The Sun. — London, England, 1832-06-26 00:00:00

Misgivings. And what was the expressiot of . ' the public voice during the prorogation o the Parliament in the Christmas of 1830-1 ,f The loudest and most unanimous demands for a complete extinction of the nomination boroughs, for the en franchisement of the unrepresented populous towns, for the repeal of the Septennial Act, and for the Ballot. A more infamous and fraudulent charge was never therefore brought against a Cabinet than the base imputation that it was the vicious cause and wilful promoter of political agitation. Such were the extraordinary, the unparalleled difficul ties of the Government; and in this extraordi nary juncture it would be unjust and cruel not to make due allow ante for the critical and con flicting difficulties which naturally affected the opinions and conduct of the King. We cannot altogether excuse the "wavering" of his Majesty, but there is much to extenuate the mistakes into which he fell. The King may still recover his lost ground if he will boldly view the state of parties—the impossibility of Tory succession to office—and the just political requirements of his subjects. But if, alas ! he should prove blind to the times in which he lives, and to the irre sistible force of public opinion, fatal will it speedily prove to the aristocrasy ! We cannot, from policy or cowardice, withhold these plain remarks on this the political crisis of our country. We are desirous of refraining from all ungene rous or untimely strictures on the political con duct of the present Cabinet apart from the great question of Reform. Its difficulties have been enormous, and miraculously surmounted ; its future character and existence will be tested by its on-going measures in a Reformed Parliament. If it precede public opinion, by the introduction of sound and moderate, but decided and specific Reforms, great will be its power, and long its duration. If it fail to realize the public expectation, the Whigs as a party will sink to rise no more. The Tories will not long glory in their fall; their complete extinction will speedily follow, and it may be that great political changes will be forced on the country before the people are prepared for them by popularized institutions and public instruction. The plough must precede the har row, if the land is to yield a goodly product. But we repeat, that nothing can be more scan dalous, factious, or disingenuous, than for the Tories to charge their misgovernment on the Cabinet of Lord Grey. The Morning Post, in the article we allude to, twits Lord Brougham with the Augean filth of the Court of Chancery —Lord Althorp with the distresses of the na tion—and Lord Melbourne with the jeopardy of life and property in Irelend ! And the Tories, who were the real agitators, and the creators of these miserable national evils, are, forsooth, to be intrusted with the remedies and cure ! Lord Eldon, Mr. Goulburn, and Sir Robert Peel, are to be recalled to the Court of Chancery, the Exchequer and the Home Office ! These are the " business men" who are to save the nation from evils of their own creation ! Certain, how ever, it is, that when the Reform Bills are law, and dusing the recess Ministers must open their eyes a little wider. Extensive and practical measures of civil, municipal and Church Reform must be agreed to and prepared ; the national burdens and distress must be fully inves tigated and remedied, as far as possible ; the em barrassed state ofthe country must be fairly viewed and dealt with ; the patronage of every depart ment of the Government must be conferred on friends, not foes ; practical men must be called to their counsel and aid ; Ministers must fear lessly rest on the pillars of public opinion. They must become aware that the tenure of office is now distinct from that of recent times. But never was there such a foundation for an era lightened and stable Ministry. If the Cabinet realizes the public expectation, and discerns the signs of the times, it will receive a combined support of the ranks of property and intelligence, such as no Ministry has ever enjoyed. The country is grateful for the fulness of Parlia mentary Reform, and admires the integrity dis played by Lord Grey in its successful accom plishment. The people have behaved nobly and unanimously ; let the Premier not be jealous or mistrustful of them ; let him zealously consult their real interest with no fears of the conse quences ; they will be true to him. The moral influence of the Duke of Wellington is dissolved. The artificial and superficial powers of Sir Ito bert Peel are transparent and " seen through .His very looks and Silenus expression, which everybody remarks, betoken his political de spair ; and he wanders alone and dis consolate through the purlieus of the house of Commons, palpably aware that his " game is up." His personal adherents even complain of his coldness and party apathy. Can such a man rule a reformed House of Commons, who has been found out in the last unreformed assembly, even though lie should hereafter think it his po licy "to turn quite round," and outbid the present Ministry in promised Reforms ? Such a revolution of party policy is not impossible ; it is openly talked of by the Wellington and Peel partisans and hangers-on as the only tactics left to regain office, and allow them to spit their bit ter venom and malignity against the authors of the Reform Bills. The last article in the last Numbs; of Frazer's Magazine, entitled " A GrDwl at the Lords," concludes with the follow ing apposite example and indication :—" In a word, Torn, I can see nothing for the Tories but the instant and unflinching advocacy of Universal Suffrage—aye, Universal Suffrage,— suffrage for everybody, without any exception on any score whatever, except not even a thief! Thief any day before Whig." This merry-go. round of political opinion explains the mystery of the palpable coalition between Mr. Henry Hunt and the Anti-Reformers ; and we under stand that the Leeds Tories are advocating . the Ballot as a sine qua non.