The Sun. — London, England, 1840-01-09 00:00:00

__MORNING EDITION. DI SOLUTION OF YENTION. '1 HE CON- (FROM A coattEsPoNDENTO Delegates from Notinghant, Bradford, Shefiieid Hull, Newcastle, Belton, Birmingham, Bristol., S,ot land, and some other places, have been assz.mhlitg from e e l ?) , to day durin g th e l ast three months, at the Arundel ..,,ffre-h ouse , &rend, in conn.r,ction with the Chartist trials. At their ia;:etinz yesterday (Wednesday) after noon. the, Milowing resolut was unanimously adopted : " Seeier K that the exertions of the working classes t o form Ganerd Convention, representing- the whole ...ountry, are for the present marred by the contrivances of the open persecutors of our cause, arid their allies the false friends of the people, together with the apathy of some prtion of the people themselves, we feel it our duty to dissolve ; and, returning to our respective con stituencies, exert ourselves to the utmost of our power in counteracting the above mischievous influences." Previous to the adoption of the foregoing, a Memo- rial to the Queen was read and passed, setting Lrth the distresses of the labouring population, and praying her Majesty to recommend remedial measures to Parlia ment immediately on its meeting, which being signed by the Chairman and Secretary on behalf of the Meet ing, was ordered to be presented at the Home Office forthwith. COURT CIRCULAR. WINDSOR, WEDNESDAY.—The Ladies Eleonora and Constance Paget remain at the Castle on a visit to the Queen, and the Earl and Countess of Uxbridge are ex pected to join the Royal Dinner party this evening. Viscount Torrington arrived yesterday at the Cas tle, and succeeded Lord Byron as Lord in Waiting on her Majesty. Viscount Melbourne took his departure for town this morning. Mr. Lane's lithographic print of his Highness Prince Albert of Saxe Cohourg Gotha, from Mr. Ross's miniature, was submitted to her Majesty this morning. The Royal dinner party at the Castle this evening is expected to include her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent, Earl and Countess of Uxbridge, the Ladies Eleonora and Constance Paget, Hon. W. Cowper, Countess of Charlemont, Lady Fanny Howard, Hon. Miss Paget, Hon. Miss Pitt, Viscountess Forbes, Ba roness Lehzen, Viscount Torrington, Colonel Buckley, and the Hon. C. A. Murray. The Duchess of Gloucester, and the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, Prince George and the Princess I Augusta of Cambridge, attended by Miss Kerr, Baron Knesebeck, and Colonel Cornwall, dined with her Majesty the Queen Dowager at Marlborough House on Tuesday evening,. The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, Prince George of Cambridge, and Prince Edward of Saxe Weimar, honoured Covent-Garden Theatre with their presence last evening. A Deputation from the Aborigines Protection So ciety, consisting of Dr. Hodgkin, W. Allen, Esq., It. Foster, Esq., J. H. Tredgold, Esq., the Rev. J. J. Freeman (Secretary), the Rev. R. Moffat, of Latakoo, and A. B. Wright, Esq. had an interview with Lord John Russell yesterday, at the Colonial Office. The Commander of the Forces bad an interview with the Marquis of Normanby yesterday, at the Home office. A Deputation from the British and F9reign Anti- Slavery Society, consisting of William Allen, George Stacey, Robert Forster, Josiah Corder, and J. H. Tredgold, had an interview with Lord John Russell at ' the Colonial Office, yesterday. The Marquis of Lansdowne arrived in town yester day afternoon, from:his seat, Bowood Park, Wilts. Tne. Bishop of Nova Scotia and Sir H. Macleod had interviews with Lord John Russell yesterday at the Colonial Office. The Cabinet Ministers dined last evening with Lord John Russell at his residence in Wilton -crescent. The Brazilian Charge d'Affaires transacted business yesterday at the Foreign Office. Viscount Melbourne arrived in town yesterday after noon from a visit to her Majesty at Wiidsor Castle. Lord John Russell will give a full-dress Parliamen tary Dinner on the hith inst. at the Foreign Office, Downing -street. TILE GOLD -DUST ROBBERY.—At the Central Criminal Court yesterday, Mr. Justice Coleridge inti mated to the agents concerned in the prosecution of Money Moses and the Cpspars, for the robbery of gold dust, that in all probability the decision of the Judges on the points of law which had been under their consi deration would be given at the next sessions of the Cen tral Criminal Court. STATE OF TRADE.— There was a good general inquiry both for goods and yarn yesterday ; but, as a great majority of the spinners and manufacturers held out resolutely for higher prices, which the buyers in general were not disposed to give, the amount of business did not quite correspond with the extent of the inquiries. In some few cases an advance was given ; in the remainder the full prices of the previous week were obtained ; and, generally speaking, the market wore a firm and healthy appearance. —Manchester Guardian. Russia and England are equally extending their power over Asia ; and it will not be many years, if each proceeds in its present course, before they come into contact. England will probably then regret that she has opened the way, by extending her own military communications to Affghanistan, for Russia, io Cal cutta. Her advances towards Russia shorten the dis tance which that power will have to go. Far better would it he to leave all the intermediate territory between Ben gal and Russia unexplored and uncivilised, a barrier of many barbarous tribes and nations which Russia must conquer before it can reach the seat of our trading empire, than to civilise them and make roads and com munieations between Bengal and the Russian empire likewise preparing the way for the Russians to march to Calcutta. The barbarous country betwixt Russia and the English possessions has ever been held to be the security against an invasion from her. Our present policy seems to be to remove that barrier by extending ourselves over this intermediate country, and so reach ing a hand, as it were, to Russia to help her on the road.—Brighton Guardian. A serious accident happened to our worthy and invaluable townsman, the Rev. John Fullagar, on - Mon dry se'nnight. Ile was journeying to Portsmouth by the Union coach, which unfortunately upset and fell upon him. Fears were at first entertained that the Rev. Gentleman had sustained some internal injury ; but it is now, we are happy to state, satisfactorily ascertained that, although the external bruises are many and severe, au vital part iS affected, and no bone broken. An op position coach had that day been started, arising out of the late municipal contest ; and it is supposed that some malignant miscreant of the Tory party had taken out the linch-pin from one of the wheels to impede the progress of the coach, regardless of the limbs and lives of the passengers. It is much to be regretted that the spirit of party should so pervade the common concerns of life that stage-coaches have become political vehicles. We have a Tory and a Liberal coach running to and from Portsmouth every day.—Brighton Guardian. COLONEL THOMPSON AND THE ANTI-CORN LAW LEAGUE.—" Birmingham, 24th December, 1839. Sir,—After the way in which the funds and organiza tion of the Anti-Corn-law League have been applied to the dissemination of personal abuse, and the execution of party and electioneering vengeances, in their Anti- Corn-law Circular of the 1 ith of September last, I ap prehend there would be inconveniences to all concerned, in my sitting down at the banquet which is to take place in Manchester on Thursday evening the 9th day of Ja nuary, 1840.-1 have the honour to be Sir, your very obedient servant, T. PERRONET THOMPSON. To Geo. Wilson, Esq., Chairman of the Council of the Anti- Corn-law League." DEATH By BURNING.—On Tuesday evening an inquest was held at St. Bartholomew's Hospital on the body of Eleanor Tavener, aged 79. It ap peared that deceased and her husband were in inde pendent circumstances, and lodged at the White- Swan, Islington-green, and that the pot-boy of that house, hearing her scream on Tuesday morning last, hurried to her room, and found her lying, with her clothes all in flames, on the floor, and her aged hus band trying to extinguish them. Witness tore the clothes off, wrapped her in a blanket, and she was in stantly brought to that hospital. She had been in toxicated the night previous. The husband, upwards of eighty-five, and whose mental and bodily powers were in the last stage of decay, said his wife set her clothes on fire whilst reaching for some money that was on the mantel-piece. It appeared that deceased whenever she went out used to say that she was going to drown herself, but that on being watched she always turned into the Pied Bull, where she got drunk.—Ver diet, " Accidental Death." • __ MELANCHOLY ACCIDENT.---On the night of Thursday last, Mr. Edw. Middleton, farmer, Apland, on leaving the house of David Grier, Enterkin•foot, un fortunately missed his way on returning home, and from the extent of ur:derwood, and the darkness of the night, had wandered too near the bed of the Nith. When the alarm was given next day, a party of acquaintances went forth in quest of him ; but, however diligent, they were unsuccessful. The neighbourhood having now becom e exceedingly anxious, two parties on Satur day vulunte , red their services, who, after consultation, separated, exploring both sides of the Nith as far down as Aultigirth Bridge, and about a hundred yards below that point the body was discovered in a narrow creek, cold and lifeless, as may be naturally supposed. The deceased has left a widow and child, and his loss is very sincerely deplored by a wide circle of friends and ac quaintaoees.•_Dunfries Courier. CHILD DROPPING.