited the articles at the instance and re quest of the Lord Bishop of Winchester. That Ridley Wood consisted of oak as well as beech trees; that there was a great abundance of fern, which on the 3d of June was upwards of three feet in height; that the only road through it was a forest track, and that it was not fre quented by children. A further allegation was given in on behalf of Mr. Craig, denyi ng th a t the w as had been admitted to the minister's desk, or had read the lessons therefrom since the end of 1842 or beginning of 1843, when the practice, which had not been in use more than a few Sundays, had been discontinued. That the reading of the lessons by the clerk from his own desk in the morning, but never in the evening service, had been continued in considera tion of Mr. Craig having been long subject to a spitting of blood and of the fatigue occasioned by the walk of twelve miles every Sunday. That it was untrue that Mr. Craig had omitted to read the Ten Commandments and the pray e r s connected therewith on many Sundays; that it was only done on one occasion, and that in 1842, in consequen ce o f M r. Craig ' s alarm a, nd anxiety about a son, six years of age, who on the preceding day had met with a serious accident. That the averaenum her of the congregation a t t h e church of Burley through out the year 1845 was ei g ht y i n t h e morning and 130 in the evening, about one-third of whom might be children. That except those of the families of Mr. Farnall and Mr. Hill no pew or sitting in the church was given up in, or for long prior to, 1845. That a meeting-house for Dissenters with a school attached to it had existed in the district of Burley for the last half century. That the persons who withdrew their support from the Burley schools in 1840 were only five in number. That the school suffered a temporary depression in 1845, in con sequence of the master and mistress having left on ob taining higher appointments ; and that it now contained nearly as many children as at any former period, any diminution which it might have sustained being solely eaused by the exertions of Mr. Farnall, his family and friends, to impair its efficiency, and to sustain the Dis senters' school in opposition to it. After publication the evidence, some of the witnesses exceptive side pleas to brought in by the respective parties. He had, he said, na.ePicrrel on behalf of Mr. Farnall. letters from the Bish3loenpetiat to the admission of certain Winchester to Mr. Craig, except on principle. the counsel for Mr. Craig intended to mak e use of thTly had yet to learn. They only sho we d h ow very little Craig in 1846 merited the good opini on w hi ch his rdio cesan entertained who, h been ad of him is 1836 or 1839, Th e defendant or dained by the Bishop of Wi nchester, rci)aerulchinugrcha favourable opinion of him a t t h at time, wheni ti at Barley was ready for consecration, i mentary letter offered the incumb ency to Mr.cuCrug'igi-, expressing his regret that the value of th e living would' not exceed 100/. per annum. Mr. Craig accepted the offer, and was regularly inducted into the church. It was due to Mr. Farnall, the promoter of this suit, to state that without his exertions and liberality the church would not have been built; and to do Mr. Craig justice, he had no sooner been appointed than it appeared that he took active measures to carry into effect that necessary appendage to a district church, the building of sch ools. From some cause, however, those schools h ad subse quently greatly declined. Mr. Craig had been put for ward " a person entitled to the highest esteem for the general discharge of his ministerial duties. It appeared, fia "e'ier, that Some persons had withdrawn from the church, and, accordine• to the evidence of the parish clerk, he some sometimes read the lessons ; but it was said that that only to o k place when Mr. Craig laboured under indisposition, ,nd suffered from spitting of b l ood. The best evidence that point would have been the testimony of a medi a l but ,, it rested principally the statement of the clerk!' on o e (Dr. Haggard) was not there to inculpate Mr. Crai g n on nthat point, nor would it be necessary to say more oTeursual, more es was extremely irregular and ve th e matter except that it ally as the clerk was not a verb unusual, peci had been represented as a good preacheirT: it appeared Craig that he was in the habit of referring in the ut 1 1 - to the quarrel between him and Mr. Farnall , althoughgoe oflae did not mention that gentleman's name, and congregation had discountenanced it by their witlide* • —vial. La 1346 Mr, Craig wrote a letter to Min lingua who had formerly been in his service, in which, with refe rence to these proceedings, he employed terms in speak ing both of Mr. Farnall and the Bishop of Winchester, h o e e h d h i h s o L w o r l d i t s t h l p h fo e r m w e a r s l y e e n n t i t t e l r e t d a i t n o e d t h o e f g h o i m o d . opinion wh ieh showed They must have proceeded either from a very perverted mind, or have been the offspring of a wicked heart. That letter was addressed to a person who was to ,come for ward and give unbiassed evidence in the cause. The testimony of three clergymen had been adduced in fa vour of Slr. Craig, but they had not been on close terms of intimacy with him of late years. Mr. Farnall was charged with being actuated by malicious motives; it was too trite to say that motives had nothing to do with the case. There were rumours floating about in 1844 regarding the character of Mr. Craig, which reach ing the ears of Mr. Farnall, or of any other individual, could not fail to arouse his attention, and lead to the adoption of measures to bring the matter to a public dis cussion. He,(Dr. Haggard) knew not how Mr. Craig could justify the highly offensive expressions which he had used regarding his diocesan. The commis sioners before whom the preliminary inquiry was held had unanimously reported that there was ground for further proceedings; the Bishop therefore had a duty to discharge, and that he had fearlessly done, but in the kindest way. It was clear from the evidence that the female servants of Mr. Craig were all young. He (Dr. Haggard) would consider the direct charges against Mr. Craig, not in order of time, but according to their de gree of magnitude. There was a discrepancy as to the date when Mr. Craig was alleged to have kissed, or attempted to kiss Ann Smith; but he was willing to fix it as occurring on the 19th of October, 1844. He con tended that the result of the evidence indisputably proved that he actually kissed her. She had herself deposed to it, and was so disgusted with his conduct that she im mediately ceased to attend the church. The fact of tickling Jane Shelley's knees was equally well esta blished. The story was consistent with other parts of the case proved against Mr. Craig, and was fully entitled to credit. It manifested a depravity of feeling and thought in the propensities and habits of Mr. Craig such as justly to bring him within the censure of the law. As soon as the rev. gentleman was aware that Mr. Farnall had been informed of that act of indecency towards Ann Smith, he went to the house of her mother, and subse quently wrote her a letter, which must be taken as con clusive against him, as showing that he was desirous of getting her to his house, he (Dr. Haggard) would not say for the purpose of tampering with her, but convers ing with her respecting the charge, which he knew must mainly depend upon her testimony. He could not tell what would have occurred had that young person gone to Mr. Craig's house, but another who had made charges against him had been induced to sign her name to a document, stating that he had not conducted him self improperly. Archer's evidence proved beyond a doubt that the defendant had gone into his servants' bedroom, and on one occasion into the bed where two of them were lying, although it did not appear that cri minal intercourse had taken place. The charge of com mitting adultery in Ridley Wood on the Ist of June rested upon the testimony of William White, a carter, in the employ of Mr. Farnall, who deposed to having wit nessed it, while in a tree, about ten yards off, getting some dead wood. The description given by the wit nesses of the character of Ridley Wood showed that there was nothing improbable in White's statement. Evidence had been adduced by Mr. Craig with a view to prove an alibi with regard both to himself and Jane Shelley, the person with whom he was said to have com mitted the adultery. The principal witnesses were Charles Young and his son, who swore at the time when the act was said to have taken place they were delivering coal at Mr. Craig's house, and that he was present while they were so engaged. It was not a desirable posi tion for Mr. Craig on a fine summer's evening, without any assignable reason, to be mixing himself up with the dust and dirt of unloading coals. There were, however, discrepancies between the statements of the father and the son, and their evidence was not such as would justify the Court in coming to the conclusion that White had deposed falsely and corruptly with regard to that particular trans action. It was said that Shlley was engaged