—Morning Chront&. In the discussion on the motion of re-com mitting the Bill for the abolition of the punish ment of death in the case of offences against pro perty, Lord Tenterden and Lord Eldon contend ed, that till an effective secondary punishment should be discovered, it was essential to the pro tection of property to retain capital punishments for offences against property. But however ef ficacious capital punishments might be in re straining men from the commission of offences against property, they can only be efficacious ii the law is really carried into execution. It might as well be said that men will be deterred from ir:.velling in stage-coaches and in steam boats because occasionally a stage-coach breaks down and a boiler bursts, as that men will re frain from stealing in the dwelling-house becaust one man in a hundred of those capitally con victed is left for execution. The Lord Chan cellor demolished the arguments of Lord , Tenterden and Eldon by a few plain filets He said : " His objection was, that the punishment had been si long denounced without being executed, that the denun ciation was inoperative on the criminal. Under existint circumstances, it must needs be an empty threat. Lki the case of sheep-stealing, for instance, and it appeared hat in 1981 elntenee liadbeen pawed on 16.2 cases, and only one was execute& I❑ the case of horse-stealing, i❑ ;he same year, 123 sentences had been passed, and not one was _ exeiuteti; and as to the stealing to the amount of five pounds in the dwelliug-house, one hundred capital sentences were recorded, and not one was executed. So that here there were 385 sentence*, and only one execution. Out of 1,108 capital sentence* for crimes against property, only 11 had been executed; so that the criminal had 99 chances out of 100 in his fa vour. For this reason, it was notorious that the denun ciation was a dead letter, and had little effect on the criminal." Lord Eldon said— " He must state to their Lordships that, according to his experience, the fear of death did very often operate to prevent the commission of those crimes against which it was directed. He remembered a particular case, that the Judges having found a great number of horses stolen, had declared that on the next Circuit they would leave every min for execution who was found guilty of that offence. He believed that between that and the next Circuit, not one horse was stolen in all England ; so that the Judges were saved by that fact, from putting into execution the denunciation they had previously made." Credat Judceas Apella ! If his Lordship had made th e acquaintance of any horse.stealer at that period, we have no doubt he could have told him a very different story. He could have told him that horse-stealing is a branch of thieving that is carried on extensively in this country, and without intermission ; that there are regular depots for the stolen horses in different parts of the country ; that there are great facilities for disposing of the stolen horses, in modes that render discovery peculiarly difficult ; that after having run in a night coach for a month or two, a fine horse is so much changed in appear ance, that the owner would hardly own it. We believe that the threat of the Judges had no more effect on this branch of thieving than the broom of Dame Partington had on the Atlantic Ocean. But even allowing that it had, this supposes the belief of the thieves that the law would he car ried into effect. The thieves, however, are too sagacious in these days to believe that the law will be carried into effect in a wholesale way. They know that prosecutors would not come forward, and Juries would hesitate to convict, were the punishment to be carried into effect. Lord Tenterden observed, that " It was said that prosecutors abstained from prose cuting out of humanity. He knew that such professions were made ; but be did not believe they were always we `l founded, for many prosecutors acknowledged that it was to save themselves trouble." The Lord Chancellor, with reference to this, observed— " It might be that, in some instances, persons who ought to prosecute held back, on the plea of humanity, when the real case was, to save themselves expense and trouble; but in many cases it was beyond a doubt the pro secutors and witnesses were deterred by the s,verity of the denunciation." But there is another motive. Besides the re. proach of a man's own conscience, he may know that were his own humanity to be no obstacle in the way of his prosecuting, his neighbours and acquaintances would not cease to reproach him for his inhumanity ; for it seldom happens that the consciences of men, however sleepy in their own case, are disposed to much indulgence towards others. The prosecutor would be punished by the disesteem in which he would be held for being accessary to the death of a fellow-creature. There may, therefore, be a variety of motivesio deter from prosecution. When the sanguinary laws were passed, the English were a sanguinary people. It was not intended that the laws should remain a dead letter, and accordingly they were carried rigorously into effect. But were they ef fective ? When blood is shed profusely, the punishment of death is disregarded. Chancellor Fortescue tells us that in his time more men were hanged in England in a year for robbery and manslaughter than in France for the same crime in seven years, and he boasts that if an English man be poor and see another having riches which may be taken from him, he will not spare to do so. Estienne Perlin, a French physician, who was in England two years in the reign of Edward the Sixth, tells us that no man durst go into a field to labour without having his buckler and sword, and sometimes a bow beside him, and that blood was poured out like water. " In England (he says) justice is very cruel, for they put a man to death for next to nothing ; for where, in France, they would sentence a man to be whipped, there they would infallibly condemn him to death. In truth, they have only two kinds of justice—hanging