The Sun. — London, England, 1840-01-27 00:00:00

EVEN 1N G EDITION : EQUER =...1-IAr*IBE IS LAY. respect, and irrelevant to Adverted to the t witnesses, iv. their Lcrdsiiips would observe that the list of jurors. to procure which was the object of the application to the Court, was ordered to be given, that it might be served at the same time with the copy of the indictment. The enactment that a list of witnesses should be delivered also provided with respect to tha list of witnesses under consideration, and was that a list of the witnesses, which should be produced at the trial, and of the jurors, mentioning their names, pro fessions, and places of abode, should be also given at the same time with the copy of the indictment and, therefore, there was precisely the same obligation on the public prosecutor to give a copy of the list of witnesses as of the list of jurors. If the Court, therefore, when it drew up that rule, thought that the list of jurors must be delivered at the same time with the copy of the indictment, they must allow that the list of witnesses must be delivered at precisely the same time, because the words of the Act were precisely the same. Now, Sir Frede rick Pollock had called their Lordships' attention to a great number of cases, in all of which the Court had held, that; the words of a statute providing for the security of the prisoner, should be binding and imperative, and that all the statute re quired should be given to the party. It would be quite inexcusable for him to refer to any of those cases, but he should not feel that he had discharged his duty, if he did not make some ob servation on the mode in which these references were met by the Attorney-General, who had said they were merely cases in which the law required something to be done which had not been done. Why, what was the case before their Lordships, on which the fate of those three men depended, but that the provisions of a statute had not been complied with ? There was one statute not cited, bearing directly on the present case, namely, the 7th Will. IV. and Ist Vic. c. 26, by which it was enacted that no will should be valid, unless in writing, and signed by the testator, or some other person in his presence and by his direction, in the presence of two or more credible witnesses present at the same time. Here was a provision like the present case—au act to be done in the presence of two witnesses present at the same time. Suppose a case in whicha will had been executed, and it had been attested by two wit nesses, but by one at twelve o'clock, and by the other at a different time, what argument could his Learned Friend urge to induce their Lordships to dispense with the provision respecting " the same time." It might be said the witnesses swore each of them that the testator duly executed the will, and what did it signify that they did not see it at the same time ? It might be urged, (as in the present case,) that the real intention of the testator, credibly witnessed, was the substance, that the simultaneous witnessing was only matter of form, and that no injury could possibly re sult. Now, if their Lordships could, in the present case, strike out of the statute of Anne the plain words, "and at the same time a copy of the indictment," what was to prevent them from also striking out the parallel words of the statute of wills? —particularly as it would be difficult for a person unacquainted with the previous history of the law of wills, to divine what could be the reason for such a provision. Yet it had its origin evidently in the statute of frauds, which enacted that no will should he valid unless signed by three persons, as witnesses, but which did not require simultaneous witnessing. Now, not merely in cases of actions against magistrates or clergymen, or particular classes of individuals, had the Courts held them selves bound rigidly to adhere to the exact words of the statute, but there was a long series of cases occurring in the Court of Queen's Bench, in which the Judges had, over and over again, while expressing their regret that they were bound to do so, given a ce:•tain effect to all the express words of a statute, even when they admitted that they were construing the Act contrary to the intention of the Legislature. There were many cases relative to gaining a settlement under the Poor-law, by renting and occupying tenements. There was the case, for instance, of the King v. North Cottingham, 1. Barnewell and Cresswell, p. 579, when the question was whether the settlement had been gained by the occupation, not for the whole time by the party himself— but by an under tenant. Chief Justice Best had said, that he was bound to decide in opposition to what was probably the in tention of the Legislature, in accordance with the express words of the statute. 'Then, in Rex v. Ramsgate, 6 Barnewell and Cresswell, p. 712, a question arose on the 6th George IV., 57, whether the settlement had been gained where the rent had not been all paid, the words being, that it should not he general unless the whole rent had been paid. Mr. Justice Bailey said, " It is desirable, in all cases, to adhere to the words of au Act of Parliament, giving them the sense which they nature ly import—in the order in which they were placed. It is material to attend to the collocation of the words, and they should be con strued according to the plain import which they bear, in the order in which they are placed in the Act." And Mr. Justice Holroyd held the same; yet in this case the Attorney- General wished at least a transposition of the words in the Act CASE OF FROST, WILLIAMS, AND JONES. The Judges took their seats this morning at a quarter past ten o'clock, at which hour the Court was densely crowded in every part. Mr. K ELLY rose and said he appeared before their Lordships on the part of Zephantah Williams and he would i not begin by making a n y epo'ogy for the course which sus duty might compel hint to take—' et it would t e e with teat regret and concern that he should feel that dwasted the time which their Lordships owed to t he public, but, on the other hand, if from any fastidiousness ,or dread of doing so, be were to leave any thing unsaid which might appear to him favourable to the prisoner, oner, he might h erea ft er f ee l that which no words of h which could express—he might feel that, and for ever, to stillbi no man would be expected to expose himself, but he would endeavour to compress the arguments his duty compelled him to use in as narrow a compass as . I mine. Their Lordships for were now, the first time, to put a construction upon the most important Act of Parlia ment in the Statute Book, one winch had been in opera tion for the greater part of a century. Their Lordships ..were called upon by the Countrl for the Crown to alter the Act —to unsay what had been said by the Legislature 7--to make the.law something dtfferent from what it w a s before. He would at once proceed and lay before their Lordships the words of the Act of Parliament. Having done sos be said, if they were doubtful—if they were open to any.uncertainty, their Lordships would proceed in the usual and .legal manner to put .. , a proper construction upon them by looking at the con tsxt, or at prior decisions in Courts of Law, and so determine which of two or more constructions might or ought ;to be put on the statute. But if they found that the words were perfectly clear and unambiguous, so that no man could put more than one meaning upon them, then he apprehended their Lordships would not feel themselves at liberty to rescind or alter what the Legislature had done, and substitute something different. It was admitted by the a tumleS-General, and it could be denied by no man, th at the plain and obvious meaning of the enactment was ' that the list o f w i tnesses an d t h e li st of 'jurors should bede nt tired to the prisoner, along with a copy of the indict rennoten days before the t r i a l. Th a t was t h e pl a i n , or doi h n t ary, and ne c essary construct i on to b e put on the wor d s of o Act, and if th e i r L or d s hi ps wou ld venture to ma k e the alterati on w hi ch was called for by the Crown Counsel, they must begin by str iki ng out no l ess t h an s i xt e en wor d s from the statute. B 3 ma ki ng th at alteration , then, with outcarrying th e a l terat i ons f urt h er, no t me would be spe cified f u r tire delivery of these li sts ; th ere f ore t h e L earne d Attorney -Gener a l p ro p ose d t o a dd ot h er wor d s f or that perpese ; and these alterations were to be madeln a sta tute aeknowledgedly passed as a safeguard to • persons in dicted for one of the gran est offences known to our laws. He did not believe that their Lordships would so deal with the statute ; but if they did so, they must go further. His Learned Friend also called upon them to strike out the word " witl," and to substitute " and." . So that in these two important enactments, made by the Legislature for the protection of persons circumstanced as these w ere, whose fates were now depending on their Lordships de cision the Attorney General called upon them to strike out from both clauses, whatever worts he found it neces sary.° his argument to strike out, in order to read the statute, so as to suit it, and insert in lieu of them words to suit that argument. If his Learned Friend who had re plied at considerable length to the arguments of Sir F. Pollock on Saturday could cite any one case on authority, to be found in any book recognised in that or any other Court of Law, in which, not in a case of life and death, not in a criminal case at all, but in any civil case, in the *most unimportant, the most insignificant case, in which at, , v protection in any legal enactment was to be found in any class of prisoners—it his Learned Friend the Attorney. tien t , ral could find any authority to enable any Court of Justice thus to deal with any aro of the Legislature, be should a,ay, at least, that his researches hae been mote fortunate or unfortunate than his ( Mr. Kelly's), for he • had fo,und nothing approaching to it in all his researches. There were none—none such had been re cited or relied on at Monmouth, and none could bo brought before their Lordships in that Court. Tele meaning of the schedule was so clear and apparent, that he could not conceive bow it could be attempted to draw such a construction from it. He would now pause to see what was admitted by the Counsel for the Crown. He had voticed particularly the language used by his Learned Friersd the Attorney-General, because he bad watched anxiously to hear some argument that he might at once meet and grapple, and deal with, according to the best of his understanding of the statute. What had his Learned Friend been compelled to admit, almost at the outset of his argument? Why, that these words would bear L. he construction put upon them by the Counsel for th'e prisoners—that their meaning was one which could fuVan, and properly be given to the Statute. Then, if the Learned Attorney-General admitted that the m e a ning for which the prisoner's counsel contended was one a vbich might fairly be given, before the Attorney- Geneosl could substitute the other different meaning, he must show two things,—first, not only that the meaning he called upon their Lordships to give it was more consistent with the plain words of the statute .and its context than bis (Mie Kelly's), but also, as it had been held that the present was a statute to be construed liberally in favour of ,lse prisoner he must show that that construction was more favourable than that which the Counsel for the prisoners called upon them to adopt. His Learned Fri e net had done neither, and therefore he repeated that it was not possible to put