in help • ing her sister to make some wedding dresses for a young lady in the neighbourhood who was to be married on the following Tuesday, but the marriage did not take place until the Thursday, and it turned out that that was the day first fixed upon. Shelley had been examined, but her evidence was not to be relied upon. She had before the transaction took place lived in the service of Mr. Craig, and had been dismissed for rudeness to Mrs. Craig, over whom she was represented to have domi neered. On one examination she had denied that she was discharged for that rudeness, and then, on the fol lowing day, expressed a wish to retract it, and admitted that it was true. Mr. Craig, however, had taken so much interest in her that when the schoolmistress at Burley left in consequence of obtaining a better appoint ment, Mr. Craig gave her the vacant situation. The adultery was first alleged to have been committed on the 3d of June, and an alibi had been set up for Shelley on that day; but it was impossible to give credence to the witnesses who deposed to it. They were at variance with each other on several points. It was not necessary, however, to plead with precision the exact day. That principle was clearly laid clown in Phillips on Evidence. Upon the whole, he submitted that the charges against Mr. Craig were fully proved; that he must be found guilty and condemned in the costs. Dr. JENNEn followed on the same side. Dr. ADDA3IS appeared on behalf of Mr. Craig, and said that he certainly took a very different view of this ease from that taken by the counsel for the prosecution. A case of greater oppression and iniquity, and one more unsupported by evidence, never came before the Court. It was indisputably proved that the case had arisen en tirely through the malice of the nominal promoter, a prson of the naigip . r urn Na l rel l ;7l3,l 4 , AirlisserterhaCT made himselfPrespon sible for the costs. It was not necessary to go particu larly into the character of Mr. Craig, especially as a great deal of diligence had been used to exclude many docu ments from the cause to which, if the Bishop of Win chester had been the prosecutor, he should have expected Um to direct his counsel to offer no formal objection. It was not to be supposed that his Lordship had invited Hr. Craig to become the minister of Burley church with. out being well acquainted with his character; but a letter written by his Lordship to Mr. Craig in 1839, inviting him to accept the living, placed the matter beyond all doubt, and in March of that year he was duly put in possession of that piece of preferment. Ile had not, however, been very long in the parish before, by some means. which were not very apparent, he provoked the hostility of Mr. Farnall. It was perfectly ludicrous, in the face of the evidence, to suggest that Mr. Farnall had not been accused by the bitterest malice in the whole proceeding. Mr. Edwards, a wit ness to whom Mr. Farnall could not object, inasmuch as he was produced to prove the absence of malice, showed that all that Mr. Farnall wanted was to see the gown of Mr. Craig stripped off his shoulders. That there was any cause for Mr. Farnall's hostility to Mr. Craig at that time, arising from irregularity in the performance of his duties, was negatived by the evidence of Mr. Ed wards. Early in 1840 a resolution was passed by the committee of the school, nearly all of whom were rela tives of Mr. Farnall, disapproving of Mr. Craig's ma nagement of it, and a copy of it was sent to him, under seal, through the master. Notwithstanding Mr. Far nail's anxiety to depose Mr. Craig, that gentleman would have maintained his ground, but for some such proceedings as these now instituted against him. There was a document dated 1843, proving that Mr. Craig made every endeavour to promote a better feeling be tween Mr. Farnall and himself. Not only, however, had Mr. Craig's conduct been arraigned with regard to several young women, but he had been charge with irregularity in the discharge of his official duties during the whole time that he had been in the parish. It might have been expected that the latter charges would be supported by something like credible evidence. Those charges, it must be remembered, had been brought for ward before a breath of calumny had been whispered against Mr. Craig. The person called to prove the non attendance at the church, and the numbers frequenting the Dissenting chapel was a labourer, and had married one of Mr. Farnall's servants. Some of the witnesses had ur e s ba , et attendance broughtmatter they t afes t h raw e seating chapel w as b u il t i n 1841, but tl e pleadedridthenactethsheoDwiesd that it was only rebuilt in that year—its first erection took place half a century ago, and the Dissenters never had a school-room before 1845—prior to which they hadtaughtm r. Craig'sb the een in chh children asraseetre i vr n i ew a : c r o be t u t cottage. ear rumoursperson against it sh who g et w e. h a o flo h at a e d ls before Christmas, 1844. Up to that period his character e n rtly had been irreproachable, and yet he was now represented by by White as going about Ringwood dressed like with one of his female servants on each arm. How was w' it that no other person had been adduced to substantia that charge? In December, 1844, a very wicked person, not a witness in the cause, left the service of Mr. Craig, and went to reside, not in the same cottage, but under the same roof as Mr. and Mrs. White, and in January, 1845, she was introduced to Mr. Farnall, when she made certain revelations to him of the alleged misconduct of Mr. Craig. It appeared that on the 16th of January, in that year, Mr. Farnall communicated with the Bishop, and on the 17th he had directed proceedings to be taken. It was impossible not to suppose that there had been a previous communica tion. Every effort had been made by Mr. Craig, to ob tain a copy of the letter written to the Bishop with a view of ascertaining the charges contained in it, but with out effect. Those attempts had been uniformly defeated and he (Dr. Addare must say that it was a matter of hardship: beyond s) expression to Mr. Craig. There was another letter on the eoth of January, and on the 4th of February, 1845, aform-al application was made for a simary com mission. Th at was vengeance, and if that course were f o ll owed pthe Church Discipline Act would pro ve a great nuisance. towards T he hisf charge em a a l e g a s i against r s r t a ll , n l t r s . Craig of i n d ecent conduct was attempted to be supported by a witness unworthy of credit; while th ere was the testimony of the other servants that they h a d never observed anything of the kind. It was said that the servants of M r . C ra i g were co m ul r. could only afford enteringto p h ay is low all young, but that arose from Thehis limited m statea hes to s b ed had either means,ents not been g i ven Craig low to Arr. Farnall before the 4th of February, fur nished to him, he did not believe one word of . ' o it e r ie j e f ew it would have constituted the principal charge i n the first instance. Between the 16 th of January and the f ormal application for the issue of the commission, Mrs. Crai g , un known to her husband , had written to the Bish o p, begging him, if possible, to put a stop to these proceedings, and in his reply , his Lo rdshi p , after stating that it was advisable on Mr. Craig's account that the investi gation should take place, added that no one would re joice more than himself in Mr. Craig's vindication. Certainly, no one could suppose after that letter that there would be any obstacle on the part of the Bishop IfiE SUN, • of Winchester in giving Mr. Craig the fullest oppor • - tunity to vinnicate himself from the cherges made against him. But, notwithstanding the application for the commission was made as early as the 4th of Fe bruary, it did not issue till the 25th of March, and the examination before the commissioners did not take place till the 24th of April, although Mr. Craig desired to have the case investigated at the earliest pos sible period. When the commission issued, the principal commissioner named in it declined to act, and the Rev. Mr. Young, a magistrate, who frequently acted with Mr. Farnall in that capacity, occupied his place. Mr. Young stated that he would not he bound by the strict rules of evidence, that nothing should be permitted on the one side which was not allowed on the other, but in the course of the proceedings that rule had been departed from, adversely to the interests of Mr. Craig. In his (Dr. Addams') opinion the commission had been con ducted in the most partial way, and Mr. Craig had had anything but fair play before the commissioners There could not be a better instance of the extreme bad working of the Church Discipline Act than this case, and of the necessity, in the event of a new Act being passed, of some reference being made by the Legislature as to the mode in which these inquiries should take place. Mr. Craig had been corn pletely victimised, and the hopes and fears of the parties were, that, provided a report could be procured, which should recommend further proceedings, then the terror, the expense, the exposure, and the difficulty which would surround Mr. Craig