and behead ing ; and hence, malefactors are no better off when they du little mischief than when they do a great deal, which ought not to be; and we manage matters better in France; for there arc several sorts of punishment according to the offence. In this island they have no wheel, nor other in struments of punishment than those two I have mentioned. They put always the poor criminals to death out of the town on gibbets of wood, except Milords, who are put to death in L , ndon to cause terror to the people." In short, when capital punishments are fre• Tient they are disregarded. Were we, therefore, able to carry our sanguinary code into effect, we should gain nothing even in the way of striking terror. But in the present day life is held in high regard, and therefore a sanguinary law could not be carried into effect. But, whether the code does or does not attach capital punish ments to offences against property, it is clear that the law can have no effect, if it is only en forced in one case out of a hundred. Thieves are not such fools as Lord Eldon would have them to be.—Morning Chronicle. The Paris papers of Saturday mention that Prince Talleyrand had arrived in Paris. The most popular of these journals mention the rumour of the Prince's accession to the Cabinet, as President of the Council, but add sulfide!) reasons why that event is considered i►npossible. It would be superfluous, therefore, to enter into any further discussion on the subject. It was stated in the Paris ministerial journals, in an nouncing the arrest of NI. de Chateaubriand, of M. Hyde de Neuville, and the Duke of Fitzjames, that these distinguished Carlists had been apprehended on information respecting their projects and conduct supplied by M. Berryer, the well-known advocate, who has been seized, imprisoned, and examined at Nantes. NI. Berryer, on seeing this report in the journals, has written a letter to one of them, declaring that he had made no communi cation to i•nplicate any body,—and that the ar rests at Paris had actually taken place before he was asked a single question at Nantes. This fact seems now evident from the dates of the two transactions. On what information the Go vernment proceeded, therefore, in their arrest of the Royalists, we have as yet no knowledge. NI. Hyde de Neuville, who has protested, in the man lier of the Duke of Fitzjames, against his ar rest, declares that, whatever others may hive dine to compromise him, he has committed himself no act which can warrant the treatment which he has endured. These men, exalted in rank or fortune, and formerly in possession of power, seem by their own admissions to have no .)ther cause of complaint against the Govern nent than the bare fact of their arrest and impri sonment. No outrage has been offered to their feelings by the ostentatious display .‘ of the little nriefauthority" over them ; no hardship has been .nflicted on their persons. They have been treated with great indulgence, if not with kindness. They all declare that they are well lodged, and that they feel no other incon venience than the temporary deprivation of their liberty. This is not the treatment of all the State Prisoners however, nor even of some who ought to be treated with similar indulgence. On the contrary, we find a letter in the Tribune from M. Raspail, who is both a journalist and man of science, detailing treatment the most in • suiting and barbarous, though his alleged crime was not so great as that ascribed to the Royalist Peers and Ex-Ministers. If the account in this letter be correct, it cannot fail to afflict the humane feelings, or rouse the generous indignation, oi all the friends of constitutional liberty. M. Raspail mentions that he was conducted on foot and handcuffed from the prison at Versailles to Passy, at the head of a band of military convicts, -that on his arrival he was thrown on a quan tity of straw without the form of a bed, in a dark 1 dungeon,—that he was thence, on the following morning, dragged through all Paris on foot, with the manacles on his hands, to the Palais de Justice,—that he was thence transferred to the Prefecture of Police, where he was lodged in a small apartment with five other per sons, and that from this he was again transported to Versailles, to the prison destined for felons, though he had been informed that he might be imprisoned in Sainte Pelagie, and had actually ordered his friends to supply him with some furniture for his room in that place of confine ment. We see no reason to doubt this narra tive, though it appears to betray a vindictive spi rit in the authorities. The Government of the Bourbons behaved in the same cruel and barba rous manner to the writers who had offended them. A person of the name of Magallon was dragged in the same way, handcuffed, through the streets of Paris, in the time of Charles X., and lodged among felons. He was even obliged to put on the prison dress, and to work at bas ket-making like the other prisoners. In this way the Bourbons supposed that they could sub due the rebellious spirit of freedom, and obtain a command over the press by terror. It is needless to add that they were signally de feated, and that under no other reign or dynasty can such a system of brutal severity be successful. We allude to this case in order to mention that our French neighbours, with all their pretensions to superior freedom and civili zation, have often very imperfect notions of what is due to the calm dignity of justice, or the impartial majesty of law. We have observed that almost every prisoner lately apprehended, complains that he was treated with great cruelty by the police or national guard, that they were wounded after they had surrendered, that their clothes were nearly torn off their backs, and that they had to submit to every kind of insult and indignity. This may probably be one of the ge neral results produced by the violence of parties in times of political excitement, and may not be peculiar to France, but it certainty has been more complained of among our neighbours than it has been with us for some time past.