—Monday evening an in quest was held at the Kensington workhouse, on the body of a full-grown female infant which was found on Thursday morning last exposed in Lord Holland's park. Verdict—Found dead, but how it came by its death them was no evidence to prove. • TRAPS FOR ANTI.CORN-LAW REPE ALERS. (Firom the Anti-Corn-lato Circular.) Beware of steel traps ante spring guns." It is no less necessary at the present time to warn • Corn-law repealers of the gins and scares which are spread to natch the unwary, than it is to caution tre•s passerg of thost invidious instruments, steel traps and swing gun s . The public mind has never before been so feelingly alive to the evils, the i justice, and the oppressive cha racter of the existing Corn-laws as at present ; nor has there evr been so general a feeling that the time is arrived when the interests of the country require that they be totally and immediately abolished. We do not disguise the fact, however, that there is a difference of opinion as to the total and immediate repeal of the Corn-laws ; sonic few advocating a modification of the existing laws, others a moderate fixed duty—(who can tell what a moderate fixed duty means o—others, again, a present duty of Ss. to 10s. a quarter, to decline Is. a year till corn be admitted free. We shall examine each of these expedients. First, as to the modification of the existinc , law. A comparative statement has been circulated between the Bill proposed by Mr. Canning, in 1827, but thrown out by the House of Lords, and the present law pro. posed by the Duke of Wellington, and passed in 1828, of which the following is a copy : Average Prices Duty according to Duty according to the of Wheat. Canning's Bill. D. of Wellington's Bill. 73s . Is Is 72s 71s 70s 69s 68s 67s 66s 65s 64s ......,.... 12s 63s 62s 613 60s 59► 583 57s 56s 55* 54s 53s ...... 24s It will be observed, that the principles of Mr. Can ning's and the Duke of Wellington's Bills are alike, viz., those of a fluctuating duty, with this difference, that the avowed object of Mr. Canning's Bill was to keep wheat at an average price of 635., whilst that of the Duke of Wellington's was to keep it at 688. a quarter.* The evils of the present system would not, however, be obviated by the adoption of Mr. Canning's Bill, and it will, therefore, have but few supporters. The corn trade would still continue a gambling busi ness. There would be no remedy for excessive fluc tuations in prices, and we should still be subject to all the evils of a derangement of the currency attendant on a demand for foreign corn, and a drain for bullion to pay for it. Now, as to the project of " a moderate fired duty," there is greater need of warning Corn-law repeaters, because it is urged with a speciousness which is calcu lated more than any other to mislead, and by a class of persons who, affecting great moderation, wish to pass themselves off to the public as " very good sort of men." These men profess, with us, great hostility to the present Corn-law, but do not approve of its total and immediate repeal. They agree with us in thinking that it is rapidly injuring the manufacturing and com mercial interests of the country, and that, unless re pealed, the ruin of the nation will inevitably be the consequence. They agree with us also that the want of employment, and the consequent deficiency of food and clothing under which our labourers suffer, are evils to be fairly attributed to the Corn-laws. They concur, in fact, entirely with us, as to the extent and nature of the disease under which the body-politic is groaning ; but they disagree as to the plan which we would recommend for effecting a cure. " Your mode of proceeding," say they, " is much too violent ; you will shock moderate people." But they must have strange notions of justice, who, whilst they admit that millions of their fellow•creatures are robbed of a por tion of the fruits of their hard labour, can yet turn aside from them and bestow all their sympathy upon their oppressors and plunderers. These moderate men would have us approach the landlords with " beaded knee and bated breath," and humbly pray that they will be graciously pleased to be a little more just ; to rob the poor with moderation ! They seem to have a notion that with some show of address and tact, but with plenty of deference, the landlords may be wheedled into the practice of a little honesty. The plan recommended by this party is, to advocate a moderate fixed duty in place of the present fluc tuating scale. Not that they would justify a tax upon bread in the abstract ; they condemn, as unjust, such a mode of raising a revenue ; but it is to conciliate " mo derate" men of all parties. Leaving, then, the question justice, about which we are agreed, let us examine how far, even as a matter of expediency, it would be good policy for us to advocate a moderate fixed duty, instead of the total and immediate repeal of the Corn-laws ? Let us suppose that the Anti-Corn-law Delegates, at their first meeting in Manchester, had come to a reso lution to petition Parliament for a fixed duty of eight shillings a quarter on wheat ; a shilling a bushel would be a " moderate" robbery when compared with the pre sent systein. Does anybody suppose that half a million of people would have petitioned in favour of such a scheme ? Nay, would not our lecturers, if employed to advocate such a plan, have been hooted at by every succeeding audience ? But, leaving the public out of the question (and with the public we include the populace, the multitude, without whose sympathy no great political change has ever been effected), let us fol low the Delegates to London, where their petition for a fixed duty had, we will suppose, come under discus sion in Parliament, and been made the theme of the writers and speakers of the day. The matter to be de cided upon would then have involved no question of the great principles—the truth or falsehood, the justice or injustice, the right or wrong of the Corn-laws. The point to determine would have been whether a fixed duty, or the present fluctuating one, be preferable ; a most convenient mode of raising the question for the landlords and their party, inasmuch as there is quite as much justice in the principle of a fluctuating, as a fixed duty, whilst there is the appearance of a great deal more. The vote would at. length have been taken on the question ; but do any of our readers suppose it would have been in favour of the supposed petition for an eight-shilling fixed duty ? Let us call their attention to the vote of the previous session, when Colonel Seale's proposal to allow foreign corn to be ground in bond for exportation, was rejected by a great majority, by the very Ale»tbers who constitute the present House y comm.. It was proposed that not a pound of tin flour so ground should be used at home, but they would not allow foreign wheat to be ground here at all, lest the bran from it should be used to feed pigs and poultry ! ! What, then, had happened in the meantime to induce the[self same men to pass a measure infinitely more opposed to their prejudices and interests ? We shall be told that the proceedings in Manchester, the forma tion at that time of nearly forty anti-Corn-law associa tions (there are now nearly three hundred), and the presentation of petitions signed by upwards of half a million of people, had all contributed to alarm the land lords, and induce them to agree to a compromise. But these great demonstrations were brought about by the example of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, which decided in favour of the principle of total and immediate repeal. Had the decision been in favour of a fixed duty, there would have been none of that en thusiastic co-operation which afterwards gave such force to the proceeding of the delegates in London. It must be clear, then, that had the Anti-Corn-law party identified itself with the principle of a fixed duty it would have justly failed in carrying out its object ; and it would have, besides defeat, suffered the still worse disaster of losing the sympathy and support of the public. At present the organization and character of the Anti- Corn-law League arc felt to be formidable by the land lords. They are so because they are jounded upon the principle of justice, and not expediency. There is another class of objectors to which we shall briefly allude. They are in favour of the total abolition of the Corn-laws, but they advocate the gradual in pre ference to the immediate repeal. The question admits of easy solution if submitted to the test of true principle. It is admitted that the Corn-law is unjust, yet it is con tended that it ought to be continued a little longer. If it be good to retain an injustice for a day, it must be equally so to tolerate it for twenty years, or even a hundred. Once admit the right of legislating upon any other principle than that of strict justice, and we place ourselves, to an indefinite extent, at the mercy of the ; wrongdoer. ‘Ve contend that if an injustice be acknowledged to exist, it ought to be at once removed. It is not a valid argument in favour of continuing the evil even for a day, to tell us that vested interests would suffer ftom a total and immediate repeal of the Corn lae a. Our answer is, that there are a thousand times as many !persons suffering from the operation of the laws as there are benefiting by them, and the former have a " vested" right to the enjoyment tf the fruits of their industry, which must claim precedence y any vested interests which the landlords or their tenants may have appropriated to themselves at the expense of the rest of the community. We have reason to believe, moreover, that the plan of total and immediate would be preferabl e to gradual repeal, even as far as the in terests of the agricultural tenants are concerned, espe cially if the tenants be released from their leases in all cases where they desire it, a measure strictly just, inas much as the landlords, having unjustly availed them selves of their power to make laws for their own ex clusive benefit, are bound to make reparation to all who are injured by the repeal of such laws. B ew are then of pretended moderados and moderate • A vain attempt, as even under this law the avera7e prices of wheat in 1835 and 1836 were 40g. per quarter. Surely the landlords must have discovered ere this that they may as well try to regulate the stars by Act of Parlia ment as to regulate the prices of wheat I 11 F SUN, LON_DON, 11-IURSDA , JANUARY 9, [B4O ?fired duties To:•se enod sort of men' have a great horror offincluatha; dui ; t hey derange the currency, and cause ;;re It losses to the merchants and manufac. turers and this pa-ticulatly affects the class calling theins.