The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser. — Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1841-04-09 00:00:00

Efinrpool Atanbarb. FRIDAY MORNING, APRIL 9, 1841 The quarterly official statements of the revenue be gin to be in the condition of royal speeches, and have certainly lost a great deal of their value of late years. The last return, published on Monday, is in no better predicament in this respect than many of its predeces sors It exhibits on the whole year a decline of £309,280, and on the quarter a decrease of £70,514. But the decline, we learn, was wholly without effect on the prices of public securities. The reason assigned by the City correspondent of a metropolitan journal for the dis-esteem into which these documents have fallen, is, " that they exhibit a one sided account, in which the whole of the receipt, but a small portion of the expenditure, appears, and do not possess the merit even of good statistics, by which the fluctuations in the commerce of the country may be determined." The only fact deducible from the present return is, that all the increased taxation has not maintained the income of the country at its old rate. The principal sources of revenue which show a decrease, are the Customs and the Post-office—the former amounting to £301,042, and the latter to no less than £833,000. The increase is to be found principally in the Excise, which exceeds the last year by £489,299. The Stamps also have increased £162,722, and the Taxes £275,019. Though the total deficiency may not be very formida ble, yet, looking at the increased expenditure, it is impossible not to feel some apprehension as to the balance of ways and means with the demands upon them. The decrease in the Customs seems regularly progressive, and in the last quarter the Excise has begun to decline—two facts which, taken together, certainly constitute rather a bad feature. The monied interest, however, do not appear to indulge in any notion of a loan, and for the reason that they are un able to judge to what extent the stock and money belonging to the Savings Banks may be available for public purposes. With regard to all these Matters, however, her Ma jesty's Ministers have learned the happy knack of " taking things easy." Revenue defalcations —wars, or rumours of wars—disturb them not ; and really, if we were among the confiding few who repose in their superior skill and management, we should consider the circumstance a happy one. We are disposed to look perhaps too closely into the state of our affairs (it is a trait of the national, character), and to postpone the enjoyment of mirth and jollity till we feel assured of those more important matters being in a satisfactory condition ; but who can be sad when Ministers seem so tranquil ? Customs and Excise may fall, but quar ter-day comes round as pleasantly to them as ever; and if a "cheap postage" be any consolation, they can enjoy it in common with the rest of her Majesty's subjects. How enviable is the state of Britain, in possessing so placid, so pleased, and so happy a set of Ministers ! By-the-by, it would be a pity if Mr. Ewart should abandon his motion for adding a " Minister of Education" to the company, particularly as we under stand that Thomas Wyse, Esq., M.P. for Waterford, a Lord of the Treasury, and a Papist, is quite ready to take the appointment. The Albion is exceedingly incensed that Dr. Byrth— a clergyman in his eyes worthy of all commendation— should have been treated to a few hisses at a public meeting consisting exclusively of members of the Es tablished Church. This Whig journal is so tender of the dear Doctor, that he would not have " the winds of heaven to visit his face too roughly," and has a great many unsavoury similes for those who were to naughty as to sibillate at his admired pattern of patient endurance and Christian charity. " Pandemonium" and " reptiles" are trifles from his pen when speaking of the meeting, and its members—a sort of language which, when so applied, has a tendency, we fear, to bring "poetry" into discredit. Certainly there are some who look upon that "sweet inspiration" and fiction as one and the same thing—and we are satisfied that it is miserable scribbling of this d escr i pt i on by Whigs, which has given occasion for this ill opinion of the divine art. As the Devil (who was the first Whig) was a "liar from the beginning," so all his descend ants are in this sense, unfortunately, poetical. But due allowance being made for the poetical propensities of our Whig contemporary, we would beg to a s k, if he would have the denouncer of Protestant Associations applauded in an Assembly of English Protestants? Forbid it, Honesty ! No; Englishmen are candid„ and like to express their feelings freely ; and long may they 40 so, and have the power also to gratify so laudable an inclination, say we. eoPei'V Pt. ,uyrtit rioclar64 that he bat he said, at the meeting alluded to; but we can only judge the truth of his assertion by hid act 2, and, in our humble opinion, denouncing Protestant Associa- Lions is not a satisfactory way of showing it. When "bad men combine—(the saying has become a proverb)—it is time for good men to associate." And when good men hare such a call to union—as certainly they now have— what better bond of fellow ship can they require than the Protestant religion ? But perhaps 1)r. Byrth would say, that we have no need of any such combination at present—that we may commit the cause of Protestantism to the keeping of ministers, our liberal Parliament, the Whig party, and such prelates (and there are not many such, we rejoice to say) as the Bishop of Norwich. Among all such per sons there is, probably, as the Doctor says, " a con viction rapidly prevailing of the injurious influence of the proceedings of Protestant Associations ;" and on this account they, of course, entitle themselves to our confidence. Full of Christian charity, they frown upon us, and smile upon our adversaries, and are " con vinced" that we are only doing ourselves a great deal of harm with our " Protestant Associations." Well, we are plain-going people; and when we find men associating and battling together for a particular object, we are apt to think not only that they are mighty much in earnest about it, but going the right way to attain it, and that none oppose them, or would prevent them so doing, but those who have no wish that they should succeed. Our understanding will not carry double and run with Dr. Byrth on this point; that we confess. With regard to the sibillation affair, the ex aggeration of the Radical journals is ridiculous ; in fact, the token would have passed off as a mere nothing, had it not been for the perseveringly injudicious con duct of the Doctor himself. We have in a former paper spoken of the facilities which the corn duties afford as a subject for agitation, but we did not particularly observe upon the danger ous uses to which the agitation itself might be ap plied. It requires, however, but little consideration to perceive that sedition could not well mask itself under a more convenient disguise, and that in carrying on our controversy with the agitators, we are warring for the most part not against a mere financial or commer cial regulation, but against the encroachment of the lower upon the upper orders of society—against social disorganization and political revolution. We do not prefer this charge against all who advo cate the extension of free-trade doctrines to the article of bread-corn. On the contrary, we dare say that some of the most intelligent of those who thus argue are themselves deceived, and perfectly sincere in their error; but we have not the same opinion of others who profit by their countenance, and arc supplied with weapons from their armoury. Gladly do these persons catch at every argument that favours the doctrine, not that they love it for its own sake, but because it favours their secret, revolutionary, and levelling purposes. The corn duties, it is admitted, are imposed, in the first instance, for the protection of agriculture ; and, the ownership of land belonging chiefly to the aristo cracy, it would seem, at the first blush, that they are a provision made for the advantage of the aristocracy, and for theirs only. But it is demonstrable 'that their policy is of no such limited kind, and fairly regards the interest of all classes, although the aristocracy may more immediately and directly reap the benefit. Enough, however, is it for the seditionist to possess such a han dle for his purpose in the immediate operation of the duties. He exclaims—" they are a tariff of the rich against the poor; it is by such laws the wealthy are maintained in opulence, and the poor depressed by po verty; away with all monopolies; let there be no re striction on the trade, and the poor man's wants will be all supplied." Now it is easy to perceive to what dangerous pur poses such a theme is capable of being perverted, In deed it is perfectly obviotis that the anti-corn law agi tation is only a very old sedition under a new name; but we fear that its propagandism has proceeded, and is proceeding to a much greater extent than is gene rally supposed. Anti-corn law lecturing, and scrib bling, and free-trade mongering in every possible shape, have been too long at work without opposition or restraint, not to have produced very considerable effects. Where they exist, what may we expect to find among the simple and ignorant, but hatred of the laws, and of those who, they are taught to believe, are the occasion of nothing but privation and injury to them ? They are not led to consider how they would be affected by the degradation of the aristocracy and the impoverishment of the agricultural classes. Like the man in the fable who destroyed the goose for the sake of the golden eggs, they are rather desirous of degrading them, under a similar delusive conception as to the result. With the national debt, and all its fiscal sequences, they never imagine that they have aught to do; and so they rush e gerly forward looking for fruits which they suppose that nothing hinders them from reaching, and enjoying, but the envious monopoly which the rich derive from, and secure to themselves by the corn duties. Now we say that this is a dangerous delusion, and that a people whose minds are charged with such sen timents are a proper subject of alarm and anxiety to the well-affected in case of any sudden emergency, such as an unfavourable season, some sudden depres sion of trade, political excitement, or other circum stance that tries men's dispositions. Chartism tells us plainly what it is, and what it wants, and puts us on our guard. A