would, in all proba , bility, effectually prevent him from defending himself, and induce a submission, so that his enemies might gain their end. The report of the commissioners reeom mending further proceedings was made on the 15th of May, but the letters of request, forming the basis of the present proceedings, did not issue until November, and then Mr. Craig, certainly most unwisely and injudi ciously, attempted to avoid the service of the cita tion. Articles were then given in, and it might have been supposed that some pains would be taken in their concoction. But what was the fact ? Mr. Craig was charged with the " habit" of visiting the room of his female servants after they had retired to bed, but there was only one instance attempted to be proved, and that by a witness perjured up to her teeth, but who stated that no act of adultery had then taken place. There was nothing criminal in the charge with re gard to kissing Ann Smith, but he denied that her evidence could be relied upon; in some circumstances that she had stated she was directly contradicted by other witnesses. The testimony of White as to the act of adultery alleged to be committed in Ridley Wood was so completely jelo de se that he (Dr. Addams) would not trouble himself to refer to the evidence by which the alibi was clearly established. According to White's own ac count he was, at the time ho witnessed the transaction, engaged in an act of felony, for which he was liable to be imprisoned and whipped. That was the respectable witness to prove a fact against a clergyman of the high character of Mr. Craig. White called himself a church man, and said that he continued to attend the church at Burley until this matter broke out. His conscience, then, would not allow him to sit any longer under the ministry of Mr. Craig. His conscience was of a very different description to that of Miss Ann Smith, who affirmed that in the whole course of her life she had never heard anything against the character of Mr. Craig, but who nevertheless was so outrageously modest that because, as she alleged, Mr. Craig was guilty of the enormity of attempting to kiss her she would never go to the church again, because it would remind her of what Mr. Craig had done. White stated that he had kept the occurrence in Ridley Wood secret for a period of nine months, notwithstanding the rumours re specting Mr. Craig were the gossip of the place during that time. White knew that nothing would gratify his master, Mr. Farnall, more than his ability to assist him in this prosecution ; and, although he was in con versation with him de die in diem, yet he never opened his lips about it until his examination under the commis sion at Ibsley. Jane Shelley had been examined and cross-examined ; it was admitted that she had given her evidence with great modesty and propriety, and she utterly denied the conduct imputed to her and Mr. Craig. Shelley had made use of a rude remark to Mrs. Craig ; Mr. Craig was apprised of it, and what did he do? He instantly dismissed her from his service. Had there been the least truth in the charge now made, dare he have done so ? It had been said that Jane Shelley domineered over Mrs. Craig, that Mrs. Craig was seen crying for hours together ; but the whole tenor of the evidence proved that Mr. and Mrs. Craig lived together with the utmost harmony and affection. There was not a single report against Mr. Craig which might not be traced up to a girl of deplorable wickedness named Sim, who had been seduced, not by Mr. Craig, but by some one while living in his service. If no witnesses had been examined on behalf of Mr. Craig, if that gentleman had given in no allegation, there would have been a total and entire failure of the case, and he ought not to have been subjected to a prose cution on such articles as those exhibited against him. Some of the parties who had invented stories respecting Mr. Craig had, when brought to a better state of mind, retracted them. It could not be said that Mr. Craig had bribed them, for it was well known that he had not the means of doing it. Influence and station were on the side of Mr. Farnall, not of Mr. Craig. Various insinua tions were thrown out in the interrogatories addressed to the witnesses examined by Mr. Craig, but they were every one negatived. With the exception of Sim, Mr. Craig had produced every servant who had lived in his house, and they had all negatived the charges made. One female only had left the house of Mr. Craig enceinte, but that gentleman was not the reputed father of the child. But what, however, was the state of Mr. Farnall's household? Several of the servants had left it in that condition. He entirely exonerated Mr. Farnall per ea_ ....taeaee proved that a fpovaan thy retained in Mr. Farnall's house. It was said, however, that he was the servant of Miss Elliott, a relative of Mr. Farnall's, who resided with him and took the head of the table. It was true that Mr. Craig had written a letter to Miss Angus, in which he had employed strong language; but Mr. Craig was described as au eccentric man; he had expressed himself with warmth and fervour; the letter was utterly incon sistent with guilt, and was penned when he was goaded almost to madness by the attack which had been made on his character. lie (Dr. Addams) was perfectly satis fied that there was not a tittle of proof of the charges contained in the articles, which had been most improperly framed. It was a prosecution to which the Bishop of Winchester had been misled to give his countenance, and the inevitable consequence must be that Mr. Craig must be dismissed from the suit with his full costs. Dr. R. PHILLIMORE was heard on the same side, and 'n the course of hi s comments on the commission held at Ibsley,_ The Learned JUDGE took the opportunity of express ing his strong disapprobation of the preliminary inquiries held under the Church Discipline Act. Dr. HAGGARD, in reply, said that it was not at all a matter of surprise that observations should be made on the gentlemen who conducted the commission at Ibsley. The very fact, hoWever, of their appointment gave then) a favourable standing before the Court, and it was im possible to say that they had not conducted the inquiry to tie best of their ability, with the utmost attention to Mr. Craig, and with the strictest impartiality. He ad mitted that Mr. Farnall had been a contributor to the erection of the Dissenting chapel at Burley, but it was only to the extent of St., which sum was given either out of respect to the minister of the chapel, or to prove his goodwill to his fellow parishioners, but himself, family, and domestics, had always attended the church until the matters which were now the subject of inquiry had been brought conclusively before him. He con tended that the evidence disclosed facts which fully en titled the promoter of the suit to plead Mr. Craig's " habit " of frequenting his servants' bedroom. There was nothing, he maintained, to discredit Ann Smith's testimony as to the kissing. The transaction in Ridley Wood must stand upon the testimony of White, and he (Dr. Haggard) submitted that the witness was fully entitled to belief. Mr. Farnall had been charged with being actuated by malicious motives, but the fact was these matters had been forced on his attention by parties repairing to him with their complaints, and he was bound to take notice of them. Dr. JENNER having also been heard in reply, The Learned JUDGE said he must take time to con sider the case. It was much too important to dispose of without very great consideration of the evidence ad duced both on the one side and on the other. It was not the mere question of the guilt or innocence of Mr. Craig, but it was a matter of great moment to the in terests of the whole of the parishioners. ZE INTELLIGENCE. OXFORD ClRCUlT.—Worcester, July 17. CIVIL SlDE.—(Before Mr. Justice ERLE and Common Jurier.) WILLIAMS V. GRAVATT. Mr. Whateley and Mr. SeHe appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. Alexander and Mr. Whitmore for the defendant. This was an action of debt to recover 660/, for services rendered by the plaintiff, as sub-engineer of the Wor cester and Leominster Railway, to the defendant, as engineer of that line. In 1845 the defendant was the engineer of a great many railways in this neighbour bourhood, and when he was appointed engineer of the above line, mentioned to one of the directors of the company that he wanted assistance. That gentleman said he thought the plaintiff would suit him (the de fendant). The plaintiff was thereupon engaged by the defendant to survey the line, and he did so, and all the lines to which the defendant was engineer in this neigh bonrhood. This was the only one t h e survey of which was completed in time for the deposit of the Parliamen tary plans on the 30th of November. Some difference having arisen between the defendant and the directors, the plaintiff sent in his bill to the directors ; but their answer being that he was not employed by them but by the defendant, he then applied to the defendant. The latter was annoyed that the plaintiff had not applied to him in the first instance. He did not pay the plaintiff, and thereupon the action was brought. It was proved that the defendant received from the company 1,5001. for the survey of the line. For the defendant it was contended that he employed the plaintiff merely for the company, and that the plain tiff himselfis bill h o t u o g t h h t so co m w p a a s n c y l e i a n r t hfreo first s the i n f s a t c a t n that e. he A number sent i n of letters that had passed between the parties were also put in to corroborate this view. Mr. WHATELEY having replied, His LORDSHIP summed up, and the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for the full amount claimed. ASSI BOWLEY AND . OTHERS v. WHITFIELLD AND OTHERS. Mr. Godson and Mr. Keating were for tho plaintiffs; and Mr. Sergeant Allen and Mr. Phipson for the de fendants. This case occupied the Court for the greater part of the day. It was an interpleader issue between the as signees of a bankrupt and execution creditors as to whether the latter had received notice of the bankruptcy prior to the levy. Witnesses were called on both sides, a nd the upshot of all was a verdict for the plaintiffs, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, JULY 20, 1847. The business in this court was over at seven o'clock. CROWN COURT.