-Aves i,derados. But are these the only evils produud by the infamous Corn-laws? Look at the thousands of industrious workpeopic walking about unemployed. Look at the thousands more who ar?, only half fed and' then look at the diabolical law which taxes these poor wretches, as we showed in our last number, to a greater extent than all the State taxes put together. LET THOSE WHO PETITION FOR A MODERATE FIXED DUTY REMEMBER THAT EVERY SHILLING FIXED DUTY IS EQUAL TO A TAX ON TIIE PEOPLE OF 6,000,000/. A YEAR. BANKRUPTCY COURT. (Before Mr. Commissioner EvANs.) IMMENSE FAILURE-IN RE IFEELE, ALVES, AND lIAR- BISON. These bankrupts, who are underwriters at Lloyd's, appeared before the Court on Tuesday upon their final examination Their personal debts and liabilities are near 70,000/., and they are also further liable (as un derwriters) for policies of insurance, &c.,, to the immense amount of nearly 500,000/. Application was made on behalf of several creditors that they might be allowed to prove against the bank rupts' separate estates, as they had frequently signed separately. There was also a question raised as to whether Mr. Harrison was a partner or an agent. It appeared that the bankruptcy had been caused by se vere losses. The Learned CommtssioNxit observed upon the case being a very important one, and said, under all the cir cumstances, he should allow the creditors to prove against the separate estates of the bankrupts whose ac ccunts appeared to be satisfactory. This is the largest failure which has taken place at Lloyd's for many years. The bankrupts were allowed to pass their final examination. CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT. policeman was called in, and other parts of the property were taken from her person. As a woman had fre quently called upon her, Mr. Capper gave or ders that she should bo secured. Next morn ing the prisoner Perry called, and asked for Mor gan. She was given in charge, and, on searching her lodgings, other parts of the property were found Mr. BEST addressed the Jury for the prisoners. He said he would be able to prove that Morgan had been six times in St. Luke's Hospital, and was at times to tally incapable of knowing right from wrong ; and he would be able to prove, with respect to Perry, that hitherto she had borne an irreproachable character, and was incapable of stealing the trifling property found in her room. It was too unlike a thief to give her proper address in a moment,and there was no attempt at hiding it. He then called Dr. Davis, the resident apothecary at St. Luke's, who had had Morgan six times under his care, and she at times was incapable of knowing right from wrong. Also Major Revel, who said he had often left Perry and her husband in charge of his town-house for months together, in which there was much property, and he never found any thing wrong. He would take her into the same situation to-morrow, if discharged. She was sister to Morgan. The Jury acquitted both prisoners—Morgan on the ground of insanity. IN THE MATTER OF W. F. GEACH, GENT., &C. Before the rising of the Court last night., Mr. BAL LANTINE applied to the Court for a warrant against William Foster Geach, a solicitor, residing at Mon mouth, whose name the Learned Gentleman said had lately been made familiar to the public, be being the professional adviser of Mr. John Frost, charged with high treason. The Grand July had returned a true bill against Mr. Geach for obtaining a large sum of money by means of false pretences—the case was a very bad one, the amount obtained being upwards of 2,0001. The COURT immediately granted the application. Mr. BALLANTYNE then applied to know what bail the Court would require under the circumstances. Mr. Sergeant ARABIN said the usual security must be given ; the Court must treat every case .ak -- F:c - ,7Y..:1- out respect of persons. Mr. BALLANTINE hoped that the security would be proportionate to the amount. The gentleman on whose behalf he (Mr. B ) made the application did not wish to act vindictively or vcxitiously. Mr. Sergeant ARABIN ordered that the defendant should enter into his own recognizances in the sum of 200/., and find two sureti"s in the sum of 501. each, and that 48 hours' notice should be given to the prosecu tor's attorney. POLICE INTELLIGENCE. BOW-STREET. Yesterday, a gentleman, named Benjamin Green, applied to Mr. Twyford for a summons against Ma dame Vestris, and if it could not be granted, for his advice, under the following circumstances :—On Thurs day evening, he went to Covent Garden Theatre, and having paid for a seat in the pit, he found it so full, that he could not obtain even standing room, which, after much inconvenience, be represented to the cheque , taker, who directed him to the gallery. He accordingly • proceeded to the gallery, but found that part of the house so crowded that he was again compelled to appeal to the cheque-taker to return him his money, or to accommodate him with a seat in another part of the theatre, where he could get a glimpze of the stage, but after a great deal of remonstrance. he could not succeed, and he was finally informed that he could get a cheque for the next evening's entertain ment, which it would be necessary for him to present at the box-office on the following morning. He considered such a proposition a great injustice, not only to himself but also to the public, as it might not be exactly conve nient for a person who might reside at a distance to appear with a cheque the next morning, having besides been disappointed in seeing the entertainment for which he had paid his money. On leaving the theatre he was told by a gentleman that such a circumstance was not of rare occurrence, and he was surprised that there was no redress. Mr. TWYFORD said he had in early life, when he was more in the habit of frequenting theatres than at pre sent, repeatedly suffered similar inconveniences, and in his capacity of Magistrate he could not afford redress. The applicant thought that Madame Vestris ought to put up a board in some conspicuous part of the theatre to inform the public when the house was so full as not to be capable of affording more accommodation, and not to sanction such a system of swindling, which ought not to go unpunished. Mr. TWYFORD regretted he could afford no assist ance, nor could he inform the applicant what steps to take under such circumstances. The applicant then went as ay. FARMERS' INSURANCE COMPA NY.—The value of insurance is too well known to need any elogium, but the special value of insurance to farmers requires more than mere general consideration. It vir,:s the abolition of the duty on farming stock, - as first recommended for that purpose by the Manager of this Institution, that mainly contributed to put an end to the dreadful incen diarism that sonic years ago " !righted the isle from its propriety." This is now well followed up. The new feature of insurance against storms, and the' appropria tion of a portion of the profits to deserving labourers, arc highly important.—From a Correspondent. USE IS SECOND NA T URE.-A singular in stance of the aversion of a member of the canine species to emancipation from the "truck roa s:st w em iti : exhibited itself his t itself in the Bla c kfriars-road the other morning. A baker was proc ee ding along the bar row, when a dog of • the mastiff kind ran out of a by-street, and very adroitly placed himself under the truck, and kept his pace so even with the man, that it was some time before, and, in fact, not until reiterated shouts of laughter from the spectators had drawn his attention to the circumstance, he knew the dog was there. With all the terrors of being informed against for having a dog under his truck, or being con signed to the station-house, he endeavoured to drive the dog away ; threats were useless ; blows succeeded, they were as unavailing. At last a carter who was passing applied his whip to the poor dog. Poor Tray quitted, and, with his tail between his legs, departed. STARVING CONVICTS. —It will be recollected that in the month of November last John Byron, the master and part owner of the ship John Renwick, ens committed for trial by Mr. Ballantine, one of the Thames-police Magistrates, on a charge of stealing a quantity of Government stores, which had been put on board the prisoner's vessel for the purpose of supplying the female convicts on their voyage from London to Sydney. The poor convicts were abridged of part of their allowance, and the stores which ought to have been served out to them were appropriated to the use of the ship's crew on the voyage, eat! a large quan tity of pease, soap, cocoa, and flour, and other stores sent on board from the Victualling Office, at Deptford, before the John Renwick left England, were seized by the Thames-police on her arrival here. After the prisoner's committal application