Chartist obviously needs nothing to make him a rebel, but arms and opportunity ; but the anti-corn law agitator is a more sly and insidious, but not a less certain mover in the same sphere. The one would destroy with club or fist—the other by secretly administering the poisoned draught—and it is the only difference between them. It is the busi ness o f the anti-corn law schoolmaster abroad to sow enmity be tween the rich and poor, and to advise the latter to seek his own supposed good, careless of whatever loss or injury others might sustain. He diffuses his poison through society, and no antidote follows to counteract its effects; and this, we humbly conceive, is a state of things which ought not to be. Crowded as are our columns, we must not omit to congratulate the burgesses of St. Anne's Ward, and the inhabitants of Liverpool, on the successful termi nation of the noble and constitutional struggle of yes terday. The eyes of the country have been fastened on the local contest which our friends have manfully fought and won, and we are glad to find that another proof has been added to the many we already possess, that .Pnglishmen now properly appreciate the blessings which their forefathers did so much to obtain. Mr. Parker is well qualified in every respect for the ho nourable position he is called to occupy, and the result is the more gratifying, as he has been the means of defeating a deserter from the Conservative camp. The numbers at the close were— Mr. Parker ... Mr. Chalmers 177 ajority parker 7 The discontinuance of the Tracts for the Times, under circumstances of condemnation, is rather a sa tisfactory event to those who, from the first, were im pressed with a strong opinion of the anti-Protestant character of these polemical essays. It is going some what too far to say that the writers entertained any serious ideas of putting peas in their shoes, and per forming a pilgrimage to our Lady of Loretto, or that to many of the errors of the Pope's church they are not still very seriously opposed. Such a charge has not only no sufficient proof to sustain it, but is contra dicted by the essayists themselves in several of their learned and laborious lucubrations. In fact, they ar rogate to themselves the merit of taking up the very best ground from which Romish error can be refuted, and invite all other sections of the Protestant church to join them with a view to the more certain and com plete accomplishment of the work. The Tractarians are therefore not:Papists; but it would be possible to travel many degrees from pure - Anglicanism without coming exactly upon the meridian v Romanism, and we may b e f u ll y j ust ifi e d in concern g the Tractarian heresy without laying our irtdicti4nt for so capital and telonious a charge as that of absdruti p Popery.. It is r a th er curious to obseive4 the Papist party take every opportunity to proctaim, and boast of the near approximation of Puseyite 'doctrine to that of the "ancient" churcty:they aisurdly call their own. Docor Wiktmiati, the weli4otown Popish ceelesiagt of the London district, has just published a letter in the " Tablet,"—a Romanist publication—in which he declares that he hailed the first signals put up by this party with the utmost joy, as a promise of their speedy return to the mother church, which was ready with open arms to receive them; and that experience had confirmed him in the truth of the presentiment. Many other influential members of his party have said the same thing; and all have concurred, up to his " holiness" himself, in expressing unbounded gratula tion at the rise and progress of Tractarianism. Yet the policy which has suggested this cause of proceed ing is not so obvious. One would suppose 'that, if Popery were really mak ing way in the Church, it would be the policy and the interest of Romanists to keep silent, and give no alarm on the subject : that if they really believed the Tracta rians ware preparing fora relapse into Popish error, then it would be wise on their part to take no notice, and avoid interfering with them in any way whatever. Such would appear to be the line of conduct which they would be most likely to pursue ; but in point of fact it is not what they have pursued. Are we to infer, therefore, .that the tendencies of Tractarianism are dif ferent from what the Papists represent 'them, and that the self-gratulation and exuberant joyousness of this party are merely simulated, not real; and that their secret opinion of the doctrine is different from what they express ? Such an inference would be erroneous. No; the fact we believe to be this : there are, as we have already observed, many stages between pure Anglicanism, and Popery, and the Romanists though naturally and fairly exulting in the dissemination of semi-popish doctrines, must still be destitute of all reasonable hope of English divines going so far in this direction, as absolutely to seek reconciliation with the see of Rome. Supposing Puseyism then to be a sort of half-way house, Papists may rejoice that those who go so far have relinquished Protestantism ; but their cup of felicity is not full, because the wanderers go not all the way, and are in all probability more likely to remain where they are, than to go further. Under such circumstances, we find, on looking more closely into the case, that the policy acted upon by the Pa pists is what we might properly expect from them, viz.—to take every opportunity to boast of the spread of ;Tractarian doctrine as evidence of a schism in the Church of England ; and a further proof of that favourite but unfounded position of theirs—the want of unity among all who separate from their commu nion. By acting on this policy, if they cannot strengthen the church of Rome, they may hope to weaken the church of England. The advantage has been given them, and they have not been slow to make use of it. Hence all this anxiety through the press, and every other convenient medium to trumpet forth the rapid advances of Puseyism—the acknow ledgment by Protestants, as they allege, that the Reformation went too far, and that Popery is not half so deeply immersed in error as our Re formers have esteemed it. In this way, we admit a great advantage has been given them ; but we do not, at the same time, by any means concur in the supposition that Popish Anglicanism either has made, or is likely to make, that progress in the Church which our watchful but lying adversary is anxious to have us believe. He forgets that our Church rests her foundation on the Bible, and that even the Puseyites, though they attempt to make tradition the interpreter of Scripture, have not dared to remove the sacred foundation. Now it is impossible for either Popery or Puseyism to make any great progress among a Bible-reading population. Such, at least, is our hum ble opinion; and Puseyism, like other heresies, we do confidently believe, will, for this very reason, soon wither away and die. 'We rejoice in the condemnation it has received by the Board of Oxford University, and by several of the venerated prelates of our Church; we greatly rejoice in this, and hope that yet further official and influential censure awaits it; but we con fess that we repose our confidence more largely on the fact to which we allude, than on any other circum stance, actual or prospective. The Tracts for the Times may cease at No. 90, but the lifeless dumb show of religion, which exalts the priest and degrades the people, may easily be advocated in some new form, and under some different title. THEATRE-ROYAL, LIVERPOOL Finder the Manall erneni of Mr. CLARKE, Sole The Public are respectfully informed, that the celebrated Vocalists, Miss DELCY, whose success was so decided, last season, at the Theatre-Royal, Drury-lane; and Mr. TEMPLETON, of the same Thehtre, are engaged for TEN NIGHTS, and will make their appearance here on EASTER MONDAY, the 12th instant. To give additional effect to the Operas, an arrangement been made with Mr. F. GARDNER, of the Theatre Royal, Bath, (pupil of Mr. T. WELsii,) for the period for which Miss Delcy and Mr. Templeton are engaged. ON EASTER MONDAY next, the 12th instant, will be performed the popular Opera CIISTDERELLA; Or, The FAIRY and the GLASS SLIPPER. Written and adapted to the English Stage by Mr. ROPHINO LACY, under whose direction the musical arrangements will be conducted. Leader of the Orchestra, M ldridge. Cinderella.. Miss Delcy, (the character in which she made her first appearance in London.) .... (Prince of Salerno) Baron Pornpolino.... Mr. G. Horncastle Alidoro.... Mr. F. Gardner. I Pedro Clorinda .. Miss E. Honner. I Thisbe .... Fairy Queen.... Mrs. Barton To conclude with the revived Farce, written by George Colman, Esq., called THE BUDGET OF BLUNDERS. Doctor Snugface Mr. Baker. Doctor Dablancou►' Mr. Grainger. Sophy Miss Barrett. I Deborah.... Madame Simon Bridget Mrs. Clarke .... Mr. Baker, Mrs. P. Crowe, TO THE LADIES CHANGE OF THE AGENCY APPOINTMENT. AIRS. NICHOLAS GEARY, of No. 61, S T . JAMES'S -LTA. STREET, LONDON, STAY and CORSET MAKER to her most gracious Majesty the Queen, to her Majesty Adelaide the Queen Dowager, to her Majesty the Queen of Holland and Royal Family, begs respectfully to announce to the Ladies of Liverpool and its environs, that she has found it necessary to criAs GE HER AGENT, and that she has much pleasure in informing them, that she has appointed the Misses WOODDILL, LAWSON, and DIXON, MILLINERS and DRESS -MAKERS, No. 80, Bold-street, HER SOLE AGENTS for Liverpool, of whom every description of her elegant newly-invented Anotomical Dress STAYS, BELTS, &c. &c., may be had ; and also, that Ladies may rely rfpon having none others but those of Mrs. N. Geary's4enuine invention and manufacture, and which are patonised by the following most eminent of the London and Liierpool Medi cal Gentlemen in strong recommendatiok, of her invention, namely : V Sir Jaines Clark, Bart., Physician to her Majesty. Dr. Locock, Physician Accoucheur to her Majesty. Dr. Ferguson, Physician Accoucheur to her Majesty Dr. Bright. Physician Extraordinary to her Majesty Sir Benj. Brodie, Bart., Sergeant Surgeon to her Majesty. R. Keate, Esq., Sergeant Surgeon to her Majesty. Sir Astley Cooper, Bart., Sergeant Surgeon to her Majesty. Sir Charles M. Clark, Bart., Physician to her Majesty Queen Adelaide. Dr.:Merriman, Physician to her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent. Sir Mathew Tierney, Bart., Physician to his late Majesty. Dr. James Johnston, Physician Extraordinary to his late Majesty. Sir Anthony Carlisle, President of the Royal College of Surgeons. Sir James E. Anderson, M.D. Sir James Eyre, M.D. William CoUlaM, Esq., Consulting Surgeon to the London Lying-in Hospital. LIVERPOOL MEDICAL GENTLEMEN : R. Bickersteth, Esq., surgeon,T. Blackburn, Esq., surgeon Doctor Carson IJ.Cheesborough,Esq.,surgeon Doctor Malins John Ashcroft,Esq.,-surgeon James Dawson, Esq., surgeoniKing Ellison, Esq., Surge - on Doctor O'Donnell !John Banner, Esq., surgeon Doctor Baird tJas. Marshall, Esq., surgeon Edward Batty, Esq., surgeontF. L. Minshull, Esq., surgeon S. M'Culloch, Esq., surgeon (Benj. Barraw, Esq., surgeon, &c. &c., too numerous for the limits of a newspaper. SOLE AGENTS FOR LIVERPOOL, MESDAMES WOODDILL, LAWSON, and DIXON, (late Miss CLARE,) No. 80, BOLD-STREET. STAMPED SUPPLEMENT WITH THE STANDARD, In order to give a full Report of the important Case of MIDDLETON v. SHERBURNE, and other Trials to take place prior to Tuesday, we shall present the Sub scribers and Purchasers of the STANDARD of that day with a STAMPED SUPPLEMENT. Our Advertising Friends will oblige us by forwarding their announcements as early as possible. TO CORRESPONDENTS The letter of Z. has not surprised us ; but he will perceive, from our columns, that we have not room for his commu nication. This will be a sufficient excuse to all our other correspondents LOCAL NEWS " Nathaniel Alexander, Esq., a near relative of Lord O'Neill, a gentleman of high conservative principles, will, or we are greatly mistaken, offer himself for the representation of Antrim. Rumour mentiOns John M'Neile, Esq., the Belfast banker, as likely to start ; but the rumour has not reached us upon authority, and we therefore give it as we have it."