—(Before Mr. Justice COLERIDGE.) David Roberts was indicted for burglary on the 20th of May last in this city. Mr. Greaves and Mr. Gray were for the prosecution; and Mr. Cooke for the defence. The prisoner is a young man of nineteen, and at the time of the burglary was footman in the service of the prosecutor, a Mr. Manta, an elderly gentleman, who re ,ided in a place called " the Commandery," in this city, his household consisting of his wife and daughter, two servant•women, and the prisoner. The house is large, having a long hall running from one end to the other, with a door at one end leading into the garden, and at the other, to the carriageway. The drawing room and kitchen were on opposite sides of the hall passage. On the morning of the robbery the cook got up about five o'clock, and was surprised to find the doors it both ends of the hall open, and secured so with mats, her master's pocketbook a few yards outside the door leading into the garden, and two silver candlesticks, which had been left in the drawing-room over night, a little further out. She looked up to her master's window and found it, too, open. She, thereupon, ran to the pri soner's door, and knocked him up. He was ten minutes in dressing, and when he was dressed he went to his master's door and knocked at it, and tuld his master that the house had been robbed, who thereupon looked particularly at everything about him, and found hat tho window had been opened, and also the door of his bedroom, and that his purse, containing notes, gold, and silver, to the extent of 901., had been taken. He thereupon expressed his surprise how such a thing should have been done, when the prisoner explained to bins how easily a person on the outside might have brought a ladder to the window (it was on the first floor), and with a common dinner knife ,pen it, and pointed out the marks of a ladder on the gravel below. The cook found, about the same time, a dinner knife, that had been placed in a drawer in the kitchen on the previous night, lying on the dresser in the kitchen; and it was afterwards discovered that the lad der used by the burglar was the prosecutor's own. This ladder lay in an outhouse near the door leading from the hall to the garden; and the premises were so constructed that if a stranger had used the ladder he must have taken it round the house through the street, and then taken it o,.ek again by the same direction ; whereas an inmate ,aisild with ease, and without observation, carry it in by one end of the hall and out by the other. The prisoner was not at *55 suspected; but he almost imme diately affected to be indignant at suspicions which he said his master entertained of him, and on this ground left the prosecutor's service in less than a week. In a very short time he was found to be spending money at a most extravagant rate, changing 51. notes in every direction, and spending half-sovereigns as if they were coppers. Ho was then taken up, and five 51. notes were found on him, and another was traced to him. None of the money traced to him was identified as the prosecutor's; but it so happened that the notes lost by the prosecutor were all Bank of England notes except one of the old Worcester bank, and another of Farley's bank, and the sovereigns lost by him were all old Victorias, whilst one of the notes traced to him was of Farley's bank, and all the others were Bank of England notes, and all the gold coins traced to him were old Victorias. It further appeared that the prisoner had ample opportunities of knowing where his master left his money at night. The prisoner had borne an excellent character for honesty. Mr. CooKE, in addressing the jury for the prisoner, contended that everything connected with the burglary indicated the conduct of an experienced thief, and not that of a mere innocent country lad, and submitted that he was not called on to explain how the prisoner came by the money with which he was found dealing till a clear and otherwise unanswerable case was made out, and that on the whole the prisoner was entitled to an acquittal. His LORDSHIP summed up. Verdict—Guilty. Sentence—Ten years' transportation. This was the last case in this court; it occupied several hours, there having been 33 witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, and was over about five o'clock. Mr. Sergeant Allen assisted yesterday, and also this morning in trying criminal cases, and Mr. Alexander did so to .day. POLICE INTELLIGENCE. MANSION-HOUSE. A boy, not 14 years of age, named Win. Barber, who is employed by Mr. Lee, of Leadenhall- market, was charged before Sir J. Pixie, by Mr. Thomas, the Se cretary to the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, with ill-treatiag two cats. The prosecution was instituted at the suggestion of Mr. Cook, the Common Councilman for the district in which the market is situated. The boy was seen, at an early hour in the morning, amusing himself with dragging a cat along, which ap peared to suffer greatly from such rough treatment. Expostulation, instead of abating the cruelty of the pri• soner ' provoked him to more fierce, violence, and he not only lifted up and dashed the poor animal upon the pavement, but leaped upon it and appeared to enjoy its last agonies. Soon afterwards the brutal young fellow was seen worrying another cat, to finish whose existence he had whistled for the help of a dog. The case was considered to be peculiarly worthy of the attention of the society, on account of the extraordi nary brutality of a boy of such tender years. Sir JOHN PIRIE expressed surprise at the statement, and asked whether the defendant was under any parental authority. The defendant's father stood forward and expressed des r !: arAf t t_ the misconduct 11C.T.4e, L h'is iul master, na to the penalty of suspension for three weeks. Sir J. Pine said, the notice which Mr. Lee had taken of the offence was very creditable to that gentleman ; but it was also the duty of the magistrate to prevent re petitions of such brutal conduct as far as was consistent with his functions. The sentence, therefore, upon the boy was, that he should pay a penalty of 21. 103. and costs, or go to Bridewell for seven days. The father of the defendant said, it was out of his power to pay the fine. Mr. Lee had already suspended the boy, but had promised to take him back at the end of three weeks in consequence of his previous most ex cellent conduct. Sir J. Pulse could not in such a case reduee the amount of the penalty. and the defendant was committed. WOR 311.1 P-8 TR EE T. A young man named Henry Bolingbroke was charged with a desperate attempt at self-destruction. Mary Anne Pryme stated, that she and the prisoner had lived together as man and wife for a considerable time past, and that latterly the prisoner had been re duced to a state of extreme distress and mental depres sion in consequence of his inability to procure employ ment. Witness had occasion to leave home on the pre ceding evening, and on her return at a late hour at night she was horrified at finding the prisoner stretched upon the bed iu a state of stupor, and bleeding profusely from a frightful wound in the upper part of the left arm, evidently inflicted with a razor which was lying open at his side. Nearly a quart of blood had poured down upon the floor and became partially coagulated under the bedstead , and there was al mos t an equa l i a t t w he, the di v i s i onal surgeon, who two p o licemen and procured th e l uantity in a basin on a table by the s id e o f t h e b e d. Sh e i m mediately alarmed the oth er i nmates o f the attendance house, who o dressed the wound and applied proper re s t ora ti ves , an d the prisoner, for his own security, was con ve y e d t o th e s t a ti on -house. c f a I 1 e Mr. d Mather, Police- constable Watts, 115 G, stated that upon being called in and interrogating the prisoner as to his motives for the commission of the act, h e sullenly evaded the question, and pointed to the wall, on which the initials of the preceding witness were distinctly traced in blood, and followed by the words, " You are the