was made to the Magistrate to release the prisoner on bail, and tie Ad miralty consenting, Mr. Ballantine admitted the priso ner to bail, himself in 300/., and two sureties of 150/. each, to appear and take his trial at the next Old Bailey Sessions. He did not make his appearance, and the re cognizances were, on the application of the prisoner's Counsel, who said that Byron did not surrender, be cause one of his witnesses had not arrived in Eng land, was respited until the next Sessions, when Byron not appearing, the recognizances were estreated, and the amount of the bail has since been paid into her Majesty's Exchequer, In consequence of instruc tions from the Lords of the Admiralty, advertisements have been inserted in the public journals, giving a description of Byron, reciting the offence with which he stands charged, and offering a reward of 501. for his apprehension. Large placards to the same effect have been posted all over the metropolis and in the outports, and several officers of the Thames police have been making diligent search after the prisoner for the last three weeks, but have not been able to obtain any tidings of him. The witnesses against Byron have been kept in London, and supported by the Admiralty, • ever since the prisoner's examinati on at the police office, and it is expected the reward offered for Byron's ap prehension ‘ I ,, N o l I ; 0 1 soon su ognbrgeeest.tdeto:u:ebled. The John Renwick is advertised to .sail again for Sydney with goods and passengers, and it is expected that Captain Byron will attempt to join her as she leaves Enlalnvda,llLuttoinararnetsit cipation of this the Government has s o en n t e o o u f t instruc tionstliepri d Magistrate of the oy : wreore,n t rs o bLi t af h i ib e lhetev a r ta u yss t h. h i \o o lu r r i l. t e u s hee n o t rsge N ee New no w fft re,r Souththere. T MANCHESTER MECHANICS' INSTITUTION. ANNUAL CHRISTMAS F ESTIVITIF.B.—The annual Christmas social party of the members of this excellent and deservedly popular institution was held on Friday evening last. The members first assembled about hall past seven o'clock,in the lecture theatre of the institution, Cooper-street, to meet their Oegixlecneitlliileseinnetentr7insiedee,nlts,,iSt with r Heywood, veral rounds of hearty applause, which spoke the cordial welcome o!' thegratified members at seeing him once more present, in at their head. ad dition to the vice-presidents and directors, we noticed Mark Philips, Esq., M.P. ; J. Brotherton, Esq., 1\1.1). ; P. Holland, Esq. of Knutsford ; Wm. Garnett, Esq. of Lark Hill ; Mr. Alderman Callender ; Rev. Wm. Gaskell ; Messrs. W. R. Greg, James Heywood, Jas. A. Turner, Andrew Hall, Wm. Langton, Wm. Fair bairn, Louis Schwabe, David Price, David Holt, &c. There were many ladies also present. The theatre was decorated with evergreens, and over the balcony of the music gallery was a transparency, surrounded with ever greens, roses, &c., and inscribed " Mechanics' Institu tion ; established 1824." Sir Benjimin Heywood, President of the institution, in the chair. By recent experiments made at Metz, it has been ascertained that a 16-pounder impels its ball, with the ordinary charge of powder, 506 yards in the first second of time, and that by increasing the charge, it may be pro jected 817 yards within the same short space of time. NUM At UTII SPECIAL CO AI MISSION. TRIAL OF MR. FROST—(SEyENTn DAY.) THE DEFENCE. MONMOUTH, TuEsnav NIGHT Previous to the commencement of the proceedings Mr. Thomas, as Counsel for Lewellyn, applied for money taken from the prisoner at the time of his artest, in order that it might be restored for the purposes of his defence. The Court granted the application. The examination of witnesses for the prisoner was then proceeded wi:h. Wm. Morgan examined—l am book-keeper of Pear son and Hearne, wholesale linen-drapers of Bristol ; they have had dealings with Mr. Frost for many years, and supplied him with goods in the wholesale way. They so supplied him with goods prior to November last. He had a running account of about 2001. The custom was for the traveller to go round, and to value upon the cuitc mers. Bills were drawn and accepted. There was a bill of 571 , dated in August, for three months, due by Mr. Frost on Nov. 4. I have the bill enclosed here; it is this. The bill is dated Aug. 1, 1839. It is drawn by our traveller, Wm. Woods, for the firm, upon John Prot, of Newport, accepted by him, and payable at the West of England Bank, Bristol. That was duly paid at the Bank. ‘Ve had bills of that sort from Mr. Frost four times a-year. Cross-examined.—Our house disposed of the bill by payment to a Mr. Manx, of Shaftesbury, and we heard no more about it. John Chaplain—l am bookkeeper to Chapman and Rea_ ford, of Bristol, linen and Scotch dealers. They had transactions in business with Mr. Frost. Prior to No- vember last they had for several years supplied Mr. Frost, and our course of btiiness was to be paid by a bill from Mr. Frost, which was sent to him and accepted. Prior to last November I sent a bill for his acceptance. The last bill, for 1191. 11s., was due on the 27th of October last. Our house had dealt with Mr. Frost in that way for ten years, and he was always remarkably punctual in his payments. This last bill was paid. Cross-examined—I think I never saw Mr. Frost in my life. The name of John Frost appears in our book. Re-examined—I never went to Newport in my life. If Mr. Frost had come to Bristol it is probable I might have :son him. Mary Jones examined by Mr. Kelly—l live just by the Blackwood, the other side of the river, next door to James Hodges. I know him by his face personally these two years. I called at his house the day of the riot at New port. I was there between the hours of eight and nine o'clock in the morning. He was then in bed. , Cross-examined by the Solicitor-General—l cannot tell how early I got up that morning, for my daughter was in a decline, and I was up and down all night. I break fasted that morning after I saw liotes. I went for inn that morning, and after I had left it at home I turned into Hodges' house, seeing the door open, and I said to Mrs. Hodges, " Mary, did you hear the people going down ?" says I, " last night," and she showed me her husband, and said, " Here's my old man, thank God." I did nst see James Hodges that morning before I saw him in bed. I cannot say if his wife was up. I suppose she was in bed as well as I was. Nobody was living in my house but my self and my daughter. Henry Williams examined by Sir F. Pollock—l live at Newport. lam an ironmonger. I keep a shop of my own. I remember Monday, the 4th of November. "I saw persons coming down Stow-hill. I was at the door of the Westgate when the mob came up to it. I was there as a special constable. The man who first came up to the door said, " Surrender up your prisoners." Cross-examined by the Attorney-General—l had the honour of acting as the Mayor's aide-de-camp very early in the morning. I saw the mob about two miles or two miles and a half off. I went then up Pie-corner, which is beyond Tredegar-park. I saw a great number armed in various ways with pikes, guns, and mandrils. I saw one party which was between 400 arid 500 in number. When I saw the mob a second time they were about a mile from Newport. They were then halting and cheering. As soon as I saw the body I returned to the Mayor and told him what I had seen. They were then near the Machine. I did not observe whether they divided. When I re turned the second time I was stationed at the Westgate door. I remained there until the mob came down to the Westgate Hotel. They passed the front door and went towards the gates. and then they returned. They were led by the man who spoke to me, and he said, " Surrender up your prisoners." He had an axe upon a pole. I received two stabs in the bady, a wound in the leg. and a gun-shot in the head. I received these wounds from tho Chartists when I was standing at the door, acting as a special constable. The mob tried to get in at the door, and I and other special constables tried to pre vent them, and we were wounded while thus preventing them. I heard no groaning from the special constables. I am convinced there was no groaning. I fell senseless after being shot. It was in the lobby where I had been wounded. At that time a great many shots had been fired from the insurgents. I was three or four feet inside the door when I was shot. I saw Oliver and O'Dwyer there acting as special constables. I saw the Chartists thrust at us with their pikes, breaking the windows and doing every damage they possibly could. Did not recover my senses until after the insurgents had retreated. The lobby was full of insurgents. I was left alone. The rest of the spe cial constables were driven in. Those of the mob who were in the lobby had pikes and guns. lam not sure that any of them were in the passage where the soldiers were stationed, hut I ihink they were. I did not see the con stables make any attack, or attempt to seize a pike. We were on the defensive. The Mayor had positively or dered that we should not attack. The struggle was going on about two minutes before I was shot. I did not see the front door shut at all. Ido not know how many special constables then: were. I suppose there were a hundred altogether. I think there must have been 20 in the lobby. The special constables had no other weapons than a constable's club. Before I was shot I saw the guns pointed, and the firing came from the street and street door, The shots were directed against the special constables. There were eight or ten shots fired. The special con. stables did all they could to guard the Westgate, and were driven in by an armed body. I saw the soldiers arrive from the barracks. I saw the soldiers come round the corner as