such a construction without strikin g out certain important words and substituting others. tie contended that' the second meaning was one much less in favour of the prisoner, and would be al. together prejudicial to his case. He would now call their Lordships' attention to one view of the statute, which, un less he deceived himself, was absolutely conclusive of the question which they had now to determine. Ho under stood the Counsel for the Croon to admit that these lists must be delivered ten days before trial, and in the pre sence of two credible witnesses. He presumed his Learned Friend would not dispute that admission. Now, then, if the statute did not require that the lists should be delivered " at the same time with the cope of the indict.. sant," he denied that there was any provision in the statute e t all• that these lists should be delivered ten days n e ,;:ere the trial, or at any other particular time, or in the presseoce of two witnesses. That position he would un dertak eto convince their Lordships of. Now, if their Lordsin;ne looked at the words of the statute, they would find that Ow provision was not that these lists should be delivered tent days before trial, bat " at the same time with the copy of the' indictment." His Learned Friend would contend that these words were immaterial, and they were treated as if they were not in the statute at all. Their Lordships would, however, attentively consider the words of the statute, and the meaning which ought to be fairly acid legitimately applied to them. If the words considered immaterial by his Learned Friend on the other side were strock out, the statute would be a nullity as regarded' . the ideneity of the delivery, and there was then no provision at 'all concerning the delivery of the lists. Unless they took and incleded the words " at the same time" with the copy of the indictment, there was absolutely no provision for the delivery of the lists. It was only by the force of the words" at the same time, " in the early part of the indict ment, and the word " with," in the latter part, that any provision was made for the delivery of these lists, and yet his Learned Friend, the Attorney-General, would restrict or entirely explain these words away. He (Mr. Kelly) could scarcely, without confusion and a waste of the time lime of their Lordships, cokt out the numerous and minute alterations which should he made in the clause in order that i t s h ou ld b e ree d as his Learned Friend the Attorney-General would contend :or. In fact, in order to . do that it would be necessary for some oerson skilled in the business to sit down and draw up an en;irelY new clause, or to make such alterations and interlinea:.ions as would completely remodel the clause: On the othe'r hand, if their Lordships found that any man who knew the English language, and had common sense, could 'make no other meaning out of the clause than he (Mr. Kelly) contentl.ld for, they would, be trusted, be slow to construe it in any other sense. The statute did nut lay its framers open to the imputation which a Noble and Learned Lord now pre sent threw upon the Legislatures of former days. The statute was drawn up with great care, accuracy, and sim- I sticky* which' any person only to hear read would deduce from it. Th ere were three papers to be delivered to the p r ise; %ler altogether and at a certain period before the trial. The fee rind Attorney-General would, however, call upon their Leesiships to destroy the unity and simplicity and accuracy of the statute, and that by striking out some and substituting other words to meet his arguments. That lought not to be done. No authority bad been cited to in ' duce them to introduce a new reading of an Act which had been in beneficial operation for the greater part of a cen tury. It was in his mind an attempt to deprive three pri soners on a trial for their lives of the benefit which the sta tute conferred on them. He would now come to the prece dents and authorities that had been referred to, and here he was relieved by the arguments of Sir Frederick Pollock, from occupying more than a few minutes of their Lordship's time. He would only remind their Lordships that the first trial for high treason in which this Statute \ was brought into operation, was that of Lord George Gor don in 1781. Between that time and the present there had been, he believed, some thirteen or fourteen recorded trials for high treason (of course more persons had been tried), and his Learned Friend ( Sir F. Pollock) by re ferring to the history of those cases, had shown that in every one of sufficient public interest to induce the taking i down all the proceedings accurately in short-band and pub % fish them in the State Trials—from tire case of Lord Geo. Gordon, in 1711, to that of Thistlewood (which was hap ', ify the last) in IS2o—this Statute was acted upon in the vecy way now contended for ; it was a recorded fact that at the proper period before the trial took place, the lists were delivered and at the same time, Their iLordships bad, therefore, first the words of the Statute, then aft the practice that had taken place under it, in fa vour of the cases now presented for their consideration. He wou ld only refer to one of those cases for a moment, in consequence of an observation of the Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pl,-as, when the e ases'o . f Lord George , Gordon was adverted to. This having been the first in 1 which it was necessary to provide the Statute, inasmuch 1 1 as there was no ower' by levy in the public prosecutor t-, the Sheriff , who was • \ compel rot the officer of the At torney-General, to give to him a list of the Jurors re turned ; •the Court of King's Bench was a pp lied to for a rule o n the Sheriff for that purpose, and it might not be unimportant to observe, the rule must have been drawn up by the Learned mover, or perhapslby the Court itself, with I re Terence t o t h at ver y provision, and by that rale the if,'riff was required to de'ver the list to t he At t o. -ne o -General or the Solicitor o the. Treasury, in orde r that Ji. copy of the same might be delivered those Wetre the . 'cry words of the rule in Doug las) at the lame tit,'e w;!.h the copy of the indictment. It was Oa st nod by e'tte of their ;.ordships that this did not refer fe he list of Nvl,'neases, e ;nch w as not mentioned in the rule; t i on that he itad tyre remarks to Znake—first, thai the Crown ` did not need the aici of the Court to obtain a list • CI; the Crown witnesses, which was within the knowledge of the Solicitor of t.,..:0 Croy n, but nut within the knowledge or control of the Solicitor of the prisoner, It would have een, therefore, absurd to hove applied to tie) Court ie —a different collocation of them. There was also a case Rex v. Hitchins (9 Barnewell and Cresswell, 176) on a question under the same Act, in which Mr. Justice Parke (now Baron Parke) said—." It is a very safe rulP of construction to adhere to the words of an Act of Parliament, giving to them their grammatical and natural sense, unless when they plainly appear from the context to be used in some ether sense." And these words were more important from their having been accidentally employed on Saturday by Mr. Baron Alderson. Mr. Baron ALDERSON—It may not be improper here to read the judgment which was affirmed by the Judges in a case I have here—" It is a rule, in the construction of statutes, that in the first instance the grammatical sense of the words is to be adhered to, and if that is contrary to, or incon sistent with, the expressed intention of the Legislature in other parts of the Act, or if it lead to any absurdity, the grammatiul sense may be modified, extended, or abridged, so far as to re move that inconvenience, but no further." Mr. KELLY—And in the present case the Attorney-General admitted that the words in the statute of Anne might, in their fair, ordinary, grammatical sense, be construed in the sense argued for by the prisoner's counsel. And he defied the At torney-General to show in. the Act any words tending to vary that sense. There were in the Act no word ' s of context, or connection, which would in any way alter that sense. And he (111 r. Kelly) woul,l, therefore, content to be bound, for the life or death of these prisoners, by the words which the Learned Baron (Alderson) had been so kind as to read. Now, in 3 Neville and Manning 21, there was another case under the New Poor-law, in which Lord Denman " doubted if the Legislature contemplated--but still had used words implying—that in such a case, the settlement should not be gained ; ' and his Lordship decided on the express words of the Act, with the concurrence of Mr. Justice Little dale and Mr. Justice Patteson, with Air. Justice Taunton, who used these expressions—" the Judges are bound to adhere to the at rict words of the statute, without resorting to any con jectures of their own." Now, in Rex v. St. Nicholas, Col chester, 4 Neville and Manning 422, Lord Denman said (hav ing referred to the last cited case), .‘ that he had been, with the other Judges, startled at the consequences of their decision, but the words were too strong to be deviated from, and he was resolved to follow the express direction of the Legislature, regardless of the apprehended difficulty in particular cases." Again, in the King v. Ashworth, and the King v. Bushwell, all the Judges of the Queen's Bench had decided, that they felt themselves bound to adhere to the plain and obvious words of Acts of Parliament, especially of recent Acts. Now, although the Act in question was of an old date, still, for his purpose, it was a recent one, for that was the first time any Judge had been called upon to put a construction upon it. Here were a number of cases decided, not for the protection of men's lives, but simply in disputes between diff eren t p ar i s h es whe re J u d ges had held that they were bound by the words of Acts of Parlia ment—all the Judges concurred in that sound constitutional doctrine, that, where the words of an Act were clear, plain, and simile,they wield not feel themselves at liberty to speculate as to the intentions of the Legislature, nor look at even the spirit of the Act, nor would they look at what consequences might follow they felt themselves bound to look at the words of the Statute. That having been decided in actions against a magistrate, or in penal acts against 'a clergy man, or in disputes between parishes respecting settlements in all cases of a civil nature, he would ask whether it were possi ble for them to depart from those rules and disregard all those principles in a case involving the question of life and death, and upon the construction of a most penal Act of Parliament w hich was passed, admittedly on all hands, as a safeguard for the prisoner. A reference had been made to what was called Peels .Act ; he contended that that Act left the law positively untouched. By the law under the Statute of Anne, the list of jurors and the list of witnesses were to be delivered along with, and at the same time as a copy of the indictment. Now, it had been decided by all the Judges that the true meaning of the word trial" in that and in the Statute of William was arraignment, and that the Act required them to be delivered ten days before arraignment. Lord ABINGER—In the statute of Wm. the reason was given —it was for the purpose of the prisoner consulting his Counsel preparatory to his defence. 