cause of this." When called upon for his defence, however, the pri soner, who displayed the deepest despondency, said that ho had been reduced to the greatest destitution from want of employment, and that that was the immediate cause of his attempting his life, but that other circum. stances, which he declined mentioning, had also combined to render him weary of existence. Mr. BnouGsToN said, it would be manifestly unsafe to entrust the prisoner with his liberty in the frame of mind he then exhibited, and he should therefore remand him and direct his immediate admission into the infir mary of the prison, where his mental and physical state would be properly attended to, and that in the course of a week, when thoroughly recovered, he could be brought up again, and he would then consider what should be done with him. The prisoner offered no observation, and was removed in the van. Ellen Moriarty, alias Macarthy, who stood charged upon suspicion of having caused the death of her land lady, a middle aged woman named Catherine Lawson, i n Henrietta-street, City-road, was brought up for final ex amination. No additional evidence calulated to throw light upon the means by which the deceased came by her death was now adduced than that brought forward before the co roner and at the nrevious examination at this court, and the prisoner having declared that she had neither offered any violence to the woman Lawson nor taken any of her money, as alleged by some of the witnesses, and that the reason of her getting out of the cab before it reached the deceased's door, and subsequently denying that she had ever been in the cab at all, was entirely the fright and confusion she laboured under at finding herself suddenly in the presence of the corpse of a woman she had just before spoken to. Mr. BROUGHTON said, that although the circum. stances were undoubtedly suspicious, and had been in some degree strengthened by the p risoner's own dubious conduct, he did not feel himself justified in sending her for trial on so serious a charge upon the insufficient evidence which had been ad duced, and he should therefore discharge her, as it was improbable that any jury would convict; but he would warn her to be careful of her future conduct, as it had been stated that she had been before convicted, though of minor offences. CLERICENWELL. James Wilson, a young man, was finally. examined, charged by C at h er i ne Trussoll, aged 23, with having committed a rape. Mr. W alceling, of St. John's - square, attended fo r th e prosecution; . and Mr. Lofty, of the firm of Lofty, Potter, and Son, of King-street, Cheapside, for the prisoner. The prosecutrix, a fine young woman, deposed that she is niece of Mrs. Howe, of the Nag's Head, Gray's Inn-lane, w i th whom she lived. The prisoner lodged there, and m i xed with them as one of the family. On Thursday night, w hil st she was i n hi s bedroom, he came up stairs to bed, and began to undress, say i ng he did not mind her. Sh e was about to leave, when be threw her on his bed and effected his purpose. As soon as she went down stairs sh e i n f orme d h er a .int and her cousin, and the prisoner was turned out of the house, and a warrant PM applied for. The aunt and cousin in part confirmed her testimony. The prisoner was committed for trial. THE GUN COTTON EXPLOSION. The explosion of a gun cotton mill at Faversham has proved even more disastrous than was at first stated. So loud was the explosion that the noise was heard within two miles of Maidstone, a distance of seventeem miles. The sound resembled thunder heard at a great distance.l The houses within the circumference of a mile were all more or less affected, as if by the shock of an earth quake. As the day was beautifully clear large volumes of smoke which followed the explosion were seen at a distance of several miles. One gentleman travelling on the Dover-road perceived the smoke upwards of ten miles from Faversham. Mr. Topping, the superinten dent of the works, who had entered the premises only a few seconds before, and who is one of the victims, was a practical chemist, of considerable ability, from Lon don. The escape of Faversham from injury is sur prising. Within a distance of thirty yards of the spot where the explosion occurred, there are premises containing no fewer than 136 barrels of gunpowder. These premises were saved by means of high mounds of earth which separated them from the mill in which the explosion took place. One of these enormous mounds is said to have been moved from its place by the terrible force of the explosion. One boy escaped with his life under very extraordinary circumstances. He was dug out of the ruins after being buried in them upwards of two hours. He lay between two other boys, both of whom were quite dead. A large piece of timber pre vented the ruinous mass from pressing on him, as it had done on the others, with fatal effect. The entire number of persons who have suffered is supposed to be thirty-four; of these, twenty-one have already died. Their funeral, or rather the interment of the fragments of their bodies that remained, took place on Saturday, on which occa sion the town presented a scene of distress difficult to describe. Of the twenty-one dead, the remains of ten only have been identified, owing to the dreadfully mangled state of their bodies. Of the sixteen still living, several are not expected to recover. Awfully destruc tive of human life as the accident has been, it might, and but for a providential circumstance would, have proved more so. It fortunately happened that a consi derable number of those usually employed in the works were at the time the catastrophe occurred engaged in haymaking. The immediate cause of the accident still remains, and most probably ever will remain, a mystery. At the Coroner's inquest, held on Friday last, on the bodies of the sufferers, nothing that could be relied on as to the cause of the catastrophe was elicited. Four witnesses were examined, among them Mr. Hall, one of the proprietors of the works, but neither of them could give evidence throwing any light on the cause of the mischief. Mr. Hall stated that the house in Faversham was Con nected with the German inventor of the gun-cotton, and that they had been manufacturing the article on a much larger scale than had ever been before thought of in this country. Mr. H. Davy said, I reside in Ospringe-road, in the parish of Faversham, and am superintendent of the gun cotton manufactory at the Marsh works. I have been five weeks in Messrs. Hall's employ, and came down here expressly to superintend these works, with the management of which I am acquainted. Mr. Henry Topping was the resident engineer and chief superin. tendent. On Wednesday morning last I was in the stove, a drying room, with Mr. Hall, during the work ing hours. I went in at six o'clock and remained till breakfast time, at eight o'clock. I was away about half an hour and then returned, and remained in the works and about the building until within a minute of the accident occurring. I wanted to see Mr. William Hall, and went to find him, and met him within a half minute's walk of the buildings. I had only exchanged two or three words with him, when I felt a concussion of the air, which appeared to strike me in the back. I in stantly found myself covered with dust, and heard an explosion immediately afterwards. It did not appear to me very loud; it was more of a rumbling noise than an explosion. The materials of the buildings flew about in all directions after the explosion. As soon as I con sidered it safe to move I ran after Mr. Hall, who had left me, and we then returned together to the stoves. I found the premises in ruins. All the labourers who could be procured were immediately set to work to get out the workpeople buried in No. 3, and in rendering assistance generally. Several of the bodies were taken up a dve, and carried away. It was part of my duty see that the orders (of Mr. Topping and Messrs. Hall were carried into effect. To the best of my knowledge they always were so. The factory was conducted in such a way, that I always con sidered myself, as well as the persons employed therein, perfectly safe. Mr. William Hall had ordered the stoves to be kept at a certain degree of heat, No. 3 never to be more than 120, and No. 4, 110. To the best of my knowledge these orders were always adhered to. I consider that degree of heat perfectly safe, and that a much higher degree of heat might be used without danger. I cannot account in any way for the explosion. There appeared to be two explosions, or rather a con tinuation of one ; the two were so close I could hardly distinguish them separately. After the accident, Mr. Hall, individually and by giving directions,.used every exertion to relieve the sufferers and get them from the ruins. Every precaution was always taken for the safety of the work-people while employed in the tae torees, even though it was considered there was no danger beyond that ordinarily attending the manufacture of gunpowder. CORONER—Did you hear Mr. Topping say, on Satur day last, that if the prevailing hot weather continued he feared some accident would happen ? Witness—l did not hear him aay anything of the kind. Examination continued—Robert