if from Stow-hill. That would be the natural course from the barracks. There were numbers going about at the time who must have seen the soldiers coming down Stow-hill. There was not a quarter of a minute between the man speaking to me and the first shot being fired. Re-examined—l mean by the man speaking to me his saying " Surrender your prisoners." lam told that lam to receive a pension from the Government. I am a wit ness for the prosecution. To the Court—When they said " Surrender you pri soners," I said " What prisoners ?" I did not hear any one say " No, 'never." Lord Granville Somerset examined by Sir F. Pollock— I am t,ow Mr tuber for this county, and have been so for many years. f was candidate about the year 1831, at the time of the Ri form Bill. I have a very indistinct recol lection of wh: i: happened in the canvas of Newport; but I have endeavoured to recollect the facts. I regarded what happened as a mere ebullition of popular feeling, and I cared very little about it. My own impression is, that there was a great tumult, with a disposition to personal violence on the part of the mob collected. I believe the violence was more directed against my brother, the:: can vassing for the borough of Newport, than against myself. I was not with him when the violence commenced ; but on rejoining him he told me what had happened. I saw the mob committing violence, F.Hd Mr. Frost did his best to prevent violence. I really believe his object was to pre serve the peace. My brother, the Duke of Beaufort, in consequence of the mb-delivery of a letter, or of the an swer to a letter, has not been abl 3 to attend. The case here closed for the prisoner. Thomas Watts was then called, and examined by the Attorney-General—l live at Gelly-grove, thirteen miles from Newport, and about a mile and a quarter from Black wood. I left my house at Gelly-grove about half-past seven or. the morning of the 4th of November. I went down the tramroad towards Newport. I travelled on horseback. I know James Hodges, who lives at Noxfield, near Blackwood. I met him that morning by the Royal Oak. That is a mile below Risca, which is nearer to Newport. Where I met him is five miles and a quarter from Newpoi t, and three miles and a half from Pie-corner. When I said " Royal Oak," I meant " Welsh Oak." That is eight miles from Blackwood. I think I met him there between eight and nine o'clock. From half-past eight to nine. Hodges was then walking very fast, and coining up from Newport towards Blackwood. Cross-examined by Sir Frederick Pollock—l am a hollier and a farmer. lam in the service of no one as a hollier. I keep a team for drawing wood. The Trederr ' ar Company employs me and other persons. My landl or d is Jones, of Lanarth. I first mentioned yesterday morning that I saw Hodges on the road, and mentioned it to Mr. Phelps. I told him I met Hodges in the morning. Mr. Phelps asked me if I had seen James Hodges. It was not until nine o'clock yesterday morning that he spoke to me, and asked when I saw Hodges, and where I saw him. I keep my clocks twenty minutes fast, in order to get my servants up early in the morning. I saw Hodges first at the Welsh Oak, between:half-past eight and twenty minutes to nine o'clock. The Welsh Oak is three miles and a half from . Pie-corner. I have been serviceable in this prosecu tion, and will be so again if I can. Cross-examined—l am a constable, and had taken 23 of the prisoners myself. Sir Frederick Pollock—What I meant was that you were a fetch-and-carry sort of person—bringing pikes in and out, and so on. Re-examined—l have had the custody of the pikes. I rode down that morning at the rate of ten miles an hour. The road is a good carriage road. The Solicitor-General here proposed to call the witness Hopkins. He said that his object was to contradict Gould ; for Gould had stated that Hopkins stood at the door, and asked the insurgents what they wanted, and that the insur gents gave a certain reply to that question. Sir F. Pollock submitted that the Crown could not do this. The Crown would in the first instance have proved whatever happened in the front of the inn, and of a list of 9 00 witnesses they would have called such persons as they thought fit, and out of the 70 witnesses which were on the body of the bill they might have called this very Edward Hopkins. Judge Parke remarked that he had been examined. Sir F. Pollock—lle was called, and produced a number of weapons. He was actually sworn to produce weapons. Ile did produce them, but his name was not to be found amongst this list of witnesses. Judge Parke remarked that Hopkins was introduced in the middle of Sir T. Phillips's examination. Sir F. Pollock continued, by remarking that beyond the production of weapons no question had been put to him. He submitted, then, that the Crown had no right to call him forward to contradict the witness, who merely gave a different statement of the transaction from that the witness on the part of the Crown had originally given, and the mere circumstance of one of the witnesses having named Hopkins, as a person who had taken a certain part in the transaction, would not entitle the Counsel for the Crown to call Hopkins to give a substantial contradiction to that which the witness had stated. OLD COURT. (Before Mr. Baron GURNEY, Mr. Justice COLERIDGE, and Mr..Tustice ER6KINEO Three young men, named _Brown, Grahnm, and Hol liday, were convicted of coining, and sentenced by Mr. Baron GURNEY to fifteen years' transportation. Julia Smith and Henry .11•C'are were indicted for having in their possession a mould for coining penny pieces. _ _ It appeared from the evidence for the prosecution that the prisoners were living together as man and wife, at No. 5, New-way, Westminster. In consequence of a little boy named William M'Cave, the son of the pri soners, attempting to pass a counterfeit penny, tht lodgings of the prisoners were searched by a policeman named and there he found two moulds for coining penny pieces, and various counterfeit penny pieces of lead or pewter, and also a quantity of blue vitriol, or sulphate of copper, which being precipitated upon the counterfeit pieces, gives them the appearance of the genuine. Smith in her defence said that she had obtained the pieces of a boy, believing them to be genuine. 111‘Cave said that he had separated from the other prisoner, with whom he had formerly cohabited, and knew nothing of the transaction, although he was in the habiting of vis,ting her. In his defence he called a witness named Viinables, who stated he knew M'Cave, who had recently been re siding with his father. He further stated that when the prisoner wos first apprehended the policeman came to the witness and asked him if he could give any evi dence against the prisoner, as if he could it would be better pay than for felony, as he would have five shil lings a day. The policeman asked him if he would not stand something, and although he had very little money he gave one policeman a quartern of gin, and the other a pint of beer. The policeman M'Elleny, being recalled, said, he dill not recollect saying anything about the five shillings, but he would not swear that he had not. He admitted having gone into a gin-shop and drank with the witness. The prisoner M'Cave's father being called, said, that his son at the time of this transaction, was living at home with him. Mr. Justice COLERIDGE, in summing up, commented upon the manner in which M'Elleny had answered the questions put to him by the prisoner M'Cave, and also upon the fact of his having gone into a gin-shop to drink with Venables, after having satisfied himself that Venables's evidence would be of no importance. If the Jury entertained any doubt as to the fact of Al‘Cave being in occupation of the apartment at the time, they would give him the benefit of it. The Jury acquitted the prisoner M'Cave, and found Julia Smith, Guilty. Mr. Justice COLERIDGE sentenced her to two years' imprisonment and hard labour in the House of Cor rection. (Before Mr. Sergeant ARABIN,) ROBBERY BY A SERVANT.—Anne Brown, aged 22, was indicted for stealing four rings, one necklace, and other articles, value 30/., the property of James Holder, her master. The can having been proved, the Jury returned a verdict of Guilty, and she was sentenced to be trans ported for fifteen years. CUTTING AND MAIMING.—EIIen Johnson, aged 24, was :indicted for feloniously cutting and wounding Charles Kingsbury, with intent to do him some grievous bodily harm. She pleaded Not Guilty. Charles Kingsbury keeps a public-house in Kent street, Borough. On December 25, between eight and nine in the evening, prisoner came into his house. She was quarrelling with.a man named Walker. Witness separated them. She began quarrelling again, and wit ness put her out of the house. When he had carried her outside the door she stabbed him in the arm. Wit ness had not struck her at all. He then gave her in charge to a policeman. Reuben Walker corroborated the prosecutor's testi mony, and stated that he saw the prisoner draw a small penknife from her bosom while the prosecutor was eject ing her from the taproom. The policeman who took the prisoner into custody produced the coat and shirt of the prosecutor, the sleeve of which seemed saturated with blood. The surgeon who attended the prosecutor described the nature of the wound. The prisoner, in her defence, said she was so tipsy she had no recollection of what had occurred ; and she was very sorry she should have injured, the prosecutor. Mr. Justice ERSKINE having gone through the evi dence, the Jury found the prisoner guilty of an assault. Mr. Justice ERSKINE in passing sentence said, that had the Jury convicted the prisoner of the more serious offence laid to her charge he should have felt it his duty to sentence her to transportation, as the offence of stabbing with sharp instruments was so much on the increase in this country. As it was, he &it it his duty to pass a severe sentence on her, as it was e‘ident she had this instrument in her possession ready to stab be fore any provocation had been given her by the prose cutor. The sentence of the Court was that she be im prisoned in the House of Correction, and kept to hard labour, for twelve calendar months. _ A Person named Hoseason appeared at the bar to plead to an indictment for misdemeanour. The indictment charged him with committing an as saul• upon Robert William Henry Brown, the Warden of the Fleet Prison. He was also charged with assault. ing divers other persons, and there were a number of counts in the indictment varying the form of the charge. 