'These words were not to be found in Anne. Mr, KELLY was aware they were not, but he was not con tending as to the meaning of the word, he was endeavouring to state the probable meaning of Peel's Act, and he thought it was not material whether the word meant trial or arraignment. All the commentators had laid it down that the word meant arraignment, and he thought that had been the impression on the minds of the framers of Peel's Act, that arraignment and t r i a l meant the same thing. If the arraignment meant the same t hi ng , e at was what was required by the statute of Anne, that the Jury lisle should be delivered ten days before the trial. If trial meant arraignment then Peel's Act provided that the copy of the indictment and the list of the Jurors should be delivered at the same time, and that time must be ten days before the trial. If arraignment and trial recent the same thing then no alteration had been made in the law l e y Ppel's Act. But it might be contended that. it means something different from trial as meant by the statute of Anne. That that statute did not mean the same thing as arraignment in the statute of George IV. Be ie so. By once provision of the statute of Anne, it was provided that the list of jurors and the list of witnesses be delivered at the dame time with the copy of the indictment ; by another provision that time was fixed at. 10 days before the trial. What said the statute of George IV. ?—it said that a copy of the indictment should be delivered, not -ten days before trial, but ten days before ar raignment. It was now delivered at an earlier period—what difference could that make with regard to the list of witnesses ? The enactment respecting them stood untouched. The sta tute of Anne said, not ten nays before the trial, but at the same time with the copy of the indictment. If the alteration had said that the copy of the indictment should he delivered not ten but twenty days before the trial , t h e statute of Anne provided not that these lists should be delivered a certain definite numb ber of days, but at the sage time with the copy of the indict ment. 'This was a necessary eopeequence, supposing the word arraignment to mean something different from trial; and under Peel's Act it was enacted, that a copy of the indictment and the list of jurors should be delivered ten days before arraign ment. He had found various enactments stating that different documents should be delivered at the same time, and what was the construction that the practice of the Courts had uniformly put upon such enactments ? He would cite one case, which would exemplify what he meant, and in which the enactment had always been construed in the manner ho had contended for, until the practice had been recently altered by the new rules of Court, Under the statute of George 11. it was enacted that notice, if eat off, must always be delivered at the same time as the plea. Did that say any specific time ? No. If the plea Vi ore ente:ed four days after the declaration, the notice, if set off, must be given four days after the declaration. At whatever time the plea was pleaded, at the same time must the notice of set off be served. 'f he Act mentioned no specific time for giving the notice of set off, but enacted that it should be served at the same time the plea was entered. By the statute of Anne the lists were to be delivered at the same time with the copy of the indictment. It' i was also enacted that the copy of the ndict ment should be delivered ten days befere trial ; by Peel s Act the copy of the indictment was to be dcliveredeen days before arraign ment, but this did not effeet the statute of Aline, which enacted that the copy of the indictment end the list of witnesses should be delivered at the same time. There was one remarkable point in this ease to which he wished to draw their Lordships' attention. His Learned Friend had said that dee prisoner could receive no prehdiee if the lists were delivered to him ten days before the trial. r, y t if hereafter an Act of Parlia ment should pass enacting eteet the copy of the indictment should be delivered twenty days before the trial, the prisoner would not ha t ee the benefit of having the lists ia; witnesses and of the Juro r s delivered to him twenty d a y s beforelhe trial elso. H e eeeceived that, according ere Peel's Act, it s ignified nothing ee „ , keel the ,coely ed . e ipdiptment ten days before it . r" A... geea.ignment, And klti,s he considered trial, or ten • 9,r, o eke A epreeecutor lei 4s,li' .. • a strong reason for calling down to the strict letter of the • Axt Lord A BINGEK—Then you contend that if an e „ neut ment were to pass, enacting that a copy o f t h e i nn .. should be delivered p twenty days before tri a l, the ro - vi • would equally apply to the lists of jurors and the listsofw sl i o t n 1 I, , sses, and if it were enacted that the list of jurors should bet -, le - st - T''' therefore, trusted that they would . pause . e see: so delivered, it would app o . s three men toly to the copy of the indictmen Mr. KELLY said there was this difficulty under the sta t u te • must, wi i iiout meaning any disrespect, be upon it. permitted to say iie of Anne, it was enacted, not that the list of witnesses should be that he felt that if their Lordships Should find the point doubtful, delivered at the same time with the list of jurors, but with the and the practice had in fact never been settled, they would not copy of the indictment; therefore he did not know what would now suffer the execution of these individuals as a point of be the case if an Act were passed altering the time of the de- practice which up to this time had remained doubtful and livery of the list of jurors. It had also been said that Peel's unsettled. Act created a severance of the delivery of the lists. He ad-mitted Mr. Baron PA RICE—It is a question of law that is to be the severance with regard to the two documents. The Act said settled here, and we have nothing to do but to settle that that in trials for treason in the Court of King's Bench a list of question. the Jurors should be delivered ten days before trial; but when Mr. KELLY was aware of it, but if the practice had never 1 an Act of Parliament directed these documents to be d elivered be en settled , but if no case exactly simila r had ever been cited, at the same time, and another Act said that i n a t r ial in a par- and if the nearest case cited one under the statute of William , titular Court one of those lists should b e d e livered at a diffe- 111., had determined this point of practice, against what had rent time ; that, therefore, the law generally was altered. been contended for by the Counsel for the prosecution, he He would now refer back to the statute of Anne, in order to would say their Lordships would not determine this case for see if that affected the delivery of the lists of witnesses. the first time against the prisoners in three capital cases. He That, statute provided, in clear l a ngua ge , th a t th e li s t of wit- would say that their Lordships would not determine this case as nesses should be given at the same time with the copy of the a point not sealed against the case under the statute of Wit- indictment. Now, if there w a s any thing i n Peel's Act Liam 111., in order to let in the arguments, asser tions, and aria- that rendered that impossible, he quite agreed with the l ogies of the Attorney-General. lie would consider for one mo- I Learned Attorney-General th a t i t mus t, p r o tanto, ment the proposition of his Learned Friend as to the construction 1 repeal that part of the Act. Now, Peel's Act stated that the of the statute—in which there was no express enactment copy of the indictment was "to be delivered as heretofore." stating the time when these objections ought to be made. He Thus far the Act of George did not alter the delivery in the would urge the point in favour of the prisoner—that no wit the slightest manner—the only effect being to render the de- ness should be examined against the prisoner concern.ng livery of all the documents necessary at an earlier period. whom he had not received notice by means of a list Chief Justice TINDAL—You connect the list of witnesses specifying his name and place of abode, delivered to him inseparably from the copy of the indictment? according to the provisions of the statute—that was his Mr. KELLY—Most certainly, and he could not too often re- proposition. The Counsel of the Crown contended that. fer to the words of the statute. That there was no provision the statute should be read thus. The prisoner was j for the delivery of the list of witnesses, but then " that they entitled to a list of the names and places of abode of shall be delivered at the same time with the copy of the indict- the witnesses which should be delivered to the prisoner, ac- ment." That was the only enactment to the time and mode col ding to the terms of the statute, provided he did not plead of delivery. He, therefore, inseparably connected them, and without requiring the production of that list. He would ask whatever alteration might be made as to enlarging or shorten- what was the time when, according to reason and common ing the time of delivery of the copy of the indictment , the l ist sense, a party should make his objection as to the non• delivery of the witnesses must accompany that alteration, just as it did of either of these documents? He would say, inasmuch as a in Scotland. There was some inconsistency in the arguments prisoner was furnished with a copy of the indictment to enable adduced on the part of the Crown with respect to the construe- him to consult with his counsel, thereupon the proper time to tion of the statute as to convenience. The Learned Attorney- object to the non 'production of that would be when he was General, both at Monmouth and there, had declared that called upon to plead to that indictment ; the proper time to object convenience or benefit had nothing to do with it— on account of the non-delivery of the list of jurors would be that no equivalent or equipollent was to be supplied, and yet he when the first juryman should enter the box, because he would (Mr. Kelly) found • him over and over again, at Monmouth say he could not challenge him, having received no list to ena and there, contending that the prisoner was in no wise preju- ble him to make inquiries. So the proper time to object on diced, but in truth benefited by what had been done—that it account of the non-delivery o f th e li s t o f witnesses would be was an act of kindness to him, and that he had a copy of the when the first witness should be ca lled i n to the hex to be ex verdict fifteen instead of ten days before the trial. But why, amined, because he could say no list had been delivered to him when he had received the admonition of the Court as to the containing the name and place of abode of the witness who was length of time they should occupy it—why was their attention about to be examined. He would, in reply to the arguments to be drawn, while he (Mr. Kelly) and his Learned Friend of the Attorney-General, ask how it was possible for an ignorant were under the constant apprehension of saying something that man to know that the time for him to object to the non-delivery might be an undue occupation of their time—why should the of the list of witnesses was at the time he was asked whether Attorney-General bring forward and compel them to re- he was guilty or not guilty. The act suggested no time at ply to arguments that the prisoner was not injured which the objection was to be made ; and how was a prisoner. but rather benefited by, what had been done? reading that statute, to know, that if he did not object at the He confidently denied that argument had any room or locus t ime of his arraignment , he lost all ri g ht of ob j ectin g at all ? , standi in that Court—that it should not be used or adverted to, It also frequently happened that at the time a person was called because it was a violation of every principle of law in the con- on