—Times. The growing disinclination of the public to the infliction ofdeath punishment, at least to the almost indiscriminate infliction of it, which has long been peculiar to the legislation of this coun try, is not likely to be arrested by the discussion which took place in the House of Lords last night. It is true that Lords Eldon, Tenterden, and Wynford did their best for the law as it stands, but, in addition . to other able speeches on the enlightened and reforming side of the question, the Lord Chancellor opposed the weight of his abilities to the short-sighted views of those eminent lawyers, who seldom open their mouths as politicians without satisfying their hearers of the limitation of the human facul- ties. Even left to themselves, the speeches of the distinguished lawyers first alluded to would have done no great harm, for the question has been discussed too ofteen, and is understood too well to allow their opinions to pass for more than they are worth. But, ac companied with the able commentary of the Lord Chancellor, they sink in utter insignifi cance, and lose the power of imposing, even for a moment, upon any unprejudiced mind. There was one observation of Lord Tenterden's, to which, as it has something of a plausible sound, we would direct attention. His Lordship stated, in rather a triumphant tone, " amongst all the complaints which were made of the severity of the law of England, he had heard none of the manner in which the law was administered." Now there is a want of ingenuousness in this mode of putting the argument. Uncertainty of punish. ment is one of the topics relied upon by the ad vocates of an ameliorated code to show that the practical working of a sanguinary code is bad. But nothing could be farther from the intention of those who urged the topic than that it should be tortured into a compliment to " the manner in which the law is administered." On the con- trary, we defy his Lordship to point out any speech or publication, on that side of the ques tion, which does not lament the multitude of in stances in which those savage laws are carried into execution that are administered every year, to the outrage of all mercy and humanity. His Lordship must have studied but one side of the question, if, indeed, he continues in ignorance, up to this moment, that any complaints have been made against the manner in which those laws are administered.—Morning Herald. When we called the attention of our readers yesterday to the motion intended to have been made by Colonel EVANS this evening, but which, in consequence of the adjournment of the House till to-morrow, is neces_ sarily postponed, wt were not aware of the important facts of the great reduction in the amount of the army, and the great saving of expense which would be effected by its being carried. We can now state, on the authority of a correspondent who has thoroughly investigated the matter, that the reduction in the amount of the army which would ensue from the motion being carried, would he no h so than 15,000 men, and the saving of an expense of about a million and a half ! We trust that the Hon. Member will, under such circumstances, persevere in his motion, and thereby furnish to the country an additional test whereby to distinguish its friends from its foes.-- Morrring ildeertiser. DANDO ON HIS TRAVELS T.—On Monday, DANDO, the celebrated oyster-eater, was committed to St. Augustine's gaol, on a charge of vagrancy, by J. 13. WILDMAN, Esq. It appears that he had visited a beer shop in the parish of Chilham, and regaled himself very bountifully, without having the means to pay his score. As DA NDO will shortly be out of gaol, we give the follow ing description of him for the benefit of oyster-dealers and tile public in general. He stands five feet seven inches in height, 29 years of age, and is lame of the right foot ; his 'air is brown, complexion fair, and he generally wears a gaol dress.—Kentish Gazette. A singular natural phenomenon has been com municated to us. An old officer, who has seen hard ser vice, and whose head has been hoary for nearly 30 years vast, has this week been surprised with a young growing crop of jet black hair, not only on his head, but his what whiskers and beard have also been superseded by black shoots, and a ro und s p ot on his cro wn , the seat of a wound received inyoouthilsamewhich has bee n b a ld for 50 years, ha al° budded forth hairs of the sae colou r i u l u xuriant ' f e rtility. Lieut. STYLE S, R.N . of Stoke, the gallant officer in question, a healthy veteran of the Old School, is highly amused at the prosp ect of wearin g a fine head of }outhfui hair in his ilst year, but is desirous of having the pheno menon ac counted for , if it be in the power of any of out scientific readers , and has re q ueste d us to state that h . will be happy to gra tif y the curious i n such matters by submitting it to their ins p ection. —D eronport Telegraph. COURT OF EXCHEQUER, JUNE 25. BERNARD AND ANOTHER, V. HALL, AND OTHERS, EX- ECUTORS. The plaintiffs in this case are coach-makers, car rying on business in Bond -street, the defendants Pxecutors of a Mr. Nesbett, lately an officer in the Life Guards, who died in consequence of a fall from his gig, in August 1831. This was an action to recover the sum of 1,5401. for business done, and articles supplied by the plaintiffs in their line to Mr. Nesbett. The defendants pleaded infancy and plene ad ministravit, to which the plaintiffs replied that part Hof the goods supplied were necessaries, and as to the -esiduP, that Mr. Nesbett promised to pay for them, after he came of age. The probate of Mr. Nesbett's will was then put in, from which it appeared that he bequeathed to his wife (previously to her marriage, Miss Mor dant, of Covent-garden theatre) the interest of 15,0001 for her life; to his mother the interest of 8,0001. for life ; to his sister the sum of 5,0001.; to his mother the sum of 2,0001.; the principal of the two first sums to be given to his children, if he should have any, and