— Evening Packet.—[The latter gentleman is a brother of the Rev. Hugh M'Neile, and would make a most excellent re presentative ; but there does not appear any probability of his coming forward. There are already two conservative candidates in the field.] PRAISEWORTHY INTREPIDITY IN SAVING HUMAN LIFE• —On Monday night last, about ten o'clock, a woman fell overboard from a steamer going out of the Clarence Dock. Captain Cleland, of the American mail steam ship Britan nia, being, by chance, on the quay at the time, and hearing the screams, gallantly jumped into the water, fully dressed as he was, and kept her afloat until he made a rope fast round her, by which she was hauled on board the steamer again. This is not less than the sixth individual whom the gallant captain has saved from drowning, but he had very nearly sa crificed his own life in this last successful effort, having him self got entangled with a rope. THE LATE OUTRAGE IN LIVERPOOL ROAD, MANCHES TER.—Frances Bostock, the unfortunate woman whose throat was cut on the Bth ult. in Liverpool Road, by Wm. How son, with whom she was living as his wife, died in the In firmary on Monday last. Hampson, who was taken at the time, is in custody; having, since the occurrence, been from time to time remanded. _ _ POPISH COLLEGE OF MAYNooTn.—We understand that the petition from Manchester, praying for an in qu i r y i n t o the system of education at this college, and a sp ee dy with drawal of every kind of public support from that establish ment, was forwarded on Monday evening, for presentation by J. C. Colquhoun, Esq., and contained 26,677 signatures, being 5607 over that of last year, and 12,641 over that of 1839. THEATRE-ROYAL.—Miss Delcy, of whom fame, trumpet tongued. speaks most loudly, will appear on Monday next, at the Theatre-Royal. We had selected several notices from the London papers, as well as our contemporaries in Man chester, to show what high estimation the lady is held in ; but, so occupied have been our columns, that we have been obliged to omit their publication. One and all highly com mend, nay extol her ; and from private sources—froth those who are well qualified to express an opinion as musical men and amateurs—we have been assured that no singer of equal merit, talent, or indeed we may say genius, has appeared since the debut of Mrs. Wood, Malibran, or any other can tatrice who has taken the town by sturm, and fascinated all, from the sage to the silly, from the peer to the peasant. We fully anticipate that a cordial welcome will be given to Miss Delcy in the Theatre-Royal, as, let it be borne in mind, Liverpool has the honour of claiming her as one of its fair daughters, Miss Delcy having been born in our " ain town." Miss Delcy is the rising sta r u p on our mus i ca l h or i zon, an d let her be worshipped accordingly. As it is not likely that the manager can plan-it that such a star can corn-it very often to Liverpool, we ought to hail her appearance with delight and satisfaction. Mr. R. Lacy, it will be perceived, accompanies his daughter. Mr. Templeton will also appear, beside the cast being strengthened by other aids. The mu sical folks have a great treat in reserve for them. THE WESLEYAN MISSIONARY SOCIETY.—The twenty fourth annual meeting of the Liverpool Auxiliary to the Wesleyan Missionary Society was held on Tuesday and Wednesday evenings last : Richard Matthews, Esq., of London, occupied the chair on the former evening ; and at the adjourned meeting the post was ably filled by Thomas Sands, Esq. The audiences were addressed by the Revs. G. B. M`Donald, Seppington, Barton, Dixon, and others belonging to the Methodist body, and by the Revs. Fielding Ould and Dr. Byrth. The meetings were conducted through out in a manner highly gratifying to every lover of Chris tianity, and every friend to the dissemination of the gospel amongst the benighted heathen. The following is a list of the collections : At Brunswick Chapel meeting, on Tuesday .... £l2O 10 6 At Pitt-street Chapel meeting, on Wednesday.. 147 2 3 At Brunswick Chapel sermon, on Sunday...... 49 8 0 At Great Homer-street ditto 16 3 10 At Pitt-street ditto 20 4 3 At Mount-pleasant ditto 21 10 7 At Stanhope-street ditto 26 2 10 At Pitt-street Monday 20 17 5 £421 19 8 - - THE MURDER AT PEovEn.—We understand that, not withstanding the condemnation of Murray, and in defiance of the exertions of his spiritual advisers, the convict still persists in asserting his innocence of the murder. SMUGGLING TOBACCO.—CAUTION. Henry Kennedy, mate of the Sunflower, from Newfoundland, was on Monday brought before Hugh Hornby, Esq., at the Police -court, on a charge of bringing on shore, amongst some wearing appa rel, 7 3 1 b of negro-head tobacco. The case was proved, and the prisoner was remanded until Thursday, in order that the orders:of the board may be obtained respecting his case. • -• --- The public are aware, that the late Mr. Standish, of Dux bury-hall, bequeathed his valuable collection of paintings, to gether with his library, to the King of the French. Last wee k, we understand, Baron Taylor arrived at Duxbury, to t a ke possession on the part of his Majesty, o f t hi s h andsome that he has acted i n a t ru l y generous and In compliance with th e d eceased ' s will, legacy; and we are happy to have to st a t e , t o t h e credit of to accept the prop er t y so left him ; he i L I eo princelycu could Loins d P m h u i n p t o p re e e f s r% has, however, signified his intention to replace all the princi pal pictures with others of equal value; and for this purpose the frames have been left .behind, and filled with green baize, in order to avoid , in the meantime, giving th e wa ll s an un sightly appearance. The apartments which contain the choicest paintings are the drawing-room, dining-room, hall, vestibule, and billiard-room : and it is to these that the ar rangement we have mentioned is intendedtp apply. Amon gst the pictures is a fine Ecce Homo, by IVlurillo, valued, we believe, by the late proprietor, at £BOO. The presen,t Mrs. production, the baron gall ant l y Standish having. 'F in the presence of Baron T t ly.. master the honour of ae bloerg,gseodmtehaptasrht i e al w i t o y u f l o d r d t o h is royal cepting it. With respect to the library, his majesty means to act with the same liberality. He declines taking any of the French works, and he will supply the places of the others. Mr. Standish, we have been informed, valued his paintings at 232,000, and his books at £14,000. SOUTH LANCASHIRE SPRING ASSIZES CROWN COURT. -TUESDAY CONCLUSION OF THE TRIAL FOR MURDER AT ASHTON Mr. Justice Maule took his seat exactly at nine o'clock ; the names of the jury were immediately called over in the Ashton murder case, adjourned from yesterday. Mr. WILKINs then proceeded to address the jury. The learned counsel delivered a powerful address which occupied two hours and a half. He pointed out a number of discre pancies in the evidence of the apprOvers, and contended that Davies was the man who had committed the crime, and that he had accused the prisoners in order to save himself. The learned JUDGE commenced his charge to the jury at a quarter to twelve o'clock, and-continued with the greatest minuteness and perspicuity to notice every point in .the evi dence, which occupied his lordship until half-past three ; when the' jury, after a few inortients l consultation, returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY. CHARGE OF RAPE AGAINST A SURGEON Robert Hector, surgeon, was then indicted for a rape upon the person of Ann Thistleton, on Sunday, the 28th of March. Mr. Murphy was for the prosecution, and Mr. Wilkins for the defence. The evidence was totally unfit for publication. The jury found the prisoner guilty. The court adjourned at eight o'clock. NISI PRIUS COURT.