'The defendant pleaded not guilty. Mr. BALLANTINE said he was instructed on behalf of the prisoner, that he wished to traverse until the next Session, and in the meantime the prisoner would be entitled to his liberation on bail. Mr. CLARKSON said he appeared for the prosecu tors, and the Court would see from the indictment that the charge was of a serious character. He had to apply that the Court should order the defendant to be sent to Newgate, and that he should be called upon to give good bail, with 48 hours' notice. The COURT, after a brief consultation, directed that the defendant should enter into his own recognizance in '2001., and find two sureties in 75/. each, and to give 48 hours' notice. The defendant was then placed in the custody of Mr. Cope, the Governor of Newgate. NEW COURT. (Before the COMMON SERJEANT.) James Turner, an ex-policeman, lately acting in the capacity of a broker's man, was indicted for stealing six printed books, a broach, and other trifling articles, the property of John Bowes Bey. A broker, named Gingle, was employed to levy a distress in the house of the pro secutor, and the prisoner was put in as his man. After the distress was paid out the property named in the indictment was missed. Information was given to the former comrades of the prisoner, who went and searched his rooms in Gingle's house, and the books, &c., were there found. Verdict—Guilty. The Learned JUDGE said it was highly necessary that those who were employed under the powers of the law should be honest, and he found it to be his duty to make an example of the prisoner. The sentence of the Court was—That he be transported for the term of seven years. Elizabeth Morgan and Ann Perry, were indicted for stealing a tea-pot, a shift, a number of small pieces of ribbon, and a few artificial flowers, the property of Wm. Best Capper. The prosecutor resided in the Waterloo-road, where his wife carried on the business of a milliner. Being in want of a servant they put a bill in the window, and in consequence the prisoner Morgan called, and' mention ing the name of a friend of his, said she had a niece coining out of Moemoutbshire, would he take her ? He said he would willingly, but he was ill off in the meantime. She said she bad no objection to come till her neice arrived ; he was very glad of it, and she came on the same day. She frequently got drunk ;on the 27th December she was in that state when a shift be longing to Mrs. Capper dropped from her person. A MORNING EDIT EON. with others, and others in concert with him. It is not etieugh to prove that he has done all these acts, but they must also prove that he levied war against the Queen and her Government, Nor does what is required stop over. here, for it must be further proved to you that he has thus levied war against the (keen and her Government with the intention and design Stated in this indict ment; and moreover, to which I shed hereafter have to cal your attention, these three things must be established by the evidence for the Crown—not that the prisoner mustbe called upon to disprove them, but that they . must be es tablished before you in behalf of the prosecution, by clear, direct, positive, affirmative evidence • and these threes things must then be provcd—first, that the prisoner levied war; next, that he levied tsar against her Majesty; and, thirdly, that he levied war with the intention stated in the indictment, which is, by force to alter the laws and to sub vert and overturn the Constitution of this realm. To the investigation of the proof as to these three points, then, Gentlemen, I beg to implore your most careful attention. It is, Gentlemen, extremely necessary, inasmuch as for centuries oiit?n,,assttmhbe a uecot s wh t t r he u :e g srn, gle has existed on the law of high treason ; m an a d n that s thea as to r or uolstlvvgln3laeto, shall h v h tahl e le n beoevnaedr deemed et sidem heaadsnbhdei high e tsub jectrmadee_ r oisnoungnTlitnit,tioisb,et that swat watched, t , i cshlexceedinglyead,s: acnfdtreason, h a i s r n been e o err more important a t tthchaiajt watched, n u shouldrtth jealous er ab law,oe ua and great caution, not mere‘ y by Judges, but more esp,. eially by Juries, because to their protection only the subject can look for safety against the otherwise overwhelming power of the Crown. And it has happened in the course of cen turies that Englishmen who have Leen in vom.situation— who have occupied the honourable post which you now oc cupy at this moment—l venture to say that, under .Provi dence, to them, to a British Jury, to a Jury compors:d of honest, bold, loyal, brave, uncompromisirg Englishinenn that we are at this moment indebted for all the freedom which we now enjoy. Yes, Gentl emen , to them , to their discrimination, to their coura g e, to th e i r justice—breast ing and opposing the power of the Crown-- , o Juries, your predecessors in eases of high treason, we owe that the unhappy prisoner now at the bar, and all others who may hereafter be in his situation, may stand forward and claim the defence of the law, now rendered liberal, en lightened, and just, and may throw himself for his guilt or his innocence, for his I.fe and death, upon the judgment of a Jury of his peers and fellow -countrymen. And I again call on you, as the Attorney-General has done, and as I am sure you will do, to discharge that duty committed to you fearlessly, firmly, and im partially, as your predecessors have dune, and in such a way as shall confer honour upon yourselves, and ensure the safety and liberties of yell: fellow countrymen. Having made these preliminary obsWations, I now proceed to call . .our attention to the maunerin which the law is laid down by those high authorities whose doc trines are not to he impugned, and who ought to guide your mind in the consideration of this case ; and I do this with the less reluctance, Gentlemen, for if ever there was a case in which it became the duty of an advocate to press the law upon the Jury, it is the ease now before us. For I do not stand here to deny that Mr, Frost, the prisoner at the bar, is guilty of a great and enormous offence—that he had been party to a riot of the most eerious and alarm ing character—that, although he hirriselr .IM9 been guilt less of the fact, he has joined w ith those who afterwards have shed human blood—Gentlemen, it is right to say that Mr. Frost deeply deplores and deeply mourns the melan choly < ccurrences of that unhappy day, and perhaps even those who have most severely suffered from it, and who have increased it, cannot deplore them more. lie is guiltless of the act himself; still it must be admitted that he bore a part in forming and leading, if you please, those men who afterwards, in the excitement and frenzy of I the moment, committed the crimes which ail so deeply laatent. It is because of the unfortunate part v ehich Mr. Frost bore in the transactions of that day—it is be cause of the deeds and outrage of the armed enulti- - tude—it is becausa of the destruct ion of p eace, of p perty, and of lives which then occurred—it is be"- ro cause you very naturaily feel that thOse concerned in such outrages are deserving of serious punishment, and because you may possibly confoued in your own minds th e g u i lt which is admitted to be ascriba ble to the prisoner, with the more serious guilt charged against him by this indictment, that 1 am the more especially en opelled to ask and be seech vou to bear in mind the distinction between this species of guilt and treason, and to pa; your most careful attention to the undoubted authorities betvhich this distinc tion is established between levying war not of a trea against the sonable character, and levying of war the guilt in riend the of high treason. Gentlemen, my Learned c , Queen, so as to make the parties participate Attorney- General, very accurately, and, as becom aaia ba : meter and situation, very fairly and honourably ,declared the law to you on the subject. I will not, therefore. : cause I cannot in equally clear and emphatic language, re peat to you how the law stood before the statute of Edvveral 111., by which you arc now to be guided, and which I arts , sorry to say, with frequent interruptions, has formed, and at present forms, the great safeguard of the liberties of this country. He truly told you that under that statute elf past indefinite constructive treasons; were put an end to, that the statute declared what the law of treason was in such terms as that it was hoped by the honest Le gislature of that day that no Englishman who could read, or who had organs to hear when another read, could even through ignorance be betrayed into this serious c rime, or ever incur the guilt of it without knowingly - comneitting the highest crime cognizable by law. This statute, i be lieve, has been strictly observed since its enactment, excepae ing that part of it, under whieb this question now arises, as relotes to the levy ing of war. Yon hod, Gentlemen , that Lord Ila.le, after