the residue to his wife. The personal property was sworn to be under 20,000/. An agreement entered into between Mr. Nesbett and the plaintiffs in 1829, respecting a chaise de poste, whereby it was covenanted that he should have the use of the chaise de poste until he came of age, at a certain hire, and that afterwards he might return or keep it at a certain price if he thought proper, was also put in ; and evidence produced to show that after he came of age he drove this chaise de poste to Scotland and back again, and was heard to say he should retain it. A servant of his heard Mr. Nesbett say after he came of age he should pay the demand of the plaintiffs. - Mr. PLATT addressed the jury on behalf of the defendants. If the plaintiffs suffered by supplying these articles, no person was to blame but them selves ; for as soon as Lady Nesbett had learned that they were furnishing him with carriages, she called on them to countermand it, and told them that the trustees would not pay them. Mr. Nesbett was allowed 500/. a year since the death of his father, besides his pay as Sub-Lieutenant in the Guards, amounting to about 1201. a year, making in all 620/. This annuity was sufficient to procure him neces saries. It appeared that items to the amount of 1,200/. were supplied in 1830. Could any reason able man say that it was necessary for a Sub-Lieu tenant in the army to expend that sum in one year on carriages ? Was it not the height of extrava gance ? Yet while he was running up this bill with the plaintiffs, he incurred debts to the amount of nearly 7001. for similar articles, with other coach makers. Lady Nesbett, mother of the deceased Mr. Nes bett, who was born on the 7th of June, 1810—I heard of the plaintiffs having supplied him with carriages early in 1829. I called on them several times, and requested of them not to do so. I told them his guardians would not pay. The plaintiff., said they had full confidence in his own honour, and they would not trouble him for payment until he came of age. My son married bliss M'Namara (Miss Mordant) in January, 1831. When my son became of age he sold out 25,0001.'s worth of the property. Of that sum he gave 5,000/. to Mr. Ford (one of the executors), to pay debts of honour. Re-examined—My son married by bans, not by license. He got no fortune with his wife. He was no gambler. By debts of honour, I mean debts for horses which he bought of gentlemen. The Countess Montard, sister of Mr. Nesbett, went once with her mother to the plaintiffs, when her mother requested of them not to supply him with carriages. Several other witnesses proved that Mr. Nesbett had 600/. a year, including his pay as Sub-Lieute nant ; that his commission had cost 3,000/. and that the executors had paid debts for him to the amount of 7,0001. The Jury returned a verdict for the defendants, on the ground that they had no assets. They were then called upon to say to what amount of the goods supplied, they considered ne cessaries in order that the plaintiffs might have judg ment for it when there should be assets. Having retired again for some time, they found that the ar ticles supplied to the amount of 200/. were neces saries. They also found that the plaintiffs were entitled to 2001. for the chzise de poste, making in all 400/. POLICE INTELLIGENCE. MANSION-HO USE. Mr. Osborne, the Governor of Bridewell, stated to the Lord Mayor that Denis Collins, the ruffian who threw the stone at his Majesty at Ascot, had been more than once committed to Bridewell for go ing about the streets as a sturdy vagrant, and in. sulting those who would not give him contribution. One of the officers in waiting upon the Lord Mayor -aid that Collins was in the habit of using threats with his entreaties for relief, and that, upon leaving the Mansion-house one day, be promised to sarve out his Lordship, if something was not done for him. To menaces of that kind, however, which were often muttered by discontented applicants, very litte attention was paid, but it was probable that, if the Lord Mayor had not given Collins a few shillings, some violence would have been offered to his Lordship. It was stated by another that to the best of his belief Collins could neither write nor read. _ • . . _ M. nobler, upon looking to his books, found that the man had been charged and committed for vagrancy. The LORD MAYOR recollected the person per fectly well, and regretted that Collins had not done something at the Mansion-house calculated to excite the suspicion of his violence. Nothing could be a more decided proof of insanity than an attack upon our Sovereign, but it was really ridiculous in gentle men, whose years and acquaintance with life ought to teach them better, to ascribe the brutality of the assailant to the education diffused by the liberal Press. It was, in fact, the crying down of any thing like violence, that made the enemies of Reform as mad and brutal as the sailor.—(Laughter.) It was intimated to his Lordship that Collins's inability to read was rather unfavourable to the heavy charge against the Newspapers of having instructed him in the art of throwing stones. The LORD MAYOR hoped for the sake of com mon sense that such insufferable trash would never be repeated. It wai but supplying the friends of Re form with additional weapons,:if they wanted to add to singth i e n t t o i t i a e l t w o . o a u n r t ne o r f s e f i o tl r ier ti o re f deceased boroughs. by understanding exi exposing 0 W- STREET. temper their It must be in the recollection of most of our readers that towards the latter end of the last month a statement appeared in our paper of the circum stances under which a young woman, named Sarah Drew, living in the service of a gentleman named Levoi, who was a lodger in the house of a Mr. Jus tice, a biscuit baker, in Brydges-street, Covent-gar- den, had been delivered of a child, and was supposed to have attempted to deprive it of life by throwing it down the privy. The young woman was taken into custody shortly after her delivery, and has so remained ever since, living in the