—TUESDAY. JONES AND ANOTHER, ASSIGNEES, V. BEEN. This was a Special Jury case, brought by the assignees of Benjamin Wolf Frankland, a bankrupt, to recover from the defendant, Mr. Keen, auctioneer, of this town, possession of a life policy of Insurance for 1'999, which it was alleged had been fraudulently obtained. Mr. Cresswell, Mr. "Watson and Mr. Henderson, ap peared for the plaintiffs, and Mr:Alexander, and Mr. Cromp ton, for the defence. _ - It appeared that the policy in question was effected by a gentleman named Gaorge Laing, who lodged in Anson-street, in this town. It was a policy on his life for the sum of £999, for which a quarterly premium of £2l 10s. had to be paid. This policy was on the 30th December, 1837, disposed of for £45 to Mr. Benjamin Wolf Frankland, when an assignment of it was made to him. In the year 1839, in the month of June, a fiat of bankruptcy was issued against Mr. Frank land, when, the plaintiffs in this case, Mr. Jones and Mr. Bardswell, were chosen assignees, and Messrs. Holden and Clarke, solicitors, into whose possession came the policy, as signment, and other documents connected therewith. Mr. John Longworth Clarke, one of the attorneys to the as signees, and of the firm of Holden and Clarke, caused the policy to be advertised for sale twice, and paid the premium upon it to Mr. Okill, of the firm of Okill and Cooke, share brokers and agents - to the Britannia Life Insurance Company. A dividend was to be paid in the month of October, 1810, and as the quarterly premium on the policy had to be paid, the assignees were anxious to dispose of it. It was twice put up to auction, by Mr. Benson : in the first occasion there was no bidding, and on the second oc ca si on there was but one. bidder,. Mr. Laing, the insurer, himself, who offered only £5. The policy was offered to the Britannia office, who refused to have anything to do with it, on the ground that they never took policies of less than six years' standing. On the 18th of June, 1840, Mr. William Morris, clerk to Messrs. Holden and Clarke, offered the policy for sale to Messrs. Okill and Cooke, who said they would have nothing to do with it, as Mr. Laiag's was a very good life. It was alleged, but did not appear in evidence, that about this time or shortly afterwards, Mr. Keen, the defendant, was making some inquiries as to whether there were any life policies of insurance for sale in the market. Mr. Laing was at this time 67 years old On the 17th and 18th August, Messrs. Okill and Cooke had called upon Messrs. Holden and Clarke, and after inquiring if the policy were still in the market, Mr. Keen was introduced as a probable purchaser. Mr. Cooke (or Mr. Okill) was asked what he thought it was worth. r The reply was, " about three quarters' purchase;' certainly not more." Mr. Clarke ob served that he thought not, as only £5 had been offered for it by auction. Nothing was said at this time on the subject of Mr. Laing's health, and it appeared generally that he had been always considered a hale strong man. The sum above mentioned was offered for the policy, the terms were accepted, and £63 were paid for it. The policy and the assignment to Frankland were delivered up to Mr. Keen, on the payment of the money. Mr. Cooke said he could probably prepare the transfer himself; but the next morning he returned with the assignment, and gave it to Mr. Holden, requesting that he would prepare a transfer. Two days before, Mr. Cooke railed upon him first to inquire about the policy. Mr. Holden had seen Mr. Laing in the street, in perfect health, watching two boys fighting, at which he was laughing very heartily. Meanwhile, according to the proof offered, about four o'clock in the afternoon of the 15th. of August, Mr. Laing had called at the office of Messrs. Okill and Cooke, when he was seized with a sudden illness, in the course of which he vomited a good deal. Mr. Hector, surgeon, who was intimate with Laing, and with Okill and Cooke, happened to call in, and he administered some relief to Laing, who walked home. According to the evidence of Mrs. Roberts, with whom he lodged, he was very ill when he arrived at home, but he nevertheless ate a good ainner, consisting of lob ster, mutton chops, potatoes, and a pint of ale. In the after noon he went to see his brother. When he returned home he said he had taken a glass of gin and water with his brother, and was much better. Next morning, however, he vomited blood. Mr. Hector was sent for, and afterwards Dr. Baird attended him. Mr. Laing gradually sunk till Wednesday, when he died. Between the time when Mr. Laing took ill, on the 15th August, to the time of his death, it was proved that Mr. Hector had frequently called at Messrs. Okill and Cooke's office, which it seems be was continually in the habit of doing. On Thursday, the 20th of August, Mr. Keen called upon Messrs. Holden and Clarke, who had meanwhile heard of Mr. Laing's death. Mr. Keen did not say anything about Mr. Laing's illness or death, he having called for the assignment or transfer. Mr. Clarke told Mr. Keen that Laing was ill at the time when the purchase was made, and that Mr. Bardswell had told him that be had been offered £2OO for the policy. Mr. Keen denied any knowledge of the matter. Messrs. Holden and Clark refused to deliver up the assignment, &c., and Mr. Keen said he would compel them to fulfil their contract. Mr. Clarke told him that if it turned out that he had the slightest knowledge of Laing's illness and death, he should not have it. Mr. Bardswell an Mr. Morris subsequently made'a tender of the purchase-money and in terest to the defendant, and demanded the policy. He re fused, saying he would have nothing to do with it. Mr. Peter Morris, a director of the Britannia-office, was called, and he stated that there was no objection on the part of the ' office to pay the amount of the' policy to the person who showed the title. The examinations of Messrs. Keen, Okill, and Cooke, touching this affair, before the commissioners under the fiat were put in. It appeared that Mr. Keen then said, that he knew that the policy was for sale a few weeks before, and that Messrs. Holden and Clark wanted £4O for it. Mr. ALEXANDER spoke at some length in defence, con tending that this was a fair and business-like transaction on the part of Mr. Keen, and that he had no knowledge of the illness of Mr. Laing, which in point of fact was not expected to terminate fatally. The learned gentleman did not call any witnesses. _ _ His LORDSHIP charged the jury strongly in favour of the Plaintiff, observing pointedly on the fact of Mr. Keen hav ing admitted that he knew of the policy being in the market a few weeks before, when Messrs. Holden were willing to take £4O for it, though he put off till the 18th August, when he went at once and offered £63 for it. Several other points in the examinations the learned judge animadverted upon, quoting from Sir Walter Scott's Marmion two lines, 0 what a tangled web we weave, When first we practise to deceive, His lordship remarked upon the fact of the defendant having declined to call witnesses, though he might have placed Measrs. Okill and Cooke in the box to shew that he had no knowledge of the illness of Mr. Laing, had such been the fact. The damages were laid at £2,000. His lordship re commended the jury, if they concurred in his views, to re turn a verdict for damages to that amount, subject to be reduced to one shilling on the delivery of the document. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, for the da mages claimed, with the stipulation suggested by his lord ship. , ACTON V. BLUNDELL AND ANOTHER This action was tried before a special jury. Mr. Cress well, Mr. Cowling, and Mr. Warren, appeared for the plain tiff, and Mr. Starkie, Mr. Addison, and Mr. Watson, for the defence. The plaintiff is Mr. Joseph Acton, a cotton-spinner of Wigan, the defendants, Mr. Richard Blundell Hollinshead Blundell, of Liverpool, and Mr. Sherratt, of Wigan. It was alleged on the part of the plaintiffs, that in conse quence of certain coal-pits having been sunk" by the defen dant, the water which was necessary for the plaintiff to carry on his business, and which he had hitherto taken from a well in a garden, near his factory, was taken away. Several witnesses were called to prove, that the water in the well used by Mr. Acton had left him since the working of several pits belonging to the defendant, and that the sup ply had been contingent on the progress of these works. • The case was arrested before anything was offered for the defence, his LORDSHIP stating, that whatever might be the decision of the jury upon the facts, his own opinion on the law was at present fixed. It was alleged, that the sinking of the pit by the defendant had catised the draining away of the water hitherto for some time past used by the plaintiff. This was what the jury would have to decide, if the question went to them. It appeared, however, that the mines had been worked in the ordinary way, and the result, perhaps, was, that the water had been drawn off as alleged. This was quite immaterial, however, as each party might, undoubtedly, at least in his opinion, exercise his own right on his own land. Were it otherwise, disputes interminable would arise. Under the above circumstances, in order to save time, it was agreed, that the defendants' case should not be heard, as, even assuming that the defendant failed to show that he had not caused the drainage in question, the law as given by his lordship would bring a verdict for the defendant, as vin dicating his right to do so. It was intimated, therefore, that a bill of exceptions would be tendered, in order that the legal question might be decided, and to verdict was, mean while, taken for the defendant. CROWN COURT.-WEDNESDAY, Robert Hector, convicted of rape on the preceding even ing. was brought up for lodgment on the opening of the court. The learned Judge made no remark upon the case, and directed judgment of death to be recorded. MURDER AT LIVERPOOL Owen Kehoe, 27, was plaeed at the bar, charged with the wilful murder of Ann Kehoe, his wife, at Liverpool. Mr. HARDING, who was concerned for the. prosecntion, stated that he understood the prisoner was insane, and had been so since his committal, so as to be incapacitated from taking his trial. A jury was thereupon impannelled to try the fact. Thomas Chalmers. the surgeon of the gaol at Kirkdale, was examined by Mr. MURPHY, and stated that he had been in attendance upon the prisoner since his committal, and was of opinion that he was decidedly insane. He had en tirely lost his reasoning faculties, and, in fact, was mad. The prisoner rambled a great deal in his talk in court, and the jury. without hesitation, found that he was insane. MURDER AT ASHTON-UNDER-LYNE Joseph ijoila;il729,wasindicted for the wilful murder of Thomas Garland. Mr. BRANDT and Mr. HALTON were for the prosecution. Mr WiLiciNs and Mr. OVEREND for the prisoner. Mr. BRANDT stated the case for the prosecution. He said that the deceased, on the 31st of October, was leaving the town of Ashton-under-Lyne, in order to go to Manches ter, with four or five companions. When they had gone about a , cinarter of a mile on the Ashton and Manchester road, they were assailed by a party of fifteen or sixteen per sons, and so violently beaten, that the deceased afterwards died of the bruises which he received. The learned counsel added, that in order that the jury might thoroughly under stand the case, it would be necessary for him to give them a short account of the state of Ashton at the time of the affray. In the month of October last, there was a dispute amongst the sawyers in that town. The masters would not agree to the prices demanded by the men, and there was a turn -out of all that belonged to the union. The masters were for some time left without workpeople, but at length they got men to accept of their terms from a distance. Those in the union were dissatisfied with this arrangement, and resorted