to plead to the indictment, his counsel were not in Court, or struction of a Statute to consider that there was something he might not have had counsel assigned to him, and he thought clear and plain to the most ordinary understanding, and in order their Lordships would pause before laying down a rule exposing to construe it they must inquire whether the prisoner might or uninformed persons to the obligation of making a grave legal • mightnot be injured. If that was to be taken into considera- objection, at a time they have no counsel to assist them ; there tion at all, pray how was the prisoner to prove at the bar that fore they ought not to be compelled to make their objet- i he had been injured or prejudiced? Suppose a case arose in Con at that time. He would ask further, with what ' ,which he had sustained some real grievance or injury, what regularity could a person make an objection at that time ? process or machinery of the law was then provided for the pri- W hat was there, when a party was called on to plead, toner to prove it ? No subpoena could be issued to a or 'when a juror was about to enter the box, relevant to an witness to prove it---or if the witness was present, was objection grounded on thenon-delivery of the list of witnesses? , there time at the Special Commission sitting at The Court would in all probability say in such a case you have Monmouth, to enter upon those collateral inquiries? no right to interfere in the proceedings at this stage with an Suppose there had been two indictments against John Frost— okection irrelevent to it i . the proper time to make an objection one for high treason, with 100 men, at Newport, on the Ist of is when the first witness is introduced into the box, and such, July—another for high treason, with 100 other men, at Mon- he would contend, was the proper time for raising this objection. mouth, on the 10th January, it would be impossible to deny 'the force of practice of the Judges in 1709 was decisive to that it he had then received the copy of the indictments and show that the time for making the objection to the non-delivery list of witnesses at different times, he would have been mate- of the list of Jurors was not before pleading but after pleading, rially prejudiced. If he had had only one list of witnesses mad and when the first juryman came to be sworn. The Learned copies of two indictments delivered, might he not urge that he Gentleman here read an extract from the resolution of the could not tell to which indictment the list referred, or that he Judges in 1709 to that effect. The question was then to be could prove, by some of the witnesses on the list, that he was asked him if he had had a eopy of the indictment. 100 miles distant from the place laid in the indictment at the That appeared to him to be the recognized law and practice. time? How could that statement be admitted ?—it would Nor was the making of the objection thrown upon the prisoner, go for nothing. He submitted, therefore, that there for the Court asked him if be had been furnished with these was a l e power in that Court to enter into speculative documents. inquries as to whether the prisoner was. prejudiced or not for Mr. Baron ALDERSON—AIthough that is so, the omission non-compliance with the Act of Parliament. Still less could could not be an objection afterwards. It is a matter of favour they consider how far he was aggrieved or benefited by it. which has been always observed, but if omitted it goes for nothing. Their Lordships were bound to look at the plain and distinct Mr. KELLY agreed in that, but in merely observing as to meaning of the conditions of the Act, and if what the Legisla- the time of making the objection. It was urged by the Counsel ture required was not done, the prisoner was entitled to the for the Crown that they (prisoner's Counsel) should ehave benefit of whatever legal consequences might necessarily follow. moved to put off the trial ; but he contended that it was their It had been contended that the intention of the Legislature duty to have done so. When the Learned Judge (Baron Parke) could not be that all the lists should be delivered at the on Saturday asked the Attorney-General when, in his opinion, same time, because if the panel was exhausted it would the Crown was bound to prove that the list of witnesses had be impossible to try the prisoners from the lists so de- been delivered, he observed his Learned Friend somewhat hesi livered. In that case the proceeding must be adjourned. mated, and at length answered, although not in direct terms— If any such inconvenience arose, the Legislature was " The, Crown may be called ueon to prove that the requi responsible for it. If that had occurred at Monmouth he (Mr. sites of the statute have Been complied with before Kelly) contended that the indictment must be quashed, and the party pleads." Suppose he (Mr. Kelly) was the proceedings adjourned until a fresh Jury had been sum- right in the main ,point, he thought he could show their moned, and a fresh indictment sent up to the Grand Jury. It Lordships, t H hat the time de : for taking the . objection was after whom no list at all could not be argued that that was a consequence never con-n tuntil thepl e i adi ng party. served)e —he g n enhoar l d. thatna tright , p e h r e so h n a i d hue a pmo r n i o g m ht en ( in a t: . e itn e e v s e s nt was of tentplated by the Legislature, but it must be submitted to u a remedy was provided. Thera was nothing to prevent the had He thenentitledcall Court, in case of the Jury panel being exhausted, on its own put in e t e o n the box, to say that no list of witnesses had been de authority to order the whole proceedings to be quashed, the livered. was . to upon the Counsel for indictment to be again prepared, and the whole proceedings to the Crown to show that such list had been delivered. The At be gone over again, because the statute was not complied with. torney-General's answer was, that he was not bound to prove the It was carrying the argument too far for his:Learned Friend to delivery, because by his having pleaded—because he denied allow that when the statute of Anne was ,not in operation in that he was guilty of high treason, he admitted that he had re -1746, and there was no question about a simultaneous ceived a list of the witnesses. Nothing could be more pre delivery, the Court adjourned the proceedings several days, posterous and absurd than such a position. What was there, that the prisoner might have a list of the new Jurors ; in the reason or understanding of man, to warrant them which proved how zealous they, were to give the prisoner in admitting a principle so absurd and preposterous? the benefit of whatever statute existed for his protection in this Lord ABlNGER—Suppose the Attorney-General complies case, the deliv e ry should be deemed sufficient, and the mischance with your requisitions, and calls a witness to prove that a list waived. On that branch of the argument he had concluded, of the Jurors and witnesses had been delivered, according to He had submitted the preciqe worsis of the statute, and had the statute, and you produced the lists delivered to the priso. shown that the construction for which he contended had been nor, and showed some variation between the copy and the on- invariably adopted in practice. He had laid before their Lord- ginal,—l ask, whether you say the prisoner should be acquitted, ships a great variety of cases in addition to those of or that it would be merely an objection to the particular Sir Frederick Pollock, in which it was decided that witness? what a statute required should be done must be con- Mr. KELLY resumed.—Then not a single witness could be strued literally and strictly, and had endeavoured to examined, because the statute had not been complied with. prevail on their Lordships to dismiss at once all questions that Baron ALDEasoN—But would it apply to the panel? might arise, whether or not the prisoner might be thereby pre. Mr. KELLY—Just so r my Lord. To say the prisoner should judiced. And he would venture to suggest that it would be be acquitted on account of non-compliance with the statute was rash, and if he dared to use the expression, he would say, not his proposition—but that that no witness could be examined presumptuous—in any Judge to attempt to assign a limit to against him. the benevolent intention of the Legislature for the benefit of Baron ALDERSON—Does it follow that if the panel were ex the prisoner. He had submitted views in which the statute hausted the prisoner could not be tried on that indictment at all? was literally construed, and this doctrine held, and he had Mr. KELLY—Yes, my Lord. only on this branch of the case to express the hope Baron Aenowsoei—That star ties one—let me 'suggest that that their Lordships would not be prevailed upon to establish the law requires three things to be done before the prisoner were by their authority any other ihansthe.strictand liberal construe- arraigned. Isnot thatequivalent to saying that the prisoner shall tion of the Statute. With these observations be passed on to' not be arraigned before these three things are done. If so, whe n l ie the next point, namely, the supposed waiver of the objection. has been arraigned. He has lost the protection the Statute h as Now the question would natu ra lly ar ise whe n he heard the given him. I wish to discuss the point, that 1 may have your Counsel for the Crown contending that an admitted benefit, a assistance on it. great privilege and advantage given to aprisoner by an Act of Par- Mr. KELLY resumed—lf the Statute were imperative, liament had been waived, when did he find a provision in the it must not be deviated from on account of incon- Statute that under anycircumstances the right should be forfeited venience or even injustice. In the case of proceedings He found, on looking at the statute, that theprovision was un- having .to commence de novo there , would be only one conditional, and he contended that where the Legislature had degree of inconvenience greater than in the case in 1746, and passed an Act which, in direct terms, gave a benefit to an in- yet there was nothing to induce the Court to doubt that if this dividual on trial for his life, there ought to be some words statute had been then in operation the Court would have equally plain and direct, showing that right might be forfeited, quashed the proceedings, adjourned for a certain number of before the Counsel for the Crown could allege that it had days, and commenced the proceedings again, in order to been. The Attorney-General had stated that, by pleading , the give the prisoner all the benefit he was entitled prisoner admitted he had received the list accordin g to the sta- to. So m uc h for the argument ad inconvenientem. tute. What was his authority for saying so? Considerthe situation To meet the difficulty, that where the statute provided some in which the prisoner stood. There might be a prisoner hereafter thing to be done before arraignment—that the whole question without the benefit of counsel,—how was such a one to sup- was equivalent to this, that arraignment could not be had till pose that, when called on to plead, if he pleaded not guilty, he it was complied with. admitted he had received the list. He hoped the Attorney- Mr. Baron ALDERSON—My question is, whether that is not General would not, by his own as sertion,. s t a t e so , b u t the whole benefit to the party from th e statute—to ena b le t h e refer them to some legal authority, binding upon their p art y to sa y he - would not be tri ed till these things had bean Lordships' to show this privilege might be lost. Let done, and, of course, if he could not be arraigned he could not him for a moment