Cheesman was fire __a saidehe-e „ e a". sne hour pre ceding the explosion. He is seriously injured, and un able to attend here to-duty. I examined the state of the o si t o h n e . r, T in h N e o o n . e 3 i , n ra N ng o e . d 4 b m et a w r e k e e n d 1 1 ( 1 18 9 anddrele2sl3 thermometer about ten min u te s p rev i ous to t h e explo tt Even heatn in t c h o e u ld event not h of av a e la in rg er e e r a t s i e r d e htottss'daen;cirretehse. greato been a made degreeu in the interval as to have caused an explosion. The ther mometers were always regulated by the heat of the fires, and not by the state of the atmosphere. Mr. HINDE, the coroner, finding that neither of the witnesses could give any evidence immediately bearing on the cause of the catastrophe, adjourned the inquest for a month, in the hope that some of the fourteen still surviving sufferers may be so far recovered as to be able to lay before the jury more definite information re girding the circumstances under which the catastrophe took place. The following has been given as a correct list of the deceased parties whose remains have been identified : H. Topping, J. Tilley, J. Hammond, A. Wyles, J. Petty, R. Knowler, E. Irish, Mercy Clark, Sarah Hinds, G. Ransom. The following aro also known to have been at work in No. 4 stove when the explosion took place, and are, therefore, returned as dead, though only fragments of the bodies of uny of these have been dis covere:l:—J. Redman, Mary Cheeseman, Anne Stringe, H. Irish, Catharine Hall, J. Coppin, J. Rose, G. Mar mou rh, H. tlourn, W. Coppin, 11. Amos. The following have been more or less seriously injured by the explo sion, and are now lying under medical treatment in Faversham and the neighbourhood:—R. Cheesman, T. Smith, W. Smith, G. Wraight, J. Vidion, J. Kempsall, J. Chambers, J. M`Kewen, H. Alliott, T. Stringer, 11. Sparkes, R. Cullen, J. Deane, W. Rogers, T. Woolley, Mary INPliewen. In addition to the numerous deaths caused by the explosion, another death took place under very peculiar circumstances. A young man who had been employed in the neighbourhood having gone to assist in extricating the sufferers, and digging the dead out of the mass of ruins, suddenly felt himself taken ill in consequence of the inhalation of the noxious atmosphere caused by the explosion. He went and represented to a medical gen tleman in Faversham how ill he felt, and the medical gentleman told him to walk about for an hour or two in the open air, adding that it he did not feel better then, he must call on him and he would prescribe some midi - eine for him. In the course of three hours the unfor tunate man died. An inquest was held on the body, when the medical gentleman referred to g ave i t as his decided opinion that he had died from the effects of in haling the noxious air. The jury returned a verdict accordingly. BUILDINGS IN ALSIERS.—The extent to which building is going on in Algiers, is scarcely understood in England. This country is associated in our minds with little but barbarism, Christian slaves, and bombard ments ; and we are scarcely prepared to hear of a cathe dral, churches (some for Protestants) abbattuirs, schools, covered markets, banks, custom. houses, &c., on which many thousands of pounds sterling have been expended by the French. Yet such is the case, and the erection of private houses keep pace with the constant increase of the population. In the mixed or Arabian districts of the three provinces no less than 842 private houses have been built, the value of which has been estimated at 176,0001. ; besides 38 industrial establishments, esti mated at nearly 9,000/. more.—The Builder. EFFECTS OF FACTORY LEGISLATION.---The hands at one of the mills belonging to Messrs. Taylor, Wigan, are still out, in consequence of the Factory Act coming into operation on the first of July, and compelling a re duction in time, and of course also in wages. It is not true, as stated in some of the papers, and currently rumoured amongst the public, that Messrs. Taylor were offering a reduction of 25 per cent. upon the wages re cently paid ; the proposed diminution being only in proportion to the reduction in the hours of labour. At one of the mills (that in Church-street) belonging to the above firm, the hands have continued to work with out a murmur under the new regulation. At the large mill, where the " turn out" commenced, they resumed work on Monday morning ; but, at the small mill, in Wallgate, the engine and machinery are still idle. Pre vious to the act coming into force, Messrs. Taylor's mills were all in full operation. Mr. Henry Whittaker's mill was idle last week from the same cause.—Leeds Mercury. It will be recollected that Dr. Arnold Mendols sohn, advocate, at Berlin, some time ago assisted M. Oppenheim in abstracting, under peculiar circumstances, the casket of the Baroness de Meyendorff. For this M. 1 Oppenheim was brought to trial, before the Court of Assizes of Cologne, but Dr. Mendolssohn contrived to make his escape, and, notwithstanding all the exertions of the police, nothing was heard of him until a few days ago, when he voluntarily presented himself to the judi cial authorities of Dusseldorff, and constituted himself prisoner. He has since been examined three times, and will, it is said, be shortly brought to trial before the Assize Court of Cologne. LEICESTER TRADE.---There are further indications of an improved state of things. So far as the arrange ments for the autumn are concerned, we hear there is every hope of a fair business being done at the opening of the season. Prices are firm, and there is now more employment.—Leicestershire Mercury, Dispatches were sent off _yesterday evening from the Colonial Office, for the Governor-General of Canada, and also f or th e G overnors o f t h e o th er N or th American 1 FrOIiIICON. PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT. Rumours were very rife about the Houses of Parliament last evening that Parliament wculd not be prorogued till this day week, in consequence of the evident intention of Ministers to pass the Bishopric of Manahester Bill in the present session. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, July 19. The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Wool sack at Five o'clock. Lord BEAUNIONT presented 100 petitions against the Government plan of education from several places. MESSAGE FROM THE COMMONS. A Messenger from the Commons brought up several Bills, which were read a first time, and ordered to be. printed. The Duke of RICHMOND presented petitions from Ncrwich, praying for the alteration of the law of settlement. The NOBLE DUKE also presented a petition from Sussex, praying for the repeal of the malt-tax. IRISH DISTRESS. Earl GREY presented a dispatch from the Governor- General of Canada, stating that the sum subscribed in the North American colonies, for the distressed Irish, amounted to no less a sum than 33,0001. BUSINESS OF THE SESSION. Lord BROUGHAM - gave notice of his intention to morrow to move an address to the Crown upon the sub. ject of the business of the session. LEITH HARBOUR BILL. Lord CAMPBELL moved the third reading of the Leith Harbour Bill, and explained its provisions at con siderable length. He said the object of the Bill was to empower the commissioners of the harbour to expend the surplus of their capital on improving the harbour, and to raise, if necessary, 125,000/. by loan, for the same purpose. He, however, had no objtction to strike out the clause empowering the commissioners to create additional capital to this amount, as he believed the Noble Lord opposite (Lord Redesdale) objected to the Bill on account of that clause. He could not, however, consent to the re committal of the Bill. Lord REDESDALE said he was perfectly justified in characterising the Bill as a "job." Why there never was an instance of a Minister of the Crown proceeding with a Bill to its third reading, and then consenting, for the purpose of neutralising opposition, to withdraw the leading clause. The Commissioners sought power to raise far more money than they themselves admitted they required. He moved that the Bill be read a third time this day three months. Lord BROUGHAM said it was a stupid, jobbing Bill; he admitted. however, that he had not read it. Lord CAMPBELL explained, that the Bill merely *ought power to burrow 125,0001; but the commissioners could not borrow it without the consent of the Commis sioners of the Treasury, which was to be repaid with inte rest. In fact, the commissioners might raise the money without this Bill. The Duke of RICHMOND also characterised the Bill as a " job." The commissioners ought to have paid their surplus funds into the Exchequer, but they had ❑ot been called upon to do so, because the Lord Advocate was the Member for Leith. Earl GREY considered that the aspersions which had been cast upon those who supported the Bill, were not creditable to the House—(Hear, hear)—and he believed that the " vagaries" of the Noble and Learned Lord, who admitted that he had not read a line of the Bill, and who treated of general matters instead of the subject be fore the House, did much to bring the proceedings of that House into contempt with the country.