first to solicitation, and afterwards to deeds of violence, to disturb it. There was a meeting of the club, and it was agreed that a party should go out to meet and assault the workmen. They chose a night on which the people usually returned home ; some of them living at a distance. Several of these had a warning not to go home on that night ; but others who had not been warned did go. A party, considing of five or six, were proceeding on the Ashton road to Manchester, when they were met by fifteen or sixteen of the turn-outs, and the whole of them were set upon, and knocked down with sticks, clubs, bars of iron, and other weapons. There was just light enough to enable them to see the countenance; of their assailant 4, and the prisoner would be proved to be one of them.. It would also be shown that . he had taken from a part of his dress a piece of iron, and struck the deceased to the ground. The men who were at tacked made the best of their way to Manchester, and the deceased was taken to the infirmary. The scalp of his head was found to be much injured, and the forefinger of the right hand was broken. The surgeon who examined his wounds recommended that the finger should be amputated; but he was very anxious to keep it, and so strong were his remon strances, that the surgeon consented merely to dress it. He came there to have it attended to, from day to day, until the 16th of November, when he was found to have lock-jaw. He. was admitted an in-patient, and died on the following day. The learned counsel observed, that it might be urged on be half of the prisoner, that if the deceased had consented to have his finger amputated, he would not have died. Now this operation might have been advisable, but it would be for the jury to say if the lockjaw was produced by the bruises, and if the wounds had been inflicted by the prisoner. -After the affray it appeared that the prisoner was not to be found for spine days, when .he met a man named John Arrandalei and told him be wished to get away from the police on ac count of that affair, and that he should go, by way of New castle, Liverpool, a n d B r i s t o l, t o D u bli n . 'The constable traded him to these places, and he was apprehended in com pany with some sawyers at Dublin.. This would be the evi dence which he should have to lay before the jury, and it would be for them to say, under the direction of his lordship, whether there was sufficient to convict the prisoner, and whe ther he was guilty of murder or manslaughter. Patrick Kehoe—l am a sawyer. On the 31st of October last, I worked for Mr. Stones, at Ashton-under-Lyne. I had been with him three weeks. I was not in the union. I lodged at Church-street, Ashton, for two nights. My family was in Ashton. On Saturday nights I went to Manchester. Before I went to Ashton, I was working in Manchester. My son James worked for Mr. Stones. Thomas Garland worked for Mr. Gouldthorpe, next door. John Harney worked for Mr. Stones. He went there at the same time as I and my son. The prisoner is a sawyer. About half-past four on the evening of the 31st of October, I went to Manchester. I had previously seen him about three o'clock in the afternoon, speaking to my comrade, Thomas Grimes, in the yard. They were together about an hour. My son, myself, my brother James, John Harney, and Thomas Garland, the deceased, went to Manchester together. Myself, my son, and brother, and Garland. were first on the road. Harney was behind. About a quarter of a mile from Ashton new church, we met from twelve to fifteen men, seemingly coming from Manches ter. Thomas Roberts, one of the party, knocked me down with his fist. Before that I saw the prisoner amongst the party. I was beaten on the ground, and the blood poured from me till I could see no more. When I got up I saw the party who had assailed us run towards Ashton. I only knew Thomas Roberts and the prisoner. I tried to go towards Manchester, and then returned. My son was crying " Mur der." His arm was much hurt. Garland was standing against a. wall. He was covered with blood, and said, " Pat rick, Patrick, I'm killed." All our party were beaten. We went to Manchester, and took Garland to the infirmary. We got there between eight and nine o'clock. Our wounds were dressed and we went away. I did not see him until he was dead in the infirmary. Cross-examined—The first time I saw the prisoner was in the Town-hall, at Manchester, about three weeks ago. I had mentioned him to Mr. Alcock and Mr. Green about three weeks ogo. I bad previously been before the magistrates. The only man I mentioned there was Tinker. Garland, when he went home, had the instrument called " the pricker." He carried it in a bag. I have never said it was five o'clock when we left Ashton. Re-examined--Mr. Alcock and Mr. Green, I believe, are peace-officers. They , came to Ashton to inquire into this matter. I spoke of this murder before the magistrates. James Kehoe.—l am. the son of the last witness. In Oc tober last I worked for Mr. Stone, at Ashton. I was one of the new hands that supplied the place of the turn-outs. I was going home with the party mentioned by my father, when we were about a quarter of a mile from Ashton new church, we met a party of fourteen or fifteen. Thomas Roberts, Grimes, and Joseph Holland, were amongst them. Saw Roberts strike a blow at my father with his naked hand, and then pull out a stick and strike him. My uncle was near to him and tried to catch him, but was obliged to fly for his own safety. I was knocked down and beaten, and saw no more. Two of my ribs were broken, and I was very much mangled—more bruised than wounded. When I zof up I saw some of the party who attacked us running to • wards Ashton. I assisted in taking Garland to the infir mary. He was very much backed and cut up. He had a desperate wound all down his forehead, and his fing3r was nearly hanging off. Cross-examined.—l saw the prisoner the first time on the 29th October, at the widow Wood's. It was about a quarter to five o'clock when this happened. By the JUDGE.—The men said nothing. Some of them had pieces of stick, and two of them had bars of iron. Jan Harvey.—l was struck and fell on my hands and knees from the blow. The man who struck me was behind. I saw the prisoner was among the men. I had often before seen him in Ashton. Four of the men passed us before the attack begun. I knew the prisoner ten or twelve yards dis tant. I saw him strike Garland with a piece of iron ten or twenty inches long, which he drew from his breast under his coat. He made an attempt to strike Garland on his head, and the latter putting up his hands, the blow fell on them. Garland cried out " Murder !" I was then knocked down. (An iron instrument, about a yard in length, and the thick ness of a poker, with sharp pointed ends, was produced.) This instrument is a " pricker." The bar with which be was struck was about the same thickness, but not so !ong. When I got up I saw three men beating Garland. I ran to wards Ashton, and two of the men followed me. I did not go to Manchester with Kehoe and his son and the deceased, nor until some time afterwardq. Cross-examined.—l have known the prisoner three or four years. Garland did not strike with his fist when he put his hands up, nor had he done so before. He had not time. It was not a minute after I saw the men, that Garland was struck. We had with us iron instruments called " does," that we use in our trade. We had been told in the course of the day there would be a disturbance, and armed ourselves accordingly. Re-examined.—l had no time to pull out my weapon, but saw some of our party use theirs. Garland had two prickers in a bag. Thomas Redmond.—l am an out-door worker. On the evening of the 31st October I was going home towards Ashton, and, about a quarter of a mile from the new church, heard a cry of " murder." I saw a man on hishands arid knees, and three men beating him. I could not see what the weapons were, I was too far distant. There was acart and two horses on the road. The man who was beaten was very near the first horse. - I saw ten or twelve persons on the road. Two men were running towards Ashton., and turned into the foot path in the fields. I found the pricker produced on the road, and a bag and another piece of iron near where I saw the man down. The carter took the last mentioned piece of iron away. Cross-examined.—lt was light. There were a great many people on the road going backward and forward. My im pression at the time was, that there Were about ten men alto gether. There was a great noise. I heard one voice crying " Murder," and two-or three others saying " Oh! oh !" 1 do not know who the man was that Isaw down. Re-examined.—The men ran past me. They were the men who had seemingly been beating the others. The three I saw beating the one were amongst them. Peter Kehoe.—l saw one of the men strike my brother on the naked eye. I tried to save him, but left him for my own safety. One man passed me, and struck me several times with something like the leg of a table. I rushed towards him, and he retreated to his party. They were beating my friend with blud geons . Th omas G ar l an d was amongst tem. I ran away, and in two or three minutes, the men having left them, I returned, and found Garland in a very bad state. His head was very much cut, and his finger hanging off. He complained very much, and I took him to the Infirmary at Manchester. Francis Butterfield.—On the 31st October I was working as a sawyer, at Manchester. I was applied to the night be fore to go to Ashton. I got two days' wages, and went to Queen's Head, in Ashton, which was called " The Sawyers' Club-house." I was ordered to go there. I went to Mr. Gouldthorpe's, to see the men who had gone to work there from Manchester, and asked them the reason why they went there, when they knew there was a dispute between the mas ters and the men. I went to tha Swan at half-past twelve, and met the Kehoes and other persons. I afterwards went to Gouldthorpe's again. and returned to the club-house. I saw Boyd, Sutton, and Williams there. I did not see the prisoner there. John Arrandale.—l am a hatter, at Hooley-hill, near Ash ton. On the morning of the 26th January, about half-past five o'clock, I met the prisoner on the road. He asked me how he should get by the police-station, at Denton, as he was afraid be should be taken for that Openshaw-road job. Cross examined.—Had been intimate with the prisoner, and the first time he had told the story was about a fortnight ago. Re-examined.