suppose his Learned Friend supplied the be convicted. Court with all authority on that point that could be urged, with Mr. KELLY said emphatically, if that were to held, he Rookwood's case, and Crooks, the only authorities directly should think it ten thousand times bett er that the Act bearing on the question—the decisions amounted to this : that should be totally repealed. The whole benefit ! Why, when the prisoner had omitted to ask for a copy of the indict- what had arraignment to do with cross-examination? And was ment until after indictment it was held to be too late. The not the " benefit" of serving the prisoner with lists of wit objection was not, as had been erroneously stated, too late. nesses and jurors, to enable him to cross-examine the former as By the statute of William the prisoner was bound to do the to character and credibility, and to object to the latter. first thing—he was bound to ask for a copy of the indictment 7Alr. Baron ALDERSON—The words in thestatute of William within a certain time, or he was not entitled to it. In the are the same in the two sections, but in different senses; first, statute of Anne such provision was made—no such obligation " before arrai g nment ; secondly, " before trial." Therefore was imposed upon the prisoner, he was perfectly passive from the statute points to the same thing, that the prisoner may say beginning to end—the whole obligation of acting in conformity he will not be arraigned till the three things stated have been with the statute was absolutely, unconditionally, cast upon the complied with. Crown. Now, in the case in which the objection was urged by Mr. KELLY—But' in this statute the word is " trial." It the prisoner under the statute of William, the facts were these— must be " before trial." The proposition against which he The prisoner under the statute had a clear right to ask for a strenuously contended was this, that supposing three things are copy of the indictment before he pleaded, that he might be provided to be done before trial, or, if trial did commence, that enabled to plead thereto. He had omitted to do so ; and, after therefore the objection could not be urged. It was admitted pleading, he objected that he had no copy of the indictment, that if no list had been delivered the trial could not proceed. To which the answer was—" That, as he had not asked for it, Was not the objection as valid if no list had properly been de he could not now claim it." The Court went en to say— livered? The Court of Exchequer had lately decided on the " That, as the prisoner had not asked for it, he must be pre- statute of frauds, that where a contract written had been sumed, therefore, to have waived the asking for it ; and slightly varied by oral co mmuni cation , i t w a s t hereby vitiated that he had admitted either having received a copy, entirely. Yet that Act was not so stringent as the present. or that he did not need it." Now he (Slr. K e ll y ) The Learned Counsel said he would very briefly advert to a would venture to say, that this remark was incorrect and un- Scotch law. The intent of the statute of Charles 1., in re called for ; and that it could not be argued that the pris o n e r quiring delivery "at the same time" of indictment—list of had in that case admitted his having received the copy, or th a t witnesses, and list of Jurv—w as, that he might learn how to he did not require it. And if it should be attempted, on th e prove competent objections—thatpersonsnot in the list shouldnot p ai t of the Crown, to use this remark against the prisoner in be admitted wonessesiWkat had that to do with arraignment ? the present case, he (Mr. Kelly) would say, that as the statute Ihe evident intention of the statute was that the prisoner of William referred to the indictment and jurors , and the statute should have the ri g ht of objection, not before arraig. moot of Anne related to the witnesses, it would be absurd to refer their on trial, but when the witnesses were called--that had Lordships for the intent of the last statute to the former ; arid that b en he s l h d ie t h o be law r d in in Hyatt's l case, and of other two r eAttornesteleGenCeeral courts ntended en S d c e o d tl t aLd t . rt i n i s is , supposing it should be argued that the " intent" of the first statute was that the prisoner should be enabled to plead—that ought to have made his 'Objection when he was called . cases which Friend the could not be argued of the case under the later statute. Now, the proposition of the Crown Counsel was, that the prisoner, if upon to take his trial —h e make ee ( n 1 % we t eo r u. would Kelly)asubstantiallydva advantage t a denied g eb et him.r e that proposition, for, o . n the . contrary, he had only to remain pas en the He dniift a a l called upon the counsel for the he did nut make the objection prior to the swearing of the Jury,thad waived it. sivo, and let the Attorney-General n p r t o h c e e ed caseas f o a f r asw Williams l e i am pleaseds was Lord Chief Justice TINDAL—Mr. Kelly, in the case you are arguing, the- Jury had not been sworn. Mr. KELLY was obliged to his Lordship for the hint—but unfit the o th t e th o in bj k ec t t h i e o r n e h w e oasn ha ear d as.y to prisoner to say whether he objected to go on with the trial or he did not desire to encumber the main argument with the particular' variations in this particular case, to which he not, and he . ted to go on. not, would advert hereafter. He would now notice the cases Lord DENMAN did not suppose that the Attorney-General causes of n which had been cited by the. Crown Counsel, as analogous to intended to contend that there was substantially any difference the present upon this point. His Learned Friend the Atter between the cases of the prisoners. the, t h e two Attorney-Gonerpris ney-General had cited only other two cases, the Kin , v. Stone The VrTORNOT-GENEOAL—Certainly not; for Frost, not and Hill v. Yates. He (Mr. K.) would not take up the j was sufficieet. time of the Court in arguing them, for they were not any way having objected,,_ . as one point which ' li mig tbe attempted analogous to the case under their Lordships' notice. He had a Alf. KELLY —There a difference in the cases_a Mr. Owen case to which he begged the serious attention of their Lord- to be made as an attorney, and he waite Aiwas uon le 11 aule, as ships, as it appeared to him to be clearly and perfectly analogous signed to Jones as Treasury, and an admission was attempted. to the case in question—not only in its facts and character, but the Solicitor for the . . but he would noi it was also most important as showing that the objection had to be proved of a weia - er t , he point, for he waste the time of been taken at the proper time—it was the King v. Warde, the Court in arguing er imsel, eould contended that no and was reported in 12th Modern Reports, 516. The de- agent, nor even the Y Pn lie Act, except in Court any waiverof any fondant was indicted for Barratry, in which case claim given Inn Istt,rcations he had felt it his the Judges. he was entitled, not by an Act of Parliament, but by very old These were the o bservations that their Lordships w duty to make in practice of all the Courts, to a copy of the articles to be insisted this case, and he were now called upon upon at the trial, in order that he might prepare for his defence. for the first time to determine as to the construction of the Now, in that case , th e co py w as se r ved upon the servant of the statute, an d lay down a rule that would be binding on future eprisoners, and he did not doubt but that defendant, but that service was adjudged ill. That was not a Judges and on futureur be such that all s h ould case of no notice at all—there was a service upon the servant, their decision would .di be able to say that strictly, and but it was held a bad service. A trial without due notice was the Judges had rigi y, t. literally obeyed the letter no trial at all; and it was held that, when there was a rule t o of the Act of Parliamen, give a copy of the articles, and that was not dope, then the Lord DENMAN would suggest, as the Attorney -General had length on prosecutor ought not to be entitled to give any evidence at the been heard so much a t Saturday, that Sir William trial, and the defendan t would therefore be acquitted. That Follett should be heard now for __ . the other pr isoner , an d th a t was a ca se in 'point, and he would watch to see if the At- the Attorney-Gen eral should reply to the arguments of both tornev-General was able to give any satisfactory answer t o the Learned Counsel, it. Probably he might contend that it was a ease of mere After some litt le discussion, this course was agreed to. irregularity. Sir W. F OLLETT then commenced his argu men t on b e h a lf o f Mr, Baron PARSE —Vi is the nature of the service of the the prisoner William Jones. lie stated that he felt great • articles ? difficulty Lo r d sh i ps in addressing their dships on amount of the ai r . lee:eels believed that it was to be before plea pleaded, grea t i mpor t a nce of the cave. If it had not been on accou n t of but his Learned Friend, Sir W. Follett, would answer the its great importance be should not have detained their Lord question, he not being then able to state the rule ships by addressing a ny arguments as to the construction of the positively. The statute of Anne did not point out statute of Anne with regard to the list of witnesses, as it was any time for the objection to be taken, nor any impossible not to see from what had fallen from some of their time when the objection was forfeit e d. H e was prepares{ Lordships, that the difficulty they felt was as to the time of to contend, that even after the Jury were sworn th e prisoner making the objection. With respect to the construction of the had 'b. 'right to ;•:I',lt an objection to the non-delivery o f a copy Act o: Parliament it was impossible he would say for any lawyer of theindictinetit, It was a 3uestion of great doubt, and their ito look at that Act and say that the int ention of the Legis - Lordships would pausejsefore they sent thr ee men to execution 1 la'ure was not that the lists should be delivered at upon a point so doubtful oven t o ` t e e seos t eminent ' the same time with the copy of the indictment. It said so in Couneel at the bar ; nay, _he would ' saythathid the plain and intelligible t erms ; ther e was nothing impossible, priiiie:t . Consented" any of those whoin he had 'Pie 'honour : nothing "absurd fn this requitement, end therefore he would •e eedreseing wi all ebeir pre-eminent ability, but would have cont en d th a t all'' Carts Were to TollOW tbe strict and literal -• sae ~,e i n t 'ea one atigiitang q very greye tioiAt oiie6tiops - of it. Whey had no right to inquire if it would considered i.... I SITN. LONDON, MONDAY, JANUARY 27,1840. give - a prisoner an advantage - or not ; they were bound to con -strue it -literally ! The , copt of the indictment was furnished ' the prisoner in order that he might kn o w h ow t o pl ea d. The lists of the Jury in order that he might exercise his right of challenge; and the list of witnesses that he might cross-examine them. All these objects might be attained if the documents were served at different times, but the Act said it must be delivered at the same time, and they were bound to object. If in the list of witnesses there should be any misdescription of the person or place of residence of one of the witnesses, although the person might know well who the witness was, there could be no doubt he would, in consequence, be entitled to make his objection. There were many cases in which great injustice might result ' from the enactment—take the case in which a witness on the part of the