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) But the Bill was brought in by the late Go vernment, and the then Lord Advocate was not the Member for Leith, but a gentleman strongly opposed to it on political, as well as other grounds. The reason the money had not been paid into the Treasury, was because there was a dispute on the matter between the Treasury and the commissioners. The reason his Noble and Learned Friend had consented to withdraw the money clause, was because the commissioners had the power without it, and because the drawer of the Bill had thought that they could not do so without it. He trusted their Lordships would not reject the Bill on the grounds stated against it. The work was one of an important and of a public character. Earl ST. GERMANS opposed the Bill. After a short discussion, their Lordships divided, when there appeared— For the third reading 26 Against it 2O Majority for the third reading —6 The House then divided on an amendment of Lord Redesdale. to the effect that the debt of the Commis sioners to the Treasury of 228,3741. 9s. Bd., be taken at the above amount on Whit-Sunday, 1852, instead of Whit-Sunday of the present year, when the numbers were— For the amendment Against it Majority for the amendment —s After some verbal amendments, the Bill was read a third time and passed. PUBLIC WORKS AND DRAINAGE (IRELAND' BILL. ' The Marquis of LANSDOWNE moved the third reading of this Bill. After a few observations from the Earl of ROSSE, The Bill was read a third time and passed. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE laid on the table of the House various returns. MAYNOOTH COLLEGE. The Earl of REDESDALE wished to know when the report of the the House ? The Marquis of LANSDOWNE thought it highly desirable that the public should be made acquainted wi h the management of the college; but the visitation had only taken place on the 20th of June, and six weeks must at least elapse ere the report could be ready for delivery. THE HERRING FISHERIES (SCOTLAND) BILL. This Bill went through Committee after a short dis cussion. NEW ZEALAND (No. 2) BILL, On the motion of Earl GREY, the New Zealand (No 2) Bill went through Committee. POOR REMOVAL ACT AMENDMENT (No. 2: BILL. Lord CHURCHILL moved the second reading of this Bill. The object of the Bill was to extend the operation of the Act of last session to make the settle ment of paupers equal with the union. After some observations from the Earl of STRAD BROKE, The Earl of RE DESD ALE expressed himself strongly against the Bill, as establishing a principle highly oh jectionable ; namely, that of making the poor chargeable on the general funds of a union. He thought that a Bill ought not to pass without full discussion, and he must, therefore, object to it. The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be committed to-morrow. COMMONS' INCLOSURE BILL. This Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed. LONDON BRIDGE APPROACHES. The London-bridge Approaches (Fund) Bill was read a third time and passed. DESTITUTE PERSONS (IRELAND) BILL (No. 3.) This Bill was read a third time and passed. HIGHWAY RATES BILL. This Bill was read a third time and passed. MILITIA PAY BILL. This Bill was read a third time and passed. COPYRIGHT (C )LONIES) BILL. This Bill was read a third time and passed. CONSTABULARY FORCE (IRELAND) BILL. This Bill was read a third time and passed. The Commons amendments to the Masters in Chancery Affidavit Offices Bill were agreed to. CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL, This Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed. The other Bills on the table were forwarded a stage, and their Lordships adjourned shortly after Eight o'clock. ROUSE OF COMMONS. July 19. The SPEAK.EIt took the Chair shortly after Three o'clock, FEVER HOSPITAL. Mr. FORSTER presented a petition against the Fever Hospital Bill. RAJA OF SATTARA. Sir J. HOBHOITSE moved for a copy of some letters and other documents connected with the ex-Raja of Sattara. CHARITABLE TRUSTS BILL. Mr. S. OBRIEN was led to put a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer relative to the Charitable Trusts Bill. The Right Hon. Gentleman had on a former occasion stated that the Lord Chancellor had introduced a Bill into the House of Lords for the purpose of regulating charitable trusts, but finding there was so much opposition to the measure proceeding in the present session, that Noble and Learned Lord had thought it his duty to withdraw it. Now what he wanted to know was, whether the Right Hon. Gentleman had any objection to the Bill now being read a first time, in order that it might be printed, and its provisions considered in the interval between the disso lution of the present and the meeting of a new Par• The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that the Hon. Member had, in some respects, misunder stood what he had stated on a former occasion. The Bill had been introduced in the Lords and printed, and he had a copy of it, which was very much at the service of the Hon. Member. FACTORIES BILL. Mr. TRELAWNY wished to know from the Chan cellor of the Exchequer whether it was his intention to allow the present Parliament to separate without intro ducing a Bill to compensate properly those persons who would work twelve hours a day in factories, which they were prohibited from doing by the enactments of the Bill that had been passed in the present session.' The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER could hold out no hope to the Hon. Member of the introduction of such a Bill during the present session. LEEDS FREE GRAMMAR SCHOOL ESTATE BILL. This Bill was read a third time and passed. LORDS' AMENDMENTS. The Lords' Amendments to the following Bills were considered and agrei-d to : Edinburgh and Northern Railway, Saint Andrew's and Newburgh Harbour Branches and Road Crossings (Newport Railway Extension). Glasgow, Airdrie, and Monklands Junction Railway (Cowlairs Branch). Leeds Waterworks (No. 2), Leicester Waterworks. London and North-Western Railway (Kenilworth to B.rkswell, Branches and Extensions, &c.) Ccilietry. ASSISTANT SURGEONS IN THE NAVY. Mr. WAKLEY inquired whether it was the intention of the Admiralty to afford greater facilities to the as:, sistant surgeons on b:)ard of ship for the purpose a study than they possessed at present. Mr. WARD salt the assistant-surgeons had as many facilities for this purpose as the other professional y oun g : men on hoard ship. The Board of Admiralty were' of the same opinion, and they did not intend to make any alteration. Mr. WAKLEY said he should feel it his duty next session, when the navy estimates were before the souse, to bring the subject under its attention, and to propc'se that greater facilities should be afforded to thew for pursuinz their studies alone on board ship. BISHOPRIC OF MANCHESTER BILL. ADJOURNED DEBATE. On the motion for going into Committee, Mr. ESCOT r rose. He thank, d the Noble Lord for his courtesy in postponing the debate until to-day. to called upon those wh o w e r e oppo se d to the measure not o be daunted because they had been beaten—he calledur! l them not to shrink from giving the measure all the oeloll - in their power. As yet the members of the Govern. meat hal spoken b u t s p ar in g ly on the subject. Th e l f h-.d not argued thi s ques ti on a t all—whether the bet ° there being a surplus of money for church pro Pert ); justified the creati on o f ano th er bi s h o pric.-0 1 ° 5f ' He should like to know from the Noble Lord who rerr seated a part of Yorkshire (Lord Morpeth) what w ere. on the' the sentiments of the people of that county i d . subject. He had not spoken, but he c° 11 , 4 , tell him that not all the blood of the Hower' could cram four new Bishops down the throats of the people.—(Hear, hear.) Now, there was the; Honourable Gentleman the Member for Sh ed (Mr. Ward), he should like to know if Sheffield 11"- in favour of the Bill ?—f Mr. Ward said that his co n stituents had not said one word on the matter.] 1 " s , the Hon. Gentleman assumed that silence gave conse rv e Mr. Ward—" No, no, I have not said a word on t , matter."]—(Laughter.) Oh then " silence did not our consent !"—(Hear.) But no one more strenuously 61,1,P; ported the appropriation clause than the Hon. Gen tiof man, and was a greater advocate of the liberties and 0 the education of the people. He was at a loss to ktie on what ground he supported this Bill, when the fa w it tottered with the weight which had been placed uP °ll O already.—(Hear.) But he saw another Hon. Gentleao... —(Laughter)—the Hon. and Learned Member for Da prvon (Mr. Sheil).—(Hear, hear.) He wished to 9:04 his sentiments.—(Hear.) The Hon. Gentleman, Os been borne down this session by the encumbrance `she office as Master of the Mint.—(Hear, hear.) ri e ato was a time when his time and his ct rl the were devoted to the promotion and protection °` l ike liberties of the pe o ple.