—He mentioned it first in conversation at a beer-house, to a man who told the police. Richard Green, police-officer, in Manchester, said, he went in pursuit of the prisoner into many parts of the kingdom, and at length, on the 11th March, apprehended him in Dub lin, as he was in company with a number of sawyers. Robert Newton, constable of Ashton, identified the prisoner as a resident at Ashton, and described the road where he had seen him. Mr. Furnival, house-surgeon to the Manchester Infirmary, said, the deceased was brought in there on the night of the 31st October. He had several lacerations and contusions on the head. There was also a compound fracture of the nose. The bones of the first finger of the right hand were broken and laid bare. Witness strongly urged him to have the finger amputated, and warned him of the consequences, but he re fused. He was an out patient till the 15th November, when he was brought in labouring under lock-jaw. Part of the finger had sloughed off from mortification, and . witness am putated the remainder. The lock-jaw proceeded, and he died the next morning. His death was caused by lock-jaw, which was-produced by the injuries he had received. The wound on the finger might have been produced by the instrument produced. Cross-examined.—lf his finger had been amputated when, witness recommended it was probable he might have re covered. By the JUDGE. — Lock-jaw was not certain from the injury to the finger, but there was no hope of recovering the use of the finger. Mr. Wimurqs said he would take the opinion of the Court whether, as the deceased had resisted the advice of the sur geon, the indictment for murder could be sustained. Mr. OVEREND followed, arguing that the death of the deceased was his own act, as he bad a reasonable chance of escape, if he had adopted the advice tende re d hi m . The JUDGE overruled the objection. It certainly was not the law that if a party died from not having followed the most cautious advice of the surgeon, the party who inflicted the wound was not to be responsible for it. Mr. WILKINS then addressed the jury for the prisoner. The fact of the death was irresistible ; there was no doubt on the night in question there was a conflict in which the prisoner was engaged, but he should convince the jury that the capital charge could not be sustained. The party going to Manchester had about them deadly weapons, and no man could believe but that they had used them. The facts as proved for the prosecution proved that the deceased himself had two instruments which were afterwards found in the road, and the bag empty. The origin of the transaction was left in so muph doubt, that it was quite impossible to tell which side had began, and if the jury should be of that opi nion they would be justified in bringing in a verdict of man slaughter only. The lesrned JUDGE then summed up, and intimated that he could see nothing in the evidence which could reduce the case to one of manslaughter. The jury, after a consultation, found the prisoner guilty of WILFUL MURDER. The learned JUDGE then put on the black cap, and after recapitulating the circumstances, told the prisoner he had been guilty of one of the most atrocious crimes which could be committed, and that there was not the slightest hopes of mercy for him in this world. He could not hold out to him the slightest expectation of the extreme penalty not being carried into effect. Indeed there were no circumstances in the case that' would justify him in doing so. The learned Judge then passed sentence of death in the usual form. The prisoner, who beard the decision of the court with apparent unconcern, was then removed. MANSLAUGHTER. Christopher Eastwood, 35. John Shepherd. 23, and Ben jamin Bentley, pleaded guilty to an indictment charging them with manslaught6r, at Spotland, in having killed Jacob Town end. They were sentenced to one month's imprisonment, and ordered to find sureties. THE ASHTON-UNDER-LYNE UNIONISTS. Henry Hardwick, 35, Samuel Hardwick, 40, John Wil liams, 30, Thomas Hassall, 29, Peter Thompson, William Shaw, Robert Kenworth, Joseph Marshall, William Jarvis, John Buckley, Hugh Boyd, Patrick Tobis, and Robert Sutton, who were indicted for a conspiracy to raise the rate of wages at Ashton-under-Lune, and having, in pursuance thereof, assaulted Patrick Kehoe. William Irving, John Paxton, James Rowbottom, Joseph Norcross, Thos. Wild, and John Lomax, who were • charged with the conspiracy without the assault, severally pleaded guilty. • Dr. BROWN, for Wild; Mr. MURPHY, for Norcross; and Mr. WILKINS, for the other prisoners, observed that they were sure the court would believe the men whom they repre sented, when, through them, they avowed their deep contri tion, and their determination, in future, to have nothing to do with such combinations. In truth, the jeopardy in which two of them had been placed the other day, and the awful example made of another this morning, was amply sufficient to produce contrition. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, that after what he had heard, he would consent, on.his own responsibility, that, with the exception of Williams, whom be must leave to be dealt with as the court might deem fit, all - the prisoners might be discharged on their own recognizances, and two sureties, in £25 each, that they would appear when required, and conti nue to keep the peace. The Learned JUDGE; addressing Williams, said that this was an extremely serious offence. There was a grave cha racter in all such cases; but in his, from the evidence which had been given on other trials, in 'which he and others had been concerned, that this was a conspiracy of a dangerotis and deadly description. The conviction would not subject him to penal infliction, which, if the indictment had been laid in another form, he would have suffered. He would not be liable to transportation, but only to imprisonment. The term might be much shorter than his guilt would seem to demand ; but the court hoped that he had shown some evi dence of contrition by pleading guilty . . lie would also have to find sureties; but that perhaps might be for his own be nefit, for some persons were so infatuated with these societies that they lost sight of all the duties of men. The sentence of the court was, that he.should be imprisoned and kept to hard labour for eighteen calendar months, and at the expira tion of that time enter into his own recognizances in £2OO, and two sureties of £5O each, or four of £25 each, to keep the peace for two years, and to be further imprisoned until such sureties shall be found. SUPERSTITION.-AN UNNATURAL STEP-MOTHER Martha Kniveton, 15, was indicted for having killed and slain Joseph Kniveton. Mr. Brandt was for the prosecution. The prisoner was the second wife of a person employed on the Manchester railway. They lived in Salford, and had four children, the issue of the husband's former marriage, and se veral of the woman's. The prisoner had taken some dislike to the deceased, (which was an infant of about two years old,) and in consequence of her neglect, it became so emaciated and diseased that it died. She told one of her neighbourt! that " she could not touch it; for it was no natural child, but. a little old man come again." The child appeared to he very much afraid of her, and was in a starving and most filthy conditiorywhen discovered. Great anxiety and suffering were depicted on its countenance. When bread was brought into the house it held out its hands and made the most piteous cries ; and if anything was given to the child it was greedily devoured. One of the witnesses stated that she ha given the mother a penny to buy the child some black cherry wine, as it was in a sinking state, and her remark was, that she was " without tobacco." The woman made a long rambling defence to the effect that she was in good circumstances when she married her second husband, but he made away with all her furniture, ran into debt, spent all his wages in drunken ness, ill-used her, and left her without money to buy food for the child,—that the infant had always been sickly and li able to convulsive fits—that it was not dirty and neglected, and that the neighbours who had given evidence against her had misrepresented her because they had taken edislike to her. The prosecution was instituted under the direction of the parochial authorities. The jury acquitted the prisoner, and she was immediately discharged. MANSLAUGHTER AT WIGAN Robert Jump wasindicted for killing and slaying his wife, Jane Jump, at Wigan. Mr. Brandt, for the prosecution, said there were some circumstances ofstrong suspicion against the prisoner, which rested chiefly on statements said to have been made by the deceased; but as those statements were not made in articulo mortis, they could not be relied upon. No evidence could therefore be offered against the prisoner, and he must be acquitted. Acquitted accordingly. MANSLAUGHTER. AT MANCHESTER.. Samuel Widson, 27, was indicted for killing and slaying, Thomas Brown, at Manchester. Mr. Brandt appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Wilkins for the defence. Mr. BRANDT stated that a drunken quarrel out of a sup posed insult offered to some women at the Volunteer public house, in beansgate Manchester, on th e n i g ht o f t h e s t h o f September last. The parties went into the street to fight ; a fight of a confused nature followed. The deceased had been engaged in it, but was standing on one side in the crowd, when the prisoner came up and struck him a blow in the throat, putting his leg before him and shrowing him down ; and he died before he could be taken to the surgeon's, of a concussion in the brain. &number of witnesses were exami ned on both sides. The defence was, that the deceased died of apoplexy, or of injuries sustained by falling from a push given to him by a female. The learned JUDGE summed up, and directed the jury to give the prisoner the benefit of any doubt they might enter tain on the evidence. The jury, without a moment's hesitation, returned a ver dict of acquittal. ARSON AT CROMPTON Joseph Greaves, 28, was indicted for having feloniously set fire to the warehouse and goods of Jonathan and Joseph Thompson, at Crompton. Dr. Brown appeared for the prosecution. The prisoner, who was in an exceedingly bad state of health, was unde fended. Dr. BROWN stated that in the course of the night of the 18th October, Mr. Beaver, the manager, who lives on the premises, was awoke by a strong smell of fire, and on going into the warehouse discovered that some strips of cotton in various places had been set fire to by some persons who had broken into the warehouse and counting-house, and sto len some cotton caps and committed this serious offence in the expectation of concealing the other. They left some shoe marks behind which exactly corresponded with those made by the prisoner's shoes. An attempt was made on the same night to break into another house, and a stick was thrust through a pane of glass, which a person inside laid hold of ; and the father of the - prisoner proved that his son had left home with that stick in his possession that night, and did not return. He was apprehended with the shoes on his feet the following Monday, at a house of ill fame in Rochdale. The prisoner cross-examined the witnesses to show that others may have had shoes of a similar description. The jury acquitted the prisoner. There was another indictment against the prisoner for stealing 1001bs weight of cotton caps, the property of the said Jonathan and Joseph Thompson. No evidence was offered in this case, and the prisoner was acquitted and discharged. The court rose at half-past 6 o'clock. NISI PRIUS COURT.