prisoner stated some fact which a person in Court could contradict—he could not be examined. Many similar cases might be put, in which justice might be defeated, but while it was the law of the land, the Court was bound to construe it literally, and had no right to ask whether the prisoner derived greater benefit by non-complying with it than by its exact observance. So far from Sir Robert Peel's Act raising any doubt on the question, he must confess he thought it settled it beyond all doubt. The Legislature must have supposed the list of the jurors and witnesses, with the copy of the indictment under the Statute of Anne, must be delivered at the same time. It was unnecessary he should revert again to the distinction between the statute of Anne and that of William ; he quite agreed with what fell from one of their Lordships, that although the word trial occurred . in two sections, it might mean arraignment in the one and trial in the other. The Act must be construed in its gram matical sense, and surely if language had any meaning at all, there could be no doubt of that. If the word with werealtered to " at " as had been suggested, and "before the time " to " before trial," if the words were altered, their Lordships might, no doubt give it a different meaning, but they could not do that, but were bound to take the Act as it stood. If, when Sir R. Peel's Act was framed there had been any doubt as to the con struction of the Statute of Anne, nothing would have been more easy than to have removed it for the future. And why, then, did it say, " With the 'copy of the indictment ? The 72nd section of that Act repealed so much of the statute of Anne as related to delivering the list of jurors, but the enactments relating to witnesses remained as before. If, then, there were any doubt about the list of witnesses, why, in 1825, were the words again repeated —that the lists should be delivered at the same time, which should be ten days before trial? That such bad been the law there was no direct decision, because it had never been questioned. He thought it unnecessary to refer to cases on the point, but as his friend had referred to the recent Statute respecting Wills, he would mention the case which had led to the alteration ; the enactment now being that the witnesses should be present at the same time. (The Learnnd Gen tleman then referred to a case in 2 Atkins, page 176. ) Sir William Follett then adverted to many well known cases, in which it would not be allowed to supply the strict requisitions of an Act by an equivalent, even though it might be thought more , favourable. The object of the cases which had been cited by his Learned Friend ( Sir F. Pollc ek) had been to show this ; and they showed it to be so clear, that furt'ier reference was unneces sary. They proved that the Act having been substantially complied with was no answer to its not having been literally complied with. And, surely, if this had been held in civil cases it was still more binding in cases affecting life and death. Now as to pleading waving the question—nobody would contend that a statutory protection could be lost to a prisoner by his oversight or omission—and certainly their Lordships could not hold it to be law. Suppose an objection to the lists of witnesses—could it be urged before the first wit nesses were called ? Could it be urged before pleading ? Cer tainly not. For the plea might be guilty, and in that case what would he have to do with the witnesses ? • Three o'clock having struck, Lord DENMAN rose, and the moment Sir William had closed the sentence he was uttering, bowed, and intimated that the Court must adjourn till ten to-morrow. BA KRUPTCY COMMISSION. (From a Correspondent of the Morning Post.) We trust that the Bankruptcy Commission which is now sitting will take notice of this great defect, and remedy it if they can. As there is no jurisdiction in bankruptcy over the principal representative of an as signee, it for.ows that, on his death (especially applicable to official assignees), with balances of money in his hands, there must be a separate Chancery suit in the case or every bankruptcy in which he is an assignee. This state of the law, particularly since the introduction of official assignees, should be no longer suffered to exist ; but the jurisdiction of the Court should be extended. When an assignee is accountable, so should his execu tors or administrators be ; and the power of the Court should be made comprehensive enough to deal fully with all questions within its present range, notwith standing the death of the party who ought to account. The official assignees ought not to be necessary parties to suits in equity, actions at law, or bankrupt petitions ; and, as they are held to be analogous in every respect to receivers, they ought not, as they now are (which is pre-supposing something wrong), to be appointed in the first instance to every bankruptcy. Except in cases of idiocy and lunacy, a receiver is never appointed in Equity without a bill filed, and misconduct on the part of a trustee or executor proved. This was the doctrine of Lords Hardwick, Kenyon, and Eldon—of Sir William Grant and Sir John Leach ; but in the Court of Bank. ruptcy, which professes to go by Chancery rules, a re ceiver is thus appointed at once, without any applica tion, often without a wish, and oftener still without any necessity for one. The exorbitant charges for inserting advertisements in bankruptcy in the London Gazette ought also to be severely commented on and reduced to the insolvent. scale. HOW TO ESTABLISH AN ANTI. CORN-LAW ASSOCIATION. (From the Anti• Corn-law Circular.) Whenever three persons, who are in favour of un taxed bread, meet together, no matter where—in a private party, at the news-room, at the funeral of a neighbour, or at the church or chapel door (no place can be too sacred for such a holy object),l et them gree to meet again, and each to bring one or more friends. At their meeting, let them resolve themselves into an Anti-Corn-law Association, and appoint a chairman and secretary. Their first step must be to write to the secretary of the Anti-Corn-law League, Newales-buildings, Manchester, for a copy of the rules of the association, and such other papers, &c., as are useful in the outset, and which will be promptly and gladly forwarded. Let the names of the chairman and" secretary be forwarded to the League. The -Associa tion should also subscribe for one or more copies of the Circular. But the most important thing to be now attended to, is the procuring nu merously signed petitions to Parliament against the Corn-law. This must be the first and principal labour of every Anti-Corn-Law Association. A word of ad vice to all. Let the object of every association be de clared to be for total and immediate repeal, and let no discussion on this point afterwards interrupt the labotirs of the body. There will be persons who will find fault and say this is an extreme course. We have tried the experiment for a year, and can vouch for it, that there is no safety but in the true principle, and that men who truckle to expedients are not worth having as col leagues in so great a labour. Finally, let not our friends be daunted by the smallness of their numbers. The Manchester Anti-Corn-Law Association was begun less than two years since by seven persons, two of them bankers' clerks and another a printer ; it has grown to the Anti Corn-Law League !—and we call attention to our list of generous supporters in another column. Verily, truth is groat ! it will prevail! IMPORTANT DISCOVERY.—At the last meet ing of the Asiatic Society several letters were read from Major Rawlinson dated from Persia, giving an account of his success in deciphering the inscriptions of Bisitoon. The result of his researches promises the most authentic history of the Persian Empire from the time of Cambyses to the end of the reign of Darius, concurring most satisfactorily with the genealogies riven by Herodotus, though differing in many of the historical details. Some of the inscriptions are greatly defaced, but hopes are entertained that altogether these discoveries will form the most important contributions to oriental history ever made. SUDDEN DEATH WHILE FOLLOWING THE HOUNDS.—On Saturday evening an inquest was held before Mr. Waklev, M.P., and a respectable Jury, at the Green Man Inn, on the Uxbridge-road, Ealing, on the body of Mr. John Tnfeny, aged fifty-nine years, whose death occurred under the following singular circumstances :—lt appeared from the ei•i denee of the witnesses, that on Friday afternoon her Majesty's hourds met at Hates. In pursuit of the stag, the pack, fol lowed by the whole body of the hunt in full cry, crossed the Uxbridge-road, near the entrance of the village of Ealing, and from thence across the Great Western railway, near Drayton green, towards Castle Bar Hill. The unusual scene in that neighbourhood caused most of the inhabitants to follow in the wake to witness the sport. Among others, the deceased, who was possessed of independent property, and resided opposite the above inn, hastened after them, and, on reaching the bridge over the railroad, stood still to view the scene from the distance. He had, however, scarcely stopped, before he was observed to fall down flat on his face. Dr. Ralfs, of Brentford, who was following in his cab, witnessing his fall, got out, went to his assistance, and attempted to bleed him from the arm and temples, but scarcely any blood flowed, life being quite extinct. It is supposed that the unfortunate gentleman had over-exerted himself, which occasioned apoplexy. Verdict—Died by the Visitation of God. We have received a letter from Lord Denman, saying that he knew nothing of the addrebs purporting to come from him (and which, as being extensively circulated, we co pied into our last week's paper), until he saw it in print. In deed, we stated that, on the first view, it never could have pro ceeded from the Lord Chief Justice Denman ; and little did we expect an assurance, which we have since received from Mr. Bretton, the printer, that the Hon. Thomas Denman, son of this same Lord Chief Justice, and his Marshal and Associate of the Court of Queen's Bench, was the writer,— Observer. BRUSSELS, JAN. 24.—The King has arrived here from Ardennes. Yesterday afternoon the hurricane blew down the telegraph at Eppeghem, just as the director was work ing it. He was taken from under the ruins a quarter of an hour afterwardi, quite dead. We learn from Binche, that on the 21st the hurricane had done very considerable damage in that city and the environs. POISONED BY MISTAKE.—Mrs. Wheeler, of Evesham, a few days since, being in want of some dripping to make a pudding, toil some from the cellar, into wh ich a por tion of arsenic had been mixed for the purpose of killing rats. All her Lmily ate of the ridging, and, me lancholy to relate, two of the children soon afterwards died, and she and her family still remain in much danger from the effects of this virulent mineral poison.— Worcester Journal. THE CHARTISTS AT BURY.—This week a memorial to the Queen. pray in g that the ca p ital p unish ment of Frost and his companions may be remitted, has pee n i n course • of signature by the Chartists of Bury. At the same time t h e stupid fellows maintain an alarm in the neighbourhood, bye .n. tinning to held their secret class meetings. The same also Prevails in several of the country districts around Manchester, —Manchester Guardian. During the night of S unda y last , some miser ants cut off the manes an d tails of no les s than 17 horses e the hair, weighing about ten pounds,l be longing to four farmers living adjoining, between Chard end Yarcombe. Part of been sold to a saler at Axminster, b 7 a fellow whowas taken of 001'404 " into custody Honitont. frith a 1d o parties arp in search of APnther PlarS°l4 Who was concerned •• sadly disfigured . *— transaction. 