workhouse, at tended night and day by a police officer. She was yesterday brought before F. A. RoE, , Dr. IlontNsoN, and the Rev. Mr. LENDON, for t h e purpose of affiliating the child, which is still alive, and answering any charge that might be made against her, Mr. Levoi being also present, attended by a Solicitor. Before the case was entered into, Mr. Levoi's Solicitor was requested by his client to ask for a private examination, as some questions might be put to her that would perhaps be of a very deli cate nature. Mr. ROE said that if it were strictly neccessary for the purposes of justice or delicacy that the exa inination should be private, he would not object; OF if even the personal feelings of any individual were concerned, so long as there was no 4uestion affect ing the interests of the public, he would consent to 4 private hearing; but even after a private hearing had commenced, he would in one moment make it a public one if he found any question arise by the decision of which the general community could la affected. The Solicitor did not press the application fur ther, and Sarah Drew, the mother of the child, was then called forward and sworn. She was well dressed and good looking, and appeared in delicate health. She deposed that she was delivered of a male child in the house of Mr. Justice, a baker, 25, Brydges-street, Covent-garden, on the 22d of May last. She was a single woman, had never been married, and the child was a bastard, and chargea ble to the parish of St. Paul, Covent-garden. Mr, Nlontague Levoi, now present, was the father of the child. Cross-examined by the defendant's solicitor—l was nearly two years and a half in the service of the defendant and his wife. When I first went into his service they lived at 63, Regent-street, and I had been six months with him in Brydges-street before the birth of the child. I first saw him in the city of Bath, two years ago last March. Some time before my delivery I was taxed by Mrs. Levoi with being in the family way, and I denied it, but I con sented to undergo an examination by Mr. Douchez, which took place, and to him I did not deny or ad mit the fact. I remember Mr. Thomas asking me who was the father of the child, and I said Mr. Levoi. I stated nothing else to him. I told him (Mr. Thomas) that the intercourse first took place at Brompton, where the defendant then lived. I told Mr. Thomas nothing about force having been used, nor that the intercourse between me and my master had only taken place once. I had but one interview with Mr. Thomas, arid that was on the 23d of May, the day after my delivery; it was then I told him who was the father of the child. I did not tell Mr. Thomas whether I had frequent inter course with my master or not, or how frequent. My first intercourse took place with my master at his house at Brompton, in the middle of August, last year. In answer to a question from Mr. Roe, as to what enabled her to fix the time, she said her master had been out of town for ten weeks, and the inter course took place the day after his return. Her mistress was ill at the time, and Mr. Douchez at tended her. No intercourse had ever taken place before between them, but there had since. She told Mr Thomas her master was the only person with whom she ever had intercourse, and that was the truth. By the Solicitor—She did not know a medical man at Bath of the name of William James Long. She was not in the family way at Bath in 1826, nor was she ill. She knew there was such a gentle man as Mr. Long at Bath, but he never attended her. No other medical gentleman attended her at that time for any complaint. Some questions were then put to her by the de fendant's Solicitor, with a view to elicit how and where the child was boar ; but Mr. ROE refused to allow her to answer, observing that he would not permit her test itnony to be shaken by questions cal culated to add to the weight of her liabilities as to another and more serious inquiry. Mrs. Norton, the wife of a police constable, who was called in to attend upon Sarah Drew soon after her delivery, was sworn, and stated that two days after the birth of the child she asked her (Drew) if she intended swearing the child to Mr. Levoi, and she said she did. 'Witness asked her if any young man visited her as a sweetheart, and she said no.— She asked her if her master ever had intercourse with her more than once, and she said, " No, never but once, and then force was used." i♦lr. Thomas, the superintendent of police had an interview with Sarah Drew the day after her de livery of the chili, and she toll him her master was the father, and that she never kne„• any other man. He asked her if her intercourse had been frequent with her master, and she said never but once, and that was in the kitchen at Brompton. She was in a very weak state when witness first questioned her ; but he again had conversation with her a week sub sequently, when she was better, and she then gave the same statement. The Solicitor for the defendant submitted that the testimony of the girl was so materially shaken that the Magistrates would not feel it safe to rely upon her statements. Mr. ROE consulted with Dr. ROBINSON and Mr. LENDON, and said that they all three considered the case as against Mr. Levoi as proved, and pro nounced that he should pay 4s. per week for the maintenance of the child, and 40s. for lying-in ex penses. This decision being come to, Mr. Thomas stepped forward and said he held a warrant (which he now produced) against Sarah Drew for concealing the birth of her child, which was granted by Mr. Min %hull at the time of the occurrence, and he now wished to know what he was to do with respect to her and the warrant. Mr. ROE asked if there was any one present de sirous of proceeding upon the charge embodied in the warrant ? Mr. Corder, the vestry-clerk, had no desire to proceed with that charge; and Mr. Walker, one of the overseers, expressed the same opinion. The Solicitor for Mr. Levoi was then asked if he had any charge to perfer, and he said he had not : but in a few