-WEDNESDAY Mr. Baron Rolfe took his seat at nine o'clock. His lord ship declined to fix those special jury cases Nos. 45, 57, and 58, in the second list, (all similar as regarded the matter in question) till the following morning, after the opening of the Great Brindle will cause, Mr. Cresswell intimated that the opening of that case would occupy him the whole of the day: SHEFFIELD RAILWAY V. ARMSTRONG This action was brought by the Sheffield, Ashton-under- Lyne, and Manchester Railway Company, to recover from Mr. Robert Armstrong, the defendant, the amount of vari ous calls made on the twenty shares he held in the company, amounting to £756 principal, and £36 interest—total £786. The defendant pleaded that he was never indebted. Mr. CRESSIV ELL, for the plaintiff. said this was one of the very numerous actions which the company had been compelled to bring, for the purpose of enforcing payment of their calls. The transfer to him was on the 4th of Decem ber, 1837, and the register was dated 27th June, 1838, and these calls were made since that time. The 110th section of the company's act provided, that the company should enter in a book the names of the proprietors of the shares, which book should be sealed with the company's seal, and should afterwards be evidence of the parties being shareholders. The directors had power to make such calls at such periods as they thought fit, provided no call exceeded £lO per share, and that there was an interval of three months between any call. It was necessary under the act to show that the calls had been duly advertised in a newspaper circulating through the counties in which the railway was situated. The defen dant had paid the first call of £2 lOs per share, and this claim was for the amount of the subsequent calls including one on the Sth. The register was produced, and the name of " Robert Armstrong, 29th of August, 1838, 20 shares" was found in it. Mr. Rowland, of the Manchester Guardian office, proved that the Manchester Guardian circulated in the four coun ties of Lancaster, York, Derby, and Chester. • Mr. Stevenson, one of the clerks of the company, read the advertisements for the several calls from different num bers of this paper. _ _ _ Mr. Crompton, for the defendant, submitted that this was not enough ; that the company was bound t o p u bli s h th e call in one or more newspapers published and circulated in each of the four counties. The jury found for the plaintiffs, damages £786, costs 40s SHEFFIELD RAILWAY CO. V. VERNEY This was a precisely similar case, except that the defen dant, Mr. George Verney, a shopkeeper and tradesman at Greenwich, had not paid the first or any subsequent call upon Lis twenty shares. The formal proofs having been given, Mr. Jay proved that he served the defendant with a writ, and that the defendant said he was the person named therein, that he had written to Mr. Parker, the company's law-clerk, in Sheffield, and had made an offer to pay all he could ; but if called upon to pay the whole it would ruin him. - The jury found for the plaintiffs, damages £B4l 14s. prin cipal and interest. • Mr. Baron ROLFE remarked that if parties took shares they must sometimes expect to pay for them. HIGGINS AND OTHERS V. SENIOR , In this case, which was tried by a special jury of mer chants, Messrs. Vincent Higgins and William Henry Hig gins, trading in this town under the firm of Vincent Hi gg i ns and Son, iron merchants, were the plaintiffs, and Mr. John Senior, trading in this town, under the firm of John Senior and Co. iron merchant, was the defendant. The declaration set forth that the defendant agreed to sell the plaintiffs 1000 tons of varteg or other merchantable bar iron, at £6 per ton, free on board at Newport, 200 tons to be delivered by the 20th August, 1840, 400 tons in all September, and the re maining 400 tons by the 14th October, Maesteg iron being excluded from the contract; that both parties agreed to per form this contract and that the defendant was required to see the iron, but he refused to do so. The defendant pleaded that he had made no such arrangement, and also that the plaintiffs had made no such arrangement with him. Mr. DuNnAs stated the plaintiffs' case. They had em ployed a Mr. Mead, formerly an iron merchant, as their agent, to buy this iron. About the 20th July lust, he made a contract with the defendant's brother, William Senior. who was in the defendant's place of business, for 1000 tons of Varteg iron, but the contract was cancelled, and a new one was made, which the learned counsel read to the effect that on the date set forth, (21st July, 11340) they had eold, through Mr. Mead, to Messrs. V. Higgins and Sons, 1000 tons of Varteg or other merchantable bar iron, common sizes, flat, square, and round, at £6 per ton, free on board at Newport, less 5 per cent. for cash payment, with the sti pulations as to delivery before mentioned, and certain others as to freight, &c. and some exceptions as to shipment. Though the plaintiffs had about the several times specified in the contract, made repeated demands for the pa rce l s o f iron, as per agreement, accompanying the demand with in timations that they should hold the defendants responsible for the breach of contract, they had not received up to this time any of the iron, which had risen in the market at the period, and they had consequently brought the present action. _ _ -- For the defendant it was contended, and evidence was given to show, that only one half the agreement had been produced, and the other half Was put in to show that the contract was not with the defendant as principal, but as agent for the Varteg Iron Co. The counterpart! of the agreement given by Mead to Wm. Senior was put in and read. It was dated on the same day as the other, and commenced in the following terms :—" Liverpool, 21st July, 1840. (Signed) Samuel Mead for V. Higgins and Co., iron merchants. B ou ght of the Varteg Iro n Co. per John Senior and Co., 1000 tons of good merchantable bar iron, &c." The re mainder of the paper was in precisely the same terms as that given in evidence for the plaintiffs, except a postcript exclu ding Maesteg iron. The jury retired, and after an absence of twenty-three minutes, returnd, and d e li vere d i n a ver di ct f or th e plaintiffs ,dapageo, £1450, or £1 9s. 10d, per ton on 1000 tons costs, 40s. His lordship certified that it was a fit case for trial by a special jury. ASSAULT BRYCE V. FORSLIANN This was an action brought by the plaintiff, Mr. Charles Bryce, a surgeon, residing in Liverpool, to recover compen sation in damages for an assault committed on him by the defendant, Mr. Henry Forshaw, a respectable solicitor, also residing in Liverpool. Mr. WATSON opened the pleadings, and Mr. ALEXANDER stated the case to the jury. He did not know s hen he rose to address a jury with more pain than on the present occasion, for the jury would have to inquire into circumstances of such a nature that he was sure would be very painful to every one who heard him, but those circum stances the plaintiff felt called upon to lay before them, in order to vindicate a chdracter which had hitherto remained unstained—in order to vindicate a spirit which had shown it self in the field when engaged ie the wars of his country. If anything could stamp the conduct of the plaintiff with that high bearing he had always exhibited, it would be what had taken place in the present case. He (Mr. Alexander) under stood that on the other side a great number of w it nesses h a d been subpcened, and he was ata loss to understand for what purpose, unless it was to lay before the jury the whole amount of the disputes which had occurred between the parties. There was nothing he should more rejoice at than having the whole of the transaction inquired into. The plaintiff was a doctor of medichie residing in Liverpool—a married man, with a fa milY of children—a member of every literary and scientific society of respectability in Liverpool, and had ever conducted himself as a gentleman. The defendant was a man highly respectable —an attorney who, so far as he (Mr. Alexander) knew, had always conducted himself with propriety. There fore, it was fair to presume that, with his knowledge of the world and of those duties which one gentleman owed to ano ther, had he reflected for a moment on the conduct he had exhibited under the influence of passion, he would have been the first to regret what had taken place. Before the case had been far gone into, the jury would hear an account of the gross assault that had been committed, and for which he came into court to ask compensation, not for the purpose of filling his pocket, but to vindicate his character and to set him right in the estimation of his friends and the community in which he resided. The plaintiff, .was chairman of a well known institution in that place, called the Liverpool Apothe caries' Company, and the practice had always been for the committee of that board to meet monthly. Their object was a good one, and he believed for the benefit of the community, for it attended to the health of the lower classes, and, there fore, was of considerable advantage generally. In the month of September last year, there was a meeting of the commit tee, and the plaintiff took his seat at the board as usual. IVhilst there, a porter came to the door and said some one wished to speak with Dr. Bryce. He accordingly went into an adjoining room, and there found the defendant. The lat ter made some observations which he (Mr. Alexander) would not take upon himself to repeat accurately, but would leave the witnesses to do that; however, it was to the effect that the plaintiff could not have forgot what occurred between them above twelve months ago, and then added that he had called for the p ur p ose of horsewhipping him. He took out the whip instantly