commenting in term s pf high approbation on the statute of Edwardlll.; after dealing with the question of compassing and imagining the death of the Sovereign, which does not arise here, it not being imputed to Mr. Frost — proceeds to consider the question of levying of war. and speaks of that act in a manner which becomes one of his high character, learning, and humanity, and draws attentien to the distinction between mere levying of war, which in cludes going and attackieg her Majesty's subjects with an armed force, military array, and discipline, and that fur ther crime of levying war against the Sovereign which is necessary to constitute treason. In his 14th • chapter, p. 130, lie says, that in order tc constitute the crime of trea son, and to bring the offender within the clauses Pf the Statute, these three things must concur—First, it must be a levying of war ; secondly, it must be a levying of was' against the King ; thirdly, it must be a levying of sear against the King in his own realm. So that, however, war may be levied, Gentlemen—if a! man go at the bead of 10,000 or 100,000 men—if he march across the country ai:4 seize, imprison, or even put to death the Queen's subjects, that is a levying of war certainly, but it is not high treason, arid, to make it high treason, it must go farther, and the war so levied must be levied against the So vereign. I now, Gentlemen, come to the question what is a levying of war against the Sovereign? And here we have undoubtedly to lament that from the time of the passing of this statute, whereas all other treasons were held strictly to be only treasons when they came within the precise and definite words of the statute, from causes to which I may perhaps briefly advert—from the power of the Crown, from the corruption of Judges, end, what is still more to be regretted, from the servility of Jurors— what is called a constructive levying of war against the Sover, inn has occasionally been admitted in direct con travention of the terms and spirit of this admirable statute. Much is it to be lamented that the Crown should, during the struggles of other days, have thus triumphed over the t independence of Jurors and the clear duty of Judges. 13ut 1 will venture to say that had such Judges heretofore presided on the Bench as we have been blessed with in more modern times, no such construntnon would ever have been recorded in our legal annals'. Gentlemen, the point to which I am desirous to call your partleular attention at this stage of the case is that there is a distinc tion between mere levying of war and treason agaost t'ne Sovereign. You can all understand that to levy war a gainst the Sovereign of the country is not a riot. To constiSute a levying of war there must be marchings of armed banela —there must be military array and military discipline— there must be the raising of regular forces to make war against the forces of the Sovereign, as a foreign enemy would do, or as has occurrsd in the rebellion of 1745, or the rebellion of 1715, or any other civil war in which fumes were drawn up. That is the adinary and plain meaning of the levying of war. That is the. . cons t ru ction which a ury would put on it, and I say that it ou g ht always to have er the acts been left to a jury, as a question of fact, eieth proved before them amounted to a le.vyiee of war a ; but unhappily, Gentlemen, in the time o f Henri Vi ether ber of misguided men rose up and combined tog against a statute which had been p assed regulati,'g the 11. num_ wages of labour. They thought , I s u pp ose, their w.ll-75 were not high enough. They wished to have :ace labour and high wages. They rose up, I will in ) : say into rebellion, although it was afterwards held so, but into open tumult, to oomph the audio- ritics to alter the law, to repeal the statute, and that which under such Judges as now preside upon our bench would be called no more than a common offnice, such as a mere assault upon a constable, was in those day's held to be a levying of war against the Sovereign, and high treason. There, Gentlemen, was laid the foundation of constructive and interpretative treason ; and that shows the danger ,which I know you will avoid in this case, of stepping one hair's breadth beyond the strict law of reason ; and justice. The facts of a case strained, perverted, dis torted, amounting to a mere tumult, was held to be a levy ing of war against the Sovereign. Whet was then fact is now become doctrine. The foundation which was then laid is now embodied, and so you must be guided. Gentlemen, I shall not trouble you with other decisions that have been pronounced of a similar nature. I believe in the next reign meetings to pull down enclosures were held to have been levying of war. Still in those days the Judges were not in dependent. They gave way, they yielded, they humblod themselves for the Crown, upon which they were depen dent for their offices. The consequence was, that, as often as the Crown required it, ay, and often by consulting with the Judges before the cases were brought before a Jury, they were held to be a levying of war; so the breaking of inclosures was held to be a levying of war against the Queen and high treason. Gentlemen, I have referred to these cases for two purposes : first, for the purpose of urging what I shall not again repeat, because I feel that in what I have said I have not spoken in vain, for the purpose of urg ing upon your calm and dispassionate attention the grievous danger to life and liberty which would arise from over straining law i d m o p b o j r e t c a t i a e n . d I r f h e a r l lynoouwt- to r t‘ o i e m e t e d m , a G n y e n h t u l e n m e r e e n d , t y o e m a r y s ' straining law or fact in a case of such mighty and tremens e t toe subject v vh after the passing o f ti l e stat u t e , an d i n some reigns after the daC3.i s o o n n s h ich lofhathees alluded, n t the Theat Lfiorrsdt Hale reso lution s that I find of this interpretative levying of war, is a resolution cited by my Lord Coke, P. C., page 10, in the time of Henry VIII., for enhancing servants' wages ; and the next in time was that of Burton, 39 Elizabeth, Coke, P. C., page 10, for raising an armed force to pull down inclosures generally. This is now settled by these instances and some of the like kind hereafter mentioned. The proceeding against Burton and his companions was not upon the statute of the 25th of Edward 111., which required that in new cases the Parliament should be first consulted ; but u son the statute of the 13th of Elizabeth, for conspiring to levy tear, which bath not that clause of consulting the Parliament in new oases; and therefore seems to leave a latitude to the Judges to Judge Parke suggestCtitht.t, the question which was de-- sired to be put should be subniltied to the Court. The Solicitor-General then said the question which I wish to ask is this, 6 . Were you at the door of the West gate Inn ? Did you ask any of the insurgents what they ranted, and did any one answer that question? Sir P. Pollock objected to the quesatm being put. It was not because she witnesses for the prisoner gave a dif ferent account of that tearizaetion, the whole of whieli the Crown might have proved; it was not because that ' a man who as a witness gave the name of another witness that the Cromi had a right to renal that wit ness so named, for the purpose of contradicting the statement made by the witness for the defence. He would put this case. Supposing in the course of a conversation cez taro matters are supposed to page', and the persons who were present are called, three or four indivi duals, to prove what was the conversation upon the one side, and others are called to give a statement upon the i other. If, on the other side the men called gave, a dif ferent complexion to the conversation, and if in the course of it he mentions a statement made by John Oakes, a person who might have been called as a witness, but who was not examined as to any part of the conversation, and the witness being asked as to the conversation, says yes, I do recollect it, and John Oakes made remarks, John Oakes, he apprehended, could nut be recalled so as to say he had n.t made those remarks, and still motes, he could not be recalled to disprove something which he had the opportunity of disproving in the first instance. The Counsel for the Crown could in their original case have given any explanation of the transaction which they might have thought necessary. They had that man ( Hopkins) in the box for that purpose, and they did not examine him. An account had been given on one side, and then upon the other. The Crown, therefore, could not call a witness to disprove a part of the case of the defence which they might have pulled out. If the one side proved one new fact, and the other proved some other new fact, he appre hended that gave the first no right to call back a witness to, disprove the new fact stated in the second instance. Mr. Kelly considered that the evidence of Hopkins was inadmissible on the very clearest grounds. In this case words were things. This was the very essential part of the case upon which the life or death of the prisoner depended. The question was, what vaTs the intention of the multitude in attacking the Westgate ? This could be only collected from what was said at the time, thus making every word that was uttered upon the one side and the other an essen tial and important point of the transaction. In cast's of high treason they were bound to produce all the witnesses in their power that were cognizant of the transaction. Here the witness had been examined before as to all that he had learned of that transaction. Here he might have been called upon, in the first instance, as to what he had known about the matter. He apprehended that