moments, after retiring, and consulting with that person for a short time, said he should certainly prosecute under the warrant upon the original charge. Some evidence of the original transaction, the par ticulars of which were described at the time, was then gone into, but the Magistrates at this juncture were obliged to leave the bench on other important business, arid the defendant (Sarah Drew) was re manded till Friday. The investigation lasted several hours, and appeared to excite great interest. UNION-HALL. Yesterday a young man, who gave his name Fitzhugh Harding, belonging to Richardson's show, was brought up in custody, charged with the ab duction of a young female, the daughter of a respect able tradesman, residing at Deptford. On Friday last, the mother of the young lady, having had occasion to leave home in the afternoon, the latter took advantage of her absence, and eloped with the prisoner, who at the time of his visit to Deptford was engaged as an actor in Richardson's company. It was ascertained they had been seen in company together, and they were traced to Turn ham-green, by Grossmith, the officer, who held the warrant against the prisoner. He proceeded towards East Ealing, where he came up with the prisoner and the young lady on the road, the former of whom, on being told by the officer that he must consider himself in custody, made a vigorous resistance, in sisting that he had committed no offence to justify his apprehension, and declaring that he should pro ceed against the officer for false imprisonment if he locked him up. The young lady's father being with Grossmith at the time, the moment she saw her pa rent approach, she rushed into his arms, and exhi bited great anguish of mind for the affliction into which she had thrown her family by absenting her self from home under such circumstances. The pri soner was brought up to town on Saturday evening, and remained in custody until yesterday morning, when he was brought up to this office. The young lady, accompanied by her parents, at tended the exam ination, and may well lay claim t o the appellation of a handsome girl. In the course of her evidence, she stated she first saw the pd. sorter at the recent Witsuntide Greenwich-fair, when she was walking with two young ladies, and that he was at that period playing in Richardson's company. Upon a subsequent occasion she saw the prisoner again at the Deptford fair, and had some conversation with him, during which he endeavoured to prevail on her to quit home and accompany him, saying that his salary as an actor was sufficient to support them in comfort and respectability. In an unguarded moment, it appeared, that she listened to his persuasions, and left home with all her clothes and some money, which he suggested was neces sary for them until he obtained an engagement at the Surrey, about which he was then in negotiation ,vith the proprietors. Upon their arrival in town t.e took her to a house near the Elephant and Castle, where they remained on Friday night; and 'rom thence he prevailed on her to accompany him 0 the country, saying that be was going to join his oompany again, and finish his engagement with Richardson, at Ealing. She soon had reason to re gret leaving her home, the prisoner appearing to be in very great want of money; and when that which she had brought from home was exhausted, he then Advised her to return to Deptford; but she was ap prehensive of again facing her friends, a ter leaving home under such circumstances. She then de .cribed their journey on foot from London to the place where the officer and her father had overtaken the prisoner and her together. She added, that in a short time after leaving home with the prisoner, she regretted the step she had taken, and when she mentioned it to the accused, he renewed his solici tations, and finally succeeded in urging her to aban don the home of her kind and indulgent parents. The prisoner, who is a tall, thin young man, de clined saying anything in answer to the charge, and he was remanded for further examination. THAMES POLICE. William Sitch, captain of the Alert, a fishing smack, was charged with cruelly flogging John Scott, his apprentice. The complaiant, a fine boy, said, that on Thursday last the vessel was off Old haven, in Essex, and as he did not send a bucket of cinders by the cabin-boy in consequence of being engaged in lighting the copper fire, the captain came to him, and without hearing his excuse, seized a thick rope and flogged him all over his body for about five minutes, until witness fell down from pain and exhaustion. Ile then left off, and witness was about to say, " I was obliged to light the fire first," but the three first words were scarcely out of his mouth, before he again flogged him in the same un merciful manner, until he was nearly deprived of his senses. The captain then ceased for a minute, but finding he did not cry, looked in his face and said, " Oh, you don't cry," and then flogged him again with the same rope; his body was so much cut that he could scarcely bear to lie down. An officer said the boy's flesh was now like a jelly. The boy was directed to strip, and he had no sooner done so than a general exclamation of horror and indignation burst forth from every one in the office. The whole surface of his body, and particu larly his back and shoulders, was covered with black and blue masks. In many places the flesh was torn, and the blood which had started was congealed be neath his bruised skin. The Magistrates shuddered at the sight, and Mr. BRODERIP exclaimed, " Oh, this is horrible; you are not fit to have the command over dogs." The Magistrates fined the defendant 51., and di rected that the boy should not be allowed to sail with him again. LONDON MARKETS. PRICE OF BREAD, The highest price of Bread in the Metropolis is 10d. foe the 41b. Loaf. There are others who sell from %d. to 13d. below that price. PRICE OF SEEDS.—June2S, New Englishßed Clover Seed (per Cwt.) —s. 524. fine —s. 828. Old Ditto Ditto ._ . —s. —s. fine —a. —s. Sew Foreign Ditto s2s 68s fine —s. V2s. Old Ditto .._«.