and began to apply it to the shoulders of the plaintiff—it was a word and a blow. The porters, however, interfered and the parties were separated. The defendant was subsequently taken into custody, and the case was heard before Mr. Rushton the same day. On the defendant being asked before the magistrates what he had to say to the charge made against him, he at once said he did commit the assault, and that he had gone to the place with the:intention of horsewhipping Mr. Bryce. Mr. Rushton was about to adjudicate on the matter, but the plaintiff said he did not intend the matter to rest there, on which the magis trate bound over the defendant. Two gentlemen, he be lieved, offered themselves as sureties, and the defendant was bound over. Now the defendant had pleaded that he did not commit the assault, and then he pleaded that the plaintiff assaulted him first. That was certainly most strange, when he had admitted before the magistrate that he had gone to the place expressly with a view of committing the assault. His client had no wish to seek from the jury any pecuniary emolument—all we wanted was to be set right with his friends and in the sphere of life in which he moved, and had the defendant apologised for his conduct, the present action would never have been brought ; but, as he had not thought proper to do so, he appealed to the jury to mark their sense of the conduct of the defendant. It was not a case of com mon assault, although it was one in which compensation in damages was sought as a recompense for the injury done. The plaintiff was a gentleman likely to be pointed at, had he not sought to set himself right, as one who had been horse whipped, but one who had not the manliness to seek repara tion for the insult—that he had not taken it up in a proper way. Had he not done as he had, an unfriendly spirit would have been always manifested towards him. He would have been pointed out right and left as the gentleman who had been horsewhipped. Besides, where was the assault corn rnittted ? Why, in the very place where the lower class went for medicines and advice, and some of them might have been present at the very time the trespass occurred, and they were likely to point out the plaintiff as the gentleman who had been horsewhipped. Besides, he was a gentleman in exten sive practice as a medical man, and there might be those amongst his patients who might think he had not acted as he ought to have done, and therefore it would injure him in his profession. He could not help thinking that, if the circum stances which occurred previous to the day when the assault was committed were gone into. Mr. CRESSWELL.—I have no objection. Mr. ALEXANDER continued.—His learned friend had given him permission to go into the transactions which occurred previous to the assault, and; therefore, he would take the liberty of stating their history to the jury. The JUDGE intimated that such facts would not be evi dence. Mr. CRESSWELL.—If your lordship thinks it right that those circumstances can be gone into, I have not the slight est objection. The JUDGE.—You are going to inquire into circumstances which occurred long before the assault complained of, and we may thereby get into a long rigmarole story, no one knows where it will end. Sitting here, then, and being so much pressed for time, I cannot allow you to do so. You may take it that both parties are anxious to go into the pre vious circumstances, but I prevent them. Mr. ALEXANDER then addressed a few other observations to the jury, and concluded with observing that he trusted they, as gentlemen, would show to the public the estimation in which they held the conduct of the defendant. The lea r ned gentleman again expressed his willingness to settle the matter by an apology being made by the defendant through his learn ed friend who appeared on the other side. Mr. CRESSWELL said his learned friend had twice stated that he would accept an apology. Now, his client had ex pressly instructed him not to make any apology, because he telt convinced that he had only acted as a gentleman ought to act under the circumstances. However, as Mr. Alexander was anxious that all the circumstances should be investiga ted, and as his lordship could not hear them, he (Mr. C.) had no objection to the matter being referred to some gen tleman of honour, who would take the trouble, and that he should hear all the circumstances, and decide what ought to be clone. Mr. ALEXANDER said his client wished a public investi gation. _ Mr. CnEsswELL.—Well, that can be either in public or the proceedings can be published. Mr. ALEXANDER.—Nonsense! Call the witnesses. The following witnesses were then called : Thomas Dean, an assistant at the Apothecaries'-hall, in Liverpool, examined :—The institution is managed by a body of directors, consisting of medical men and merchants of the first respectability. Mr. B• gee has been connected with the institution since I have been there—twelve months ago. He was vice-chairman of the committee, and is now chairman. On the morning of the 11th September the defendant came to the Apothecaries'-hall, about one o'clock. Mr. Connery, the shop-manager, was present. The managing committee 'was sitting. The defendant asked if Mr. Bryce was there. Mr. Connery said he was. The defendant then said—" Tell hint a gentleman wants to see him." Mr. Connery went out and returned with Mr. Bryce. The defendant was then standing in the body of the shop. He walked up and spoke to the plaintiff. Heard him say—" In consequence of what took place twelve months ago I have come here to publicly horsewhip you," and he immediately struck him with a small hand whip. A scuffle took place ; the whip was raised a se cond time, and Mr. Bryce guarded off the blow. The scuffle was put an end to by one of the porters interfering. A police man was sent for, and he was taken before Mr. Rushton. The case was heard the same day. Mr. Wright asked Mr. Bryce if he would explain what took place twelve months ago. Mr. Bryce said—" Most willingly." Mr. Rushton asked the defendant what he had to say to the charge. He did not deny the charge. In answer to Mr. Wright's ques tion, Mr. Rushton said—" If gentlemen take the law into their own hands they could not complain of the officers doing their duty. Cross-examined by Mr. CRESSWELL.—Did not hear all that passed in the shop. Did not hear Mr. Forshaw say to Mr. Bryce—" Now your recognizances are expired, I have come to horsewhip you." These words were used before the magistrates, and Mr. Bryce said—" I don't mean you to be whitewashed here. I shall bring an action." The de fendant was then bound over. William Henry Connery.Lln September last was superin tendent of Apothecaries'-hall. On Friday, the 18th of Sep tember, saw the plaintiff at the hall. Mr. Forshaw called at the shop that day. On coming in, he asked if Mr. Bryce was there ? I replied he was. He then said—" will you be kind enough to say a gentleman wishes to see him." He added—" you need not say who it is." I observed a horse whip in the defendant's hand—it was one of the smallest I ever saw. I went and told Mr. Bryce, and he followed me into the shop. The defendant said—" Mr. Bryce, you are aware your recognizances have now expired, and, in conse quence of what took place twelve months ago, and in order to clear my character, lam now come to horsewhip you." He raised the whip and struck Mr. Bryce across the shoulders. A scuffle immediately followed. One of the porters got be tween Mr. Forshaw's legs and upset him. A policeman was sent for, and the defendant was given in charge. I attended before Mr. Rushton. The case was stated on the part of the plaintiff, and the defendant was bound over. Mr. Rushton asked the defendant, previous to , passing judgment, what he had to say. I did not hear any denial of the assault. De fendant was then bound over. Cross-examined by Mr. CRESSWELL.—Did not hear any thing said about a challenge. Thomas Blackburn, surgeon.—ls acquainted with Mr. Bryce, who is a practising surgeon in Liverpool. Has been a director of the company for some years, and so has Mr. Bryce. Knew the defendant. who was attorney to the Apo thecaries' Company. Did not know whether he has ceased to be so now. Joseph Brooks Yates said he knew the plaintiff well, and had done so for a dozen years upwards. He was a surgeon in extensive practice. Mr. ALEXANDER.-1S he a man of eminent literary and scientific character ? Mr. CRESSWELI.—ReaIIy, my lord, I don't know that there is a g rea t er measure of damages to b e given for laying a whip across a literary man's shoulders. (Laughte r .) The JUDGE.—You ma y show the statio n in life of the parties. The witness then stated that the plaintiff was a man highly respected, and a member of several literary societies. Mr. CRESSWELL then addressed the jury for the defen dant. His learned friend had told them that the plaintiff was the offspring of respectable parents, who had lived in the esteem of many in that town, and that the defendant had practised in the town as a solicitor for some years, in such a manner as to have acquired great respectabilty among the profession to which he belonged. Now, he need not tell the jury, that in a town like Liverpool, where some of the most wealthy and respectable of the profession resided—that amongst such a community no man could acquire a good reputation unless he well deserved it. His learned friend has dealt with the case very gravely ; he must change the subject, and try to throw into it something more befitting its character. This was the glorious land of liberty. He thanked God providence had preserved us from that tyranny which prevailed in other lands. Here every one had a per fect right to do what he liked with his own. Mr. Bryce's honour was his own. He had done as he thought proper w i t h it, and as pleased him best, but be (Mr. Cresswell) did not think it would satisfy his friends. (Laughter.) His learned friend had introduced the case to the jury with all that pompous and elegant diction he was accustomed to em ploy on such occasions. Ile could hardly rise from his seat in consequence of the agony under which he laboured. (Laughter.) He said he rose with great pain. He (Mr. Cresswell) was disposed to think the pain bodily and not mental (continued laughter), and that his learned friend had become a fitting subject for his client, the doctor. (Loud and renewed laughter.) His learned friend next told the jury that his client had distinguished himself in the wars of his country. He had, however, called several witnesses, but little or nothing was told of his exploits, or whether he had ever gone so far as to let blood with his lancet. (Laughter.)