'The horses are kr estern Times. COURT CIRCULAR. The Queen and the Princess Augusta attended Divine service yesterday morning in the Chapel Royal St. James's. The Sermon was preached by Archdeacon Hamilton, from the Epistle of St. Paul to the Ephesians, chap. v., ver. 9. The Lessons were read by the Rev. Mr. Haden, the Prayers by the Rev. Dr, Wesley, and the Communion Service by the Rev. Dr. Wesley and the Rev. Mr. Haden. The Sanctus and Commandments were Horn castle's. The Anthem " 0 Lord, Thou has searched me out" (Croft) was sung by Messrs, Willing, Vaugha- and Bradbury. Mr. J. B. Sale presided at the Organ. The Rev. J. Vane was the Deputy Clerk of the Closet in Waiting. Her Majesty's Suite included the Dowager Lady Lyttelton, Lady Fanny Howard, Hon. Miss Cocks, Hon. Miss Cavendish, Lady Charlotte Copley, Lord Lit ford, Sir Frederick Stovin, and Colonel Buckley. Miss Wynyard was in Waiting on the Princess Augusta. The Countess of Wilton, Earl Howe, and Sir Hussey and Lady Vivian, were amongst the Nobility and Gentry attending the Service. Her Majesty and Suite returned in three carriages to Buckingham Palace. The Duke of Cambridge visited the Queen yesterday. tier Majesty, attended by her Suite, rode on Saturday a f ternoon in the Riding-school at the Royal Mews in Pimlico. Viscount Melbourne bad an audience of her Majesty on Saturday. Prince George of Cambridge visited her Majesty the Queen Dowager on Saturd a y a t M ar lb oroug h H ouse . The Duke of Cambridge visited the Princess Augusta on Saturday at Clarence House, St. James's. The Duke o f C am b ridge and Prince . George attended Divine Service yesterday morning in Grosvenor Chapel, South Audley-street. A Cabinet Council was held on Saturday afternoon at the Foreign Office. It was attended by all the blinibters except Lord Holland. The Council sat two hours and a half. The Marquis of Lansdowne, Lord President of the Council, gave a grand dinner on Saturday, at Lansdowne House, to the Cabinet-Ministers and the Great Officers of State of her Majesty's Household. The Roll of Sheriffs for the present year was settled during the evening. There wele present the Lord Chancellor, Earl of Clarendon, Viscount Melbourne, Marquis of Normanby, Lord John Russell, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Earl of Minto, Sir John Hobbouse, Mr. Labouchere, Lord Morpeth, Viscount Duncannon, Mr. Macaulay, and the. Earl of Al bemarle. The Clerks of the Privy Council, Mr. C. Grcville and the Hon. William Bathurst, were also present. Lieutenant-General Palmer and Mr. Hod ges h a d in terviews with Lord John Russell on Saturday at the Colonial Office. Lord John Russell gave a Parliamentary Dinner, last evening, at h's residence in Wilton Crescent, to Members of the House of Commons. Despatches from Major-General Napier, Governor of the Cape of Good Hope, were received yesterday at the Colonial Office. General Sir Thomas Hislop, Lady Hislop, and family, have arrived at their house, in Hertford Street, May Fair, from Charlton, Kent. FASHIONABLE INTELLIGENCE. ARRIVALS. The Earl of Lunraven, at the Burlington Hotel ; Lord -nd Lady Mahon ; Mr. Blackett, M.P., at the Burling ton Hotel; the Hon. John Vereker, at ditto; Lord Fitz gerald and Vesey ; Lord Lilford; Sir Henry Bethune, Bart., at the Burlington Hotel; the Dowager Lady Clinton ; Col. Sir Horace Seymour ; Msjor-General Sir William Maclean ; the Hon. Mr. and Mrs. William Stan ton ; Mr. Sheppard, M.P, ; Mr. Ellis, M.P. ; Lord Eliot; Sir John Edwards, Bart., M. P. ; the Hon. C. Dundas, M.P. ; Mr. Tatton Egerton, M.P. ; Lord East nor, M. P. POLITICAL SUMITARY OF THE MORNING JOURNALS. The Morning Post of this day observes, with safe:Trice to the contemplated allowance to Prince Albert ;—" The Government has proposed 50,0001. a year; the Conser vative party, we: understand, entertains the npinion that, under all the circumstances , of the case, 30,0001, a year will be an ample income for the Prince. With this opinion we entirely agree.--Far be it from us to desire to be nig gardly to the husband of the Queen. But the fact is, that after the 8,0001. or 9,0001., which Lord .1 Rus sell speaks of, has been paid—about the necessity of which some doubt may be fairly entertained—it is not at all clear, but quite the contrary, what use Prince Albert is to have for a very large additional sum of money."—The Times thus expresses itself on the subject of Prince Albert's grant:—" Really, the impudence of these Whig Radical Ministers astonishes t tr ioL m s o a r nd more and more m d or a e - t y h e e ar c: we 4 ften o, e o r oo. 1 contemplate which is, a templateitls Lord John Russell in effect admitted, unnecessary, and must therefore of enonlfor maythe Pbrei,ofeoeoltioshmiya—keitdumeakys drakes and — b e given o squander—it viciously—it may be. innocently—but still to squander— nee v e major rbe b i t r y o a e g v h e t n t ooftlie contentp r t e o s s e o n e t h H a o g u r s a c e t o f l s Commons r e e a l y n , ......We cannot permit ourselves to doubt that this night's vote will greatly reduce the sum proposed, and so save the next Parliament the trouble of performing that duty.to their constituents and the country at large."—The Morning Herald uses the following language in a leading article suggested by the proposed grant to Prince Albert— " Fifty thousand pounds a year for an establishment for Prince Albert seems a most extravagant and preposterous demand.—We hope the Conservative Opposition will not, out of a spirit of obsequiousness to the Court, vote away the people's money with the profuse liberality which suits Whig purposes at the present moment. The Con servatives have but too often played the game of the Whig faction. It is time for them to take some care of the in terests of the country." The Morning Ckroniclo, in an article on the subject of the recent elec tions, observes as follows :—" The Edinburgh election, teaches an instructive lesson—it teaches that the spirit of religious fanaticism has been invoked in vain; that the efforts of ‘apostate journalists and reverend incendiaries t o fan tie flame of bigotry into a emiseming fire, have signally failed ; and that in the Protestant capitol of the most anti- Catholic portion of the British empire, a man may.daro - to invoke the principles of religious fiber: y, and be received with applause."—The Morning Advertiser, speaking on the subject of the late elections, says All bail again to Reform I The Tories are defeated—the Liberals ire triumphant. In every quarter they have been siffnelly de feated; and to-morrow, the motion of Sir J. 'Y. Buller will meet with the same fate." DEPARTURES. The Hon. Col. Fulke Greville for Portsmouth; the Han. Mr. and Mrs. Charles Tollomache, for Huntamore Park. Herts : Sir Hopton and Lady Scott, for Dublin ; Sir Edward Sugden, for Boyle Farm, Surrey ; Sir Chas. Ekins, for Torquay ; Lord De Saumarez, for Cheltenham. The Dowager Lady Rendleshain and the Hon. Misses Thelluson left their residence in Bruton• street last week, for Castle Ashby, on a visit to the Marquis of North ampton. The Duke of Newcastle and the Ladies Pelham Clinton left town last week for Clumber Park, Notts. His Grace has subrcribedloo/. towards the erection of anew church at Stenton. The Marquis and Marchioness of Bute left the Hoo, their seat near Luton, at the close of the put week, for Cardiff Castle, Wales. The Marquis of Granby, who arrived in town a few days since from a tour in the Peninsula, left the Burlington Hotel. Col k-street, on Friday, to join the party assembled at Belvoir Castle. Sir Rufane and Lady Anna Maria Dunkin re ceived the Countess of Minto, the Hon. Ralph Abercromby, and a select party to dinner on Saturday evening, in Park-street. B. B. Williams, Esq., and Miss Williams had a dinner party, at their house, in Portland-place, on Saturday. Amongst the guests were William Crawford, Esq., M.P., Mrs. and Miss Crawford, Col. Udney, Captain and Mrs. Ba thurst, W. G. Prescott, Esq. and Lady, Captains Elrington, Gage, Michelthwaite, &c. The Duke and Duchess of St. Albans are stay ing at Redbourne Hall, near Brigg, and are not expected to come to town tor the season until Easter. The Marchioness of Queensberry and her only daughter, Lady Georgiana Douglas, who will make her debut this season, are expected to return to town in the course of the ensuing month. The Marquis is atGlenstuart, in Dumfriesshire. To-day is the birth-day of his Royal Highness Augusta Frekrick Duke of Sussex, who will complete his 67th year. The tradesmen of his Royal Highness will dine toge ther at the King's Arms Tavern, Kensington, to celebrate the day, and also illuminate their houses in the evening. Count Bjornstjerna's dinner party to-morrow, at Monster House, Belgrare-street, to celebrate the anniversary of the King of Sweden's birthday, will be given to a party of thirty of his Excellency's countrymen. ihe Countess of Surrey will give a series of brilliant parties in Hyde Park-place, after Easter, in honour of the coming out of her Ladyship's eldest daughter, Lady Mary Howard, who has been selected as one of her Majesty's bride's maids. The Marquis and Marchioness of ConvnAax ' and the Earl of Mountcharles, who have been passing the win ter at Storm Castle, Meath, are expected to return to town at the close of the week from Ireland. The Earl and Countess of Cavan, with their in fant son, the Viscount Kilcoursie, have arrived at Teddesley Park, near Parkridge, on a visit to Lord and Lady Hatherton, from Eaglehurst House, their seat near Southampton. The arrival of the Earl and Countess of Ash burnham at Ashburnham House, near Battle ' Sussex, to pass the honeymoon, was the occasion of great festivities to the tenants on the estate. Lord William Fitzgerald has arrived at Carton, Maynooth, on a visit to the Duke and Duchess of Leinster, from an extensive tour en the Continent. The Dowager Countess Cowper had a dinner party, on Saturday last, at the new mansion of Viscount Pal merston on Carlton House-terrace. There was a soiree after dinner. The Earl and Countess of Minto entertained his Excellency Baron Brunow, Viscount Palmerston, and the Dowager Countess Cowper, Lady Holland, the Right Hon. Sir George Grey, Sir William Parker, Mr. Howard, &c., at dinner, at the Admiralty, on Friday evening. The Countess received a select circle in the latter part of the evening, including the Countess of Tankerville, Marquisof Lansdowne, his Fxcellency General Alava, his Excellency Count Pollen, Lady Anna Maria Donkin, Countess Cawdor, and the Ladies Caroline and Georgiana Campbell, Viscount Leveson, Sir Charles and Lady Adam, Mr. Woop, Mr. Allen, Miss Lock, &c. The Countess :Brownlow's health is greatly im proved by the salubrious air of Torquay, where her Ladyship and the Noble Earl will remain until the middle of April. Lord Holland is confined to his room by a severe attack of gout. The Earl of Manvers has subscribed the munifi cent sum of 4001., in aid of the funds of the new church, at Srenton. This liberal donation was in addition to a large plot of land given by the Noble Earl for the site. The Earl and Countess de Grey, since their arrival at West Park. from their seat in Yorkshire, have re ceived numerous guests, among whom have been the Duke an d Duchess of Sutherland, and Marquis of Stafford, Duke and Duchess of Bedford, and Marquis of Tavistock, Duke of De vonshire, Marquis of Bute, Earl and Countess Cowper and Lady Fanny Cowper, Earl of Shelburne. Earl and Countess of Clanwilliam, Lady Cole, Earl and Countess of Ripon, Lnrd Clarence Paget, Hon. William Cowper, Mlle. D'Este, Hon, J. Ponsonby, Hon. Charles Gore, Host. Mr. Cavendi s l„ Mr. Irby, Mr. Boothby, &c. APPROACHING MARRIAGES IN HIGH LIFE.