—(H ea r, h e ar.) H e shout , ' to know from him if Ireland was in favour of the (Hear, hear.) But he saw another Hon. Gentlema n be r Member of the Government—the Right Hon. Me n 3,1,0 for Edinburgh—(Hear, and laughter, caused by ',g Right Honourable Gentleman sitting fo rvll s and taking off his hat.) He came to the Rig if Honourable Gentleman, and he would ask hiu l t ba Edinburgh—if Scotland was in favour of ble creation of four new bishops. Ho had read the b b d essays of the Right Hon. Gentleman, and ha v v. read and heard the speeches he had made in of liament, but he recollected nothing in either which lot justify him in supporting this Bill. He called upon it, to state the grounds on which he supported be He would address himself to another ni ell/ be of the Government, the Attorney-Genera l k p al, wished to ask him whether it was const itu: l ° o f whether it was respectful to express the sentime nt 4. the Sovereign in the preamble of this Bill. Bu t th e wanted an argument in favour of the opposition to ab le Bill, he might refer to the Weehly Chronicle, 01 1 9 A, and intelligent journal, of which the Hon. Gent iew o the Member for Sheffield, was the proprietor. ~1 143, ,,p rir happy to tu rn f rom th e M em b ers o f the 40°- ;g ht neat, who supported the Bill, to the Tsa• Hon. Baronet, th e M em b e r f or Dorchester k ers J. Graham), who was opposed to it. But w h rt is was the Right Hon. Baronet the M e mb e r for Tanin i o (Sir R. Peel)? Why was he not in hi s place to sta te views and those of his constituents on the Bill? 6 %0 he would be better doing this than addressing naiad ho' to his constituents. He was at a loss to understani•.„, o l the Noble Lord the Member for Shropshire (P; c h Clive) could support the Bill. Certainly, under of circumstances, Earl Powis ought to be Chancell or rt , the University of Cambridge instead of Prince A luko lae He was anxious also to hear the Hon. Gentleman fo f Recorder of Loudon (Mr. Law) state his reasons self supporting the Bill. But he wished to address hiti r i also to those who aspired to be leaders of the C° ll , '" t o Party, though he mi g ht men ti on i n p a ssing tha t country did not support them.—(Hear.) whet 480• the Noble Lord the M e mb e r f or Ly nn (Lord Ll' ' r ev tinck) ?—(Hear.) He called upon him to state hill ." sons. Did the Bentinck s come f rom th e "L o w coun t! 1 for the purpose of supporting four new bishoP:l3l Was it for the purpose of creating four " Brun:o 4 4o e mitres," as the successor s of l an d, t h a t hi s ancestor c be over with William?—(Hear, h ea r.) B u t where vin s t isr . Hon. Gentleman the Member for Shrewsbury dk-sii• Disraeli)?—(Hear, hear.) He was busily engag e s voa dressing the farmers of Buckinghamshire —he o tyt riding on John Hampden's saddle through that c° 9 f oje but he wanted to know from him how his supPorl e nr.) Bill was consistent with popular principles?--arson of Would some friend of his tell him how the cre e s? four new bisho did ps was consistent with liberal prine'‘,P He would tell the House and the public why th e irsei not rise in their places and defend their votes. look ed knew that division lists were not much )0 0 0 ' at in the country.—(Hear, hear.) They g pert a clergyn e w o f bishops the that they st were not printed in country verist - lai d 1737;h t e ' h ij a ell rd:woorrkinesg e Church wuld h aaveedt° ems. he the p fore denounced the measure as unjust and u Let the House rememb er the objections that n c were a lic a rais , d against putting the Chu rc h intoeom mission , bear in mind the manner in which tho s e o bj ec tions O f ," overcome. The leaders of the popular party Oc e told by the then Government that the m,a5 11 4 was proposed by them for the benefiting of tie working ( lergy, and upon that understaudi% and through the aid of those arguments, r,,4 measure was allowed to pass. Had that underst andl is been carried out? Did this measure carry it out ? io . such thing; and again he denounced it as an act f ait h justice towards the people, and an act of breach of to towards that House.—(Hear, hear.) Suppo-e the e es ts p ot of some of the aristocra c y if the country had b 5 fo r in commission for the purpose of raising a f u f ro lag relieving the wants of the poor, and when a ro fund had been raised by that means, it v ( P ii r c idi' posed to de vo t e th em to t h e sup p o rt 0' b een tional Lord s o f th e T reasury, w h at wou ld hav e ,d said of such conduct ? Could it hay* been denonv e- 09 language too strong or too severe ? And yet t i f f i t ty o f just the case here ; and, considering that a maJ",; v ioa the whole House had never expressed any : ri d / upon this Bill, he felt it to be his duty to Per s j• e fi r eA the opposition that had been raised against i n .,t• — `,„,. 5 ,10; hear.) The Noble Lord might prorogue on - f - ri - a the He on Thursday he should not pass this He concluded,• by moving as an amendment, that other orders of the day be now read. d the Sir WILLIAM MOLES WORTH secon ded amendment. pOing Mr. AGLIONBY wished to allude to 0 4 3 de' which had been touched upon in the course of t' o tecl, bate. The Bishops of London and St. AssP if h j eg e to before the Commissioners appointed by that 0 °, 0 0! inquire into this subject, that it was highly advan t 7 an d to keep up the distinction between the ePis ee P a foci' ecclesiastical funds, because the Church w anted P op o sion for more bishops. lie thought that evidence bore o /l ot the present question, and he hoped the House WO o f Of. lose sight of it in deciding this Bill. The Bishop e ate 4 Asaph's opinion was, th a t if more bi s h o ps were °r a p they would be enabled to induce the laity to su b i t er of towards a charitable fund for increasing the ntign" poor . working clergy .—(Hear, hear.) f e nd Bishop HUME said if the spirit and feeling, e od Bishop of London were to be taken as the Vl' s ole feeling of the bishops generally, he did fear t here , 00 no hope for improving th e p oor wor ki ng c lergY ° L o h country. But if they w ere t o create t h ese ne w bisli b ' e f or to establish colonial bishops, why did t n , ef t not give St. And rew ' s , Edi n b urg h, and Gits„bbl• bishops ?—(Hear, hear.) lie regretted that the be Lord had not come down to the House stating ths' r was prepared enti re ly t o w ithd r aw, or at least to P o 'f, pone this question till the next session of Parliatoe s li be because he felt it to be his bounden duty to resist to e o last breath, and he should, therefore, strongly po t p ) against the continuance of this Bill.—(Hear, t oe He implored the Noble Lord for his own sake s " r Eof pone the Bill till another session. Then, if thefthe it necessary to press it, let them bring it, forward 1 0(1 0 beginning of the session, so that the measure W i l e 0 0 least have th e b ene fit o f a f u ll cons id er o.tion. " o a t en anxious that the opinion of the country s hould be wes o o upon this subject; moderation would be t h e better °roil° of preserving his own power, than by an arbitrary' 0 ost, of that power to p u sh a Bill th roug h -P ar liament a ces of the opinions and wishes of the people. Of the 113 n ts the clergy w ho re a lly a tt en d e d to t h e re li g ious wa it wsJ the people, few were adequately paid ; and Ye t ,„ p aid now proposed to add to th e num b er o f luxuriousv tn eit bishops—to add to those who were now thug i 0 o po' ro carriages in the midst o f a d e p resse d an d star/lil t ' pro' lation. He did on every ground protest agai ii .t; s tieg ceeding with this Bill, b ecause t h ey were now ofi: the time of the House.—("Hear, hear," from the l ev ev e tion.) It was wasting th e ti me o f t h e H o use O P t ion a greater waste. H e cons id ere d t h at t h e intro a tba• this Bill was a bre ac h o f p u bli c f a i t h, an d he tros i te vi bioh the Bill would be s en t t o jo i n so many o f the Bill s had been brought in this session.—(Laughter.) 010% Lord J. RUSSELL could no t b u t thi n k, after hearing the speech of the Hon. Member who had just aa t goo o boe $ that the present opposition arose from a misapPr ~r es en of the question. The Hon. Member seemed to t i e r e d by that the ecclesiastical measures generally intro° t li the her Majesty's Government had for their objet ie thei r crease of the resources of the hierarchy, W m/ c ure °' depressed those who had more immediately the.,, t oier souls. But he would remind th e H o nourable P‘ lOO OY that when this Commission was appoillted A r o the of the higher clergy held pl ur alities gel': The means of emolument, which did not now "ribieg g ' Commission applied its attention t o this state , c oos They applied themselves in the first place to the I n foe of the bishops, and it appeared to them that °l o e ss ° f that the bishops held many amounts for the Plot A nd eking out their salaries was a considerable abobletter they thought that by reducing the salaries of the , J the paid bishops, so as to equalise the emolumentptif‘je it different diocesans, without trenching on other t _`; e appeared to them that by this mode of equalisatleussed ; efficiency of the Church might be greatly increase o f the bi s B,o ool. and in this way tho emoluments of Durham had been reduced from 22,000/. tn, Then they thought that the number of deans arci: feo nd might be greatly reduced, and by such means -Y lO the pn amount per annum of 134,000 L, but 0vv 03 0., e , in' better tuanageineut of property, creased to 300,000/. Now, to what purpose Wa s 0 this 301 011 ° 4 j„„ this sum to be applied? It was to be (levy I