anything said was not merely a specific declaration, but it was a fact in the case, and constituting a part of the transaction. He submitted that whatever was said on one side or the other should be proved in the first instance. If this wit ness was permitted to come and say he did net ask such or such a question, they, for the prisoner, might call another witness too, and prove that he did ask such questions ; and thus they might go on calling half dozens of witnesses on each side for the mere object of contradicting each other. The Attorney-General said he should confine himself to this point—whether or not this evidence in reply was that or was not which they had a right to produce. He sub mitted that it was strictly evidence in reply. The first question they proposed to put to the witness was, whether be asked the insurgents what they wanted? Now, he wanted to know could not that question be put to Edward Hopkins ? Judge Parke—That is not exactly the case. It is whe ther you can get the answer to it. The Attorney. .General—That is the first question. Chief Justice Tindal—That is the only question you want. The Attorney-General—We should be contented by asking that. The Chief Justice said that he considered that the ques tion should be put. In ci iminal as well as in civil cases, where a matter arose ex improviso, and that no man could have foreseen, it was but right that the Crown as well as the plaintiff should have an opportunity of explaining that matter, though bound to make out their case in the first instance. Even if the Crown had examined Hopkins all through the transaction, they never could have foreseen that a witness for the prisoner would have referred to Hop kins as making a particular declaration, and therefore it never could have occurred to them to put this question. Judge Parke stated the• if it could have been foreseen Hopkins could not be recalled. But here a new fact was stated by the witness for the prisoner. Judge Williams said that the Crown must be confined to that question only. The Solicitor-General (to witness)—Did you ask any of the mob on the 4th of November what they wanted ? Witness—l did not. i Sir F. Pollock then (addressing the Jury) said-1 have I but one word to say to you, Gentlemen, with respect to the evidence which has been called in reply. My Learned Friend Mr. Kelly will, I am sure, do justice to all the topics which may arise on that part of the case as well as I the rest of it. I should be sorry to abuse that indulgence ' which I have already received from you and my Lords, in the long, very long address which I made to you yester day, if I now occupied your time more. My address to you now arose simply from an anxiety that no part of the defence of the prisoner should be prevented by anything that has occurred this day. I shall make but this simple remark, that Hopkins and a number of other witnesses that might have been called were not called. They were, with Mr. Williams, in the list of witnesses for the Crown. Mr. Williams was not examined, and you may judge of the value of the testimony that has been given by the evidence of those who might have been called and yet were not, as well as by those who have been called and examined. You can do this with effect when searching into the truth of that which really did occur. Mr. Kelly then rose to sum up for the prisoner—My Lords, and Gentlemen of the Jury, the time has at length arrived when the duty devolves on me of addressing you in defence of the life of the prisoner at the bar—for, Gentle men, his life is committed to your hands—a duty by far the most solemn, the most painful, and the most awful which I have ever yet been called on to discharge. Gentlemen, if I bad felt that the fate of the prisoner depended on my ability to perform the task allotted to me, I never would have consented to place myself under so fearful a responsi bility. But I have felt that he is amply protected by the law and by the Constitution of this country, by enlightened, learned, patient, and impartial Judges, and above all, un der Providence, by that mighty and impregnable rampart which yet encompasses and covers every subject of teie realm, guarding him in the enjoyment of his rights, his liberties, his property, his character, and his life—a Jury of his fellow-countrymen. Gentlemen, it is to this protection that I commend the prisoner at the bar, and,in the observa tions which I shall feel it my duty to make to you, let me beg you to bear with me if I, perhaps from inadvertence, or from the pressure on my mind, perplexed and troubled as it is by the responsibility which rests upon me, I should, by repetitions, which may appear to you needless, or by calling your attention to matters which you may deem to be irrelevant, press rather too heavily upon your patience and attention. Let me in the outset, Gentlemen, beg your forbearance, because I hope, nevertheless, by calling the attention not only of their Lordships, but of you also, to the law of Ent land ns affecting the dreadful charge now brought against the life of the prisoner at the bar, to con vince their Lordships, and every one of you now assembled to try this great question, that by that law the prisoner is clearly entitled to a verdict of acquittal at )our hands. From some remarks that fell from the Learned Attorney- General in his opening, it seemed to me that he antici pated we ought in some measure to deviate from the direct and honourable course before us in defending the prisoner with something like an attempt to induce you to depart from the strict letter of the law. I may have mistaken my Learned Friend ; but if I did not, let roe assure him, your Lordships, and you, Gentlemen of the Jury, so far from it, I implore you solely to be guided by the law in the verdict which you give. It is in the law, in the strict, undeviating predominance of the law, that I place my hope, my only trust ; and my prayer to you, therefore, is that you be governed by the law—that you adhere to the law alone—because by that law I shall prove to you, clearly and satisfactorily, that the prisoner, whatever be the extent of his crimes and misdemeanours, however high his crimes and misdemeanours for which in another form he can be, and yet may be, indicted and punished, by the law of high treason is as guiltless of high treason as any one of you, Gentlemen, whose duty it will be, I trust, ere long to pronounce him so. Gentlemen, if the prisoner at the bar be at this moment in any jeopardy, it is from the danger of the law not prevailing, or from its not being clearly and perfectly understood. It is from this that the facts now in evidence before you, which undoubtedly dis close a case of guilt against him, which prove him to have committed a great and serious violation of the law which in another shape subjects him to indictment and punish ment, should induce you to punish him, not for that crime which ho has really committed, but for that greater and higher degree of guilt which is imputed to him by this indictment. I therefore, Gentlemen, earnestly claim your attention whilst I proceed to make you, so far as I can, and subject to the correction of the Learned Judges, acquainted with the law as it affects this high and serious charge, and if fortunately I cats succeed in making you clearly understand what the law is as affect ing the charge of high treason laid in this indictment, I undertake to say that the most doubting amongst you, if there be any one so doubting when he refers to the evidence of the witnesses, will not only find that the charge has not been proved, but that it has actually been ~. is t h oefduty I all doubt that the Crown high disproved by the witnesses for the Crown them se l ves. I t is the duty of the Crown to establish beishtfhe r e charge io t reaso n as laid in this indictment t whether not o u succeeded a greatof the prisoner to rebut it , and I shall s h ow you b eyond guidc the ws, f i and in i a e a s l t a a ri b mt li s , i i l , i g - . here : take k e for in g Inc thisque proof.stion i s n L o e t ?' riot has been committed —the question is not even whe ther blood has bee n shed —the question is not whether high crimes which are sought to be punishable by the law have been perpetrated—but the question is, whether the prisoner at the bar has been, by legal and competent witnesses, p rove d to be guilty beyond all reasonable _doubt in h e m i n d s o f any one of you here prescat of having levied war against her Majesty with the treasonable intentions stated in this indictment. And, Gentle men, it is important that no confusion or uncertainty should exist in your minds as to what the law is in this case, for it requires many propositions to be esta blished. The Crown cannot succeed in this indictment by establishing one proposition only, but it is required to es tablish several, to which I am about to call your attention, and they all must be proved to your satisfaction by compe tent legal evidence. Let me say, then, that is not merely by what is called levying of war that Mr. Frost is to be proved guilty of high treason. It is not because Mr. Frost may have been proved to have been himself at the head of an armed band, or vast and alarming numbers, who marched through the highways of the kingdom into the town of Newport, and there committed an outrage which may amount to a levying of war, that is not enough to satisfy the law of high treason. The Counsel for the Crown must satisfy you that the prisoner at the bar has levied war__ certainly, that is the first point ; but then they must pro ceed to satisfy you that he has leeied war against her Ma jesty. It is not enough that he conducted an armed ba u d and a multitude of persons, nor that he acted in concert I the )b -led the age cre the rc- in ept Ind Da in 7