—The Right Hon. Henry Labouchere is about lead to the hymeneal altar the accomplished Miss Paring, daughter of Sir T. and Lady Baring, and sister to the Chancel lor of the Exchequer. Captain Charles Paget, a nephew to the Marquis of Anglesey, will be shortly united to the beautiful Miss M'Chintock. James Bosanquet, Esq., nephew to Sir John Bosanquet, will lead to the altar, early in March, one of the daughters of Lord Chief Justice Tindal. NINE PERSONS DROWNED.—On the 9th inst., two boats from the West side of the lake proceeded to Dotighbem to fish for cod. On their return home , on the night of th e sam e day, one of these boats struck on a r ock in Pincher's Bay, when all on board perished.—Derry Sentinel. The Hon. E. Spring Rice, son of Lord re, iMont eagle, and Mr. Alston, son of the Member f or H ertfordsh ' sort _ office i n the place of the Hon. James Howoita,ried, h a ve been appointed to elerkships in the F ore i gn- office. B n O t U e ve p ri is e e , cis se \v e Writer r tit. th e pFfor the Earl Radnor, h il as e b n een P ap . pod the Hon. Spencer Cowpe r , as who has succeed e d Palmerston private secretary t o Vi scount A SHARP LOOK OUT FOR THE SPARROWS. —FLAMSTEAD Sivkaitow CLua —We with a copy of the rules of this ' have been favoured club,which we formation of our readers Everyinsert for the in person in this club to send twelve sparrows' heads to the clerk at Flamstead, on the last Wednesday in every calendar month, to M arc h i nc l us i ve, or 1, sparrows are short, two other heads for one sparrow. No heads allowed that have not been shot or caught in the parish of Flamstead, nor any heads that have not been flying. There shall be two feasts in the year; the first on the last Wednesday in March, at the :house known as the Bird-in-Hand, Flamstead ; the second, on the last Wednesday in October, at the house known as the Chequers, Flamstead; dinner at two o'clock each day. Every member to attend the feasts, or forfeit one shilling. Club hours on the feast days are from twelve to two o'clock, when all forfeits are to be paid ; and at which times any new article can be made tending to improve the club. Any person swearing in club hours to forfeit two pence for every oath. "—Hereford Times. The deficiency in the corn of the county Cork last harvest amounted to no less a sum than 118,180/. ADULTERATION OF COFFEE.—In consequence of the great extent to which some s hopkeepers have peen in the habit of adulterating Coffee, we understand . l' Inc Board of Excise have given orders to their e officP:, to pre sent all parties found practising the 11 , aud, TL— fac " we trust this penalty in all convictions of this sort is 1001.. a" " t and the warnings which we heffectofdterring will the det erring all it our duty togivetshe imposition so justly com a..aveall parties found attemp tin g plained of. Lue 14:1 7 P,NI N EDITIVIN NAVAL INTELLIGENCE. (From the .11anzpshire Telegraph.) PORTShiOUTH, JAN. 25.—The Minden, 72, Captain Sharpe, arrived at Plymouth, on Wednesday, from the Mediterranean, to be paid off. She brought home the crow of the Tribune frigate. The Columbia steam-vessel failed from Plymouth yes terday sennight, for the north coast of Spain, to bring to England one hundred and fifty of the Royal M ar i ne batta- lion in that quarter. The Flamer steam-vessel sailed from Plymouth on Monday for the \Vest Indies; but put back on Tuesday, on :Account of the westerly gale. The Vanguard, 84, is ordered home, but we presume she will not quit the Mediterranean before either the Ask or Bellerophon ; and it is questionable if Sir Robert Stop,- ford, with the discretionary power he has, wilt permit his , . squadron to be reduced by these sh;ps till he hears at others on their way to replace them. The Crescent, slave depot, destined for RiO de Janeiro, and the brig Fantome, 16, Commander ButterMd, for Weht Africa, still remain at Spithcad. The Inconstant, 36, Captain Pring, is daily expected i from Vera Cruz, with a large freight of specie on mer chants' account. Private letters from her (of date 25th .1 November) state that she was to quit that port for Port I Royal and Havannah on the Ist December, and expected to be paid elf at Portsmouth. The Acorn, 18, arrived at the Cape of ,Good Hope on the 18th November, from Simon's Bay; the Melville, 72, sailed from Simon's Bay on the 10th November, for Ascension. The new steamer, Strrmboli, is daily expected, here ) from Glasgow, on her way to Chatham, for immediate commission. The Sparrow arrived at Rio de Janeiro from F'alkland Islands on the 17th November. The Druid, 46, Capt. Lord J. H. Churchill, left the Cape for New Zealand, early in Novenaber. The Wanderer, 16, Hon. Cornmander Denham, is still at Plymouth. Leiters from the troop-fr;gate Apollo, Mr. Kearley, master, of the 24th of December, from Qiiiraltar Bar, state that she was under orders to e m ba r k a . detachment, bf the 8. 3 d Regiment for Jamaica. At Spithcad—Pembroke, Fantome, CresOa, • In Harbour—Britannia, Victory, Blenheim, P xcellent. Royal George, Blonde, Pique, 'Andromache. PantS!eon, Raven Cutter, Messenger, steamer. In Basio—Madagascar, Magicicarc, Andromache, and Victor. In Dock—Queen, St. Vincent, I ,Varspie, Dublin, Tweed, Harrier, Fanny tender. A letter, dated Bermuda, Nov. 28, says the Admiral. is at present at this place, in the Winchester, awl is expected to remain hero till January next,, when be , will proceed to Jamaica, returning about Apr►l, going to Halifax ; the Cleopatra, Captain Lushington, has sailed for- the West Indies .; the. Ringdov.,, 1. Honourable Captain Stewart, sailed yesterday. for Jamaica. The Pilot, Com. Ramsey, and the SatAite, Corn. Robb, arc refitting. The latter has had a most se vere attack of yellow fever, having lost sevezt officers and men at one period ; and of 113 officers and men, 83 were i n capacitated, Corn. Robb being the only' officer capable of doing duty ; and he was shortly afterwatuls at4ek , d, but is recovering. These islands are still sulfa-Mg from the affects of the hurricane of the 12th September, and will exhibit long its ruiuous effects. / NAVAL PROMOTIONS AN D APPOINTMENTS. Lieutenants—H. Guttskell, to the Nimrod ; George Alexander Leary, to the Royal Sovereign, for service the Asp; A. J. Grmme, to the Ordinary at Portsmow‘h, vice Barnes, appointed to the Victory ; R. Collinson, ditional to Wellesley, to take passage in Bl en h e i m . Master—W. E. Hyne, to the Nimrod) _G Albert H. Cole, of the Britannia, to be Master and /2-ilot of the Victory, vice Armstrong, sick ; R. Yulc k to Britannia, vice Cole. Surgeon—Edward Hilditcb, to be Junior Surgeon and Medical Storekeeper at the Naval 'dospital, Jama ca. Assistant Surgeon—Andrew Lillie, to Britannia, for service at Hasler Hospital, Mate—A. M. Shairp, of Blenheim, to be Chief Officer in the Coast Guard ; R. L. Place, to Blenheim. Vols. Ist Class—W. D. Loch, to the Blenheim ; J. R. Harward, to the Pique ; Hon. H. J. Cole, of Britannia, to be lent to the Blonde. Carpenter—John Chapple to Pique, vice Williams. The following Midshipmen passed their examinaC j o tt zt the Naval College on Wednesday : —C. H. Sy nionds,,, gi co _ helm), G. H. Hodgson and W. H. Young (Pembroke), Harry Smith and David Robertson (Talavere j . A detach= :t of Royal Artillery, cons► Fang of Second Captain Knowles and Lieutenants Spencer and Shuttle worth, Sergeant John Wolfe and thir,y three gunners and drivers—all volunteers—embarked at Woolwich ou Than day, on board the Meteor ster.m.vessel, for a passage to this port, to embark on boa;, d the Blonde frigate, which, with the Blenheim and, Andromache, is ordered to pro. coed to join the suadron 'War the command of Sir Fre. derick Maitland in the East Indies. ( From the Harlequin of the 28th December.) The Hydra steam-frigate, Coin. Milward, arrived . in. this port on Tuesday from Vourla, making the extraorw nary passage in 59 hours. It was the intention of Admiral Sir B. Stopford to have left Vourla on the 20th inst.., with three or four ships of the line for Malta, but he received orders by the Rhadamanthus to remain with 1 1- ,,e whole of the Squadron, in consequence of which 'are has unbent sa'ls, stackened his yards and moored, s;tl is suppnsod, for the winter. The weather had been dreldully cold with hard frost. Mr. North, mate of the flP„, g _ s hip, w h om we men tioned as being ill with feve:, caught by a journey to Ephesus, is since dead. P.& two seamen tried for d.!ser. ticn belonging to the ',ianges have been acquitted, for want of proof. In a:dother part of our paper we mentioned the lose of a stea:, f e r in th e Bl ac k S ea, an d b y private letters recel%:ed by the Hydra, it i s suppose d to 'be the Monarch., with 300 deck passengers, she having , undered at w..d. The Stamboul steamer, Captain B. Ford, bad sot arrived at Smyrna from Constantinople on the inst., being five days over her time. CORN-LAW MEETING AT DUNDEE.-A general meeting of the inhabitants, called by Provost Hackney, was held in the High-street on Monday, at twelve o'clock noon, to consider the propriety of petitioning Parliament tor an immediate repeal of the Corn and Provision-laws. The Provost in the Chair. Resolutions were agreed to, after some interruption from the Chartists, and petitions to Par liament, founded on the resolutions, were also agreed to. The Provost then declared the meeting to be dissolved, but the Chartists seemed determined by foul, if not by fair, means, to obtain something in the shape of victory. One fellow called out fro n the crowd on Mr. Beckfurd to take the Chair, and Mr. Rockford, no doubt labouring under a due sense of the honour done him ; was proceeding to the front of the hustings to harangue his fellows, when by the firmness of our Chief Ma gistrate, aided by the prompt energy of Mr. Corstophan, Su perintendent of Police, the hustings were in an instant cleared of the Chartist agitators, and an end put at once to their pro jected proceedings. The vast assemblage then quietly and gradually dispersed, without the least symptom of disturbance. —Dundee Courier. WOODEN PAVEMENT AT WHITEHALL.— I This mode of paving promises to be ultimately successful. The • part immediately in front of Whitehall has been opened for a week, and though there has been a vast deal of passage on that side of the street—the other being shut up, it is in every re spect as firm and even as when it was laid down. There is a , substratum of compost, of about a foot deep, on which the wooden blocks are placed. These blocks are of a diagonal shape, about six inches in length, breadth, and depth, and are fast ened to g ether by means of pegs, forming one solid and compact surface. Each row leans in a contrary direction to the ...me next it, thereby contributing to the strength of the pavement. There is very little noise made by carriages passing over it, and from the facility . with which the horses proceed the draught is evidently diminished. The whole bread.ch of the street in front of Whitehall will be open by Tuesday or Wednesday. We would advise the parish authorities. who stop up the Strand during Church hours, ?rom Temple Bar to Catherine-street., to adopt this neve pavement, and get rid of the present arbitrary and unjust practice of changing the route, and annoying those living in r Aired streets, merely because their predecessors had thougkt fit to build Churches in thoroug hfares. HALL.--Names of gentlemen to whom. itie Court of Examiners granted certificates of quaii fxation on Thursday :—George Friend Whiteley ; I.amc l elivY I Ileovor, Newark-on-Trent ; Abraham COX, Edinbur I John Evans ; William Banks Fegan, Gosport; 'Piercy Howe ll, Brighton. I