---- ..,9. —s. fine —6. —B. New White Clover s2s. 82s. fine —s. 925. Old Ditto Ditto .. —. —s. —s. fine —s. —s. New Trefoil _ —a. l2s. fine 50s. 525. Dld Ditto ....... —s. —s. fine —s —s. Rib Grass —,—.. —s. 375. fine —a. 425. English Carraway 5eed—.............-----. —a. —s. 60s. fine 655. Foreign Ditto Coriander —. —a. —s. fime 255. 30s. St. Foin (per Quarter)................ —s. —s. tine —s. 725. Rye Grass . —s. —s. new 200. 435. Pacey Ditto d Linsee, for feeding —a. 403. fine —s. 445. Ditto, for crushing - 36s. 40s. —e. fine —a. Canary Seed, New..,—....,.............--...,...........,.... —a. '7os. 7:28 fine —a. '.'rite Old —a. —s. —s. fine —a. White Mustard Seed—.—(per 8u5he1)...... —a. 7s. Bs. fine —s. Brown Ditto . —a. 10s. 17a. finc —s. Turnip Seeds, Ytoundf Green and Red Ditto fares, Old Ditto New —s. —s. Bs. fine 12s. —s. --s. 86. fine 141. —6. 58. 6d. fine 64. —s. —s. fine --s. --s. Rape Seed, English, tine (per Last) 231. 271. ...—. Foreign 201. 241. PRICES OF HOPS.—June 25. Kent Pockets 5/ 103. 61. 151. to Si. _o_s. Sussex Ditto ss. 61. Os. to 61. 12s. lissex Ditto — 51. 10s. 61. 6s. to 71. OS. Fatnham Ditto. Fine 9/. Os. 121. Os. to 01. Os. Seconds 0/. Os. 61. Os to 91. 011. Kent 51. Os. 61. Os. to 61. 16s. Sussex Ditto Essex PRICE OF OIL. Rape Oil, brown °l. 03....J.7: Refined .......134 0 Linseed Oil 23 10 Linseed Oil Cake at the Mill, per th0u5and......,.,.,,. 10 10 Rape Cake, per ton 4 10 WHITECHAPEL HAY MARKET.--June 23. Hay Od. to 95i. Od. 70:. Od. to 130 s, Od. Od. to SBd. Od. PRICE OF POTATOES.—June 22. Kidneys Scotch Reds Oxnobles and Shaws ................. 01. 0: to 0/. Os. ditto. LEATHER, Per lb. d. English Horse Hides,. 12 1 4, Spanish Ditto 14 16 Per dozen. Calf Skins.. 36 to 401 b. 15 9,2 Ditto 50 to 701 b. 19 Ditto 70 to 80db. 17 1 1) „, Small Seals. Greenland 181 17 Large ditto. . 12 PRICES 0 Per lb. d. to d. Butte, English 15 21 Ditto, Foreign 15 181 Dressing Hides 12 14 Ditto l7 IS Ditto, light Crop Hides, light 12 131 Ditto 4U to 451 b. 131 141 Ditto ftAW HIDES. Per Stone. a, d. to s. d. Per Stone. s. d. to S. 0 Kest Heifers & Steers 2 6 210 Ordinary 1 8 9 2 2 4 Market Calf 6 0 each, SHEEP SKINS. Short Wool 2s. 6d. to ts. 6d. Lambs Is. 03. to 2g.'2 41 ' Shearlings.......... Os. Od. to Os. Sd. PRICE OF TALLOW, SOAP, &c. per 1121 b. Town Tallow .......--........ 41s. Od. Yellow 50ap..........—.......—.. 60s. S I ; Yellow Ru55ia............,..-435. Od. Mottled 72s. 0 White . 425. 6d. White Soap Ditto. 4ls. 6d. Graves .............................. 7 1 4 4:: J,'" Nleßed 5tuff............—....... 345. Od. Good Graves --......... ss. Od' Ditto 1t0ugh—....—.....225. Od. __,/ PRICE OF RAW FAT, per stone of 81b. Price of Tallow (as stated by the Tallow Me1ter5),..„—,,„,..25. PRICE OF CANDLES. • The price of Store Candles, in the retail shops, is as follows Candles. per dos. 76. Pd. to Lis. Od. I Moulds, per .ET.--June 25. Per Ton. Walls End Hetton 2 1 . Walls End Lambton Walls End Stewart's.... 2 1 1 Walls End Stobart's....... 1 6 Walls End Adelaide IS Walls End Butter Knowl 19 Walls End Gordon...—. ~„y l 9 Walls End Tees tz 6 Cowpen ll4 Walls End Elgin 1 6 New Flockton, Milne, 0 and Co. ll e Silkstone Field and C 0.... 16 Stlkstone Holmes • l6 6 Walls End Selby 15 4 6 Scremerstone Engine.... I ;,' Greenwich H05pita1....... Tan field Trader last market -day. 17. C')AL MAR Per Ton. s. d. A d air's 17 3 Bensham Main 16 6 Holywell Ord's Itedhugh 16 6 South Holywell 16 0 I antield.—. l6 9 Townley l7 3 Willington _ lB 3 Walls End Bell & Brown 18 0 Ditto Bewicke and 19 6 Wall, End Callerton ..... 16 6 Walls End Gostorth ......... 20 0 Walls End Heaton 19 6 Ditto Killingworth IS 6 Ditto Newbiggen 16 6 Walls End Newmarch— 18 9 Ditto Northumberland.. 18 0 Ditto Todd and Watson.. 19 6 Bells Primrose.......— 15 6 Ships arrived since On Saturday, in the Insolvent D e btor°, Court, Mr. John Hill, clerk in the Navy-office, ca me ° li r, on his petition to be discharged, and was opposed on t o l part of Lady PURTON, to whom he owed a bond deb t 2,0001. and two other creditors, named FLIGHT and 1‘ 0 :1 CHANT, to whom he owed considerable sums for borrol,o money. His whole debts amounted to 4,5161., an d 4' a s se ts to 1,7941. It wa s s t ated that the object of t he to position was not to delay the insolvent's discharge, bu' f o r have 100/. a year out of his salary of 2001. set asid e to the liquidation of hi s d e b ts. Th e Court made an or der this effect, and he was discharged. BIRTHS. At her hous e i n Berkeley.square, Lady Julia Hobhouse, of r, daughter. lit e On the 24th i nst. Mrs. P. Ralli, Finsbury-circus, of a datt.../li lED. On the `sth inst, at AII MARR Souls Church, Langharn.place, Co lonel Alexander Macl a chl a n, of the Royal Artillery, . 61 00 V zabeth M ary H arvey, daughter of the late Colonel Colebr of the Royal Artillery. ,e 4 On the 20th inst. at Edinburgh, A. H. Urmston, Esq., Y ( wilcoson of the l ate J ames U rmston, E sq ., o f Chi gwe ll House, ti 3o rr' to Margar e t, thi r d d aug h ter o f G en. G ra h am Stirling, of ray and Auchyle, Stirlingshire. On the 25th inst. at St. George's Hanover square, Ni4.,,a Cr "cobias Langdon, Esq., of Trinity College, Cambridge, no,. the Middle 'temple, to Margaret, the you n ger daughter ' Rev. Dr. Sampson,Rector of Groton, Suttblk, and of pete r° Surrey. cverlit At St. George's, Hanover-square , the Hon. and Rev. P e ttl Robert Bruce Fielding, to An ne Henrietta BougheY , oo t Bart., of : 11 :1 . 1 ... " (laughter of the lite Sir John Boughey, Stattbrdshire. DIED. P irr On the 22d. inst. at Flempton, Suff o lk , M rs. Elizabet h w o e of Upper Harley-street, relict of the lat e Ri c hard Dixot o , On the `nth inst. at 13 romyton,1 Henry William it"i, 1 0 , only child of: Mr. Henry Isaacson, of the Hon. r." 4 ,,,"00 Company's Naval Service, a ged four years and eight nnticil On the 25th inst., aged four .years and five months. vet, Chicheley, second 'surviving son of Charles Plowden• York-street, Portman -square. Te e PRINTED AND PUB LISHED BY MURDO Y O U N a SUN OFFICE, ii;