Northern Times. — Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-07-03 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. i fr (By h h and Irish Magnetic Telegraph.) —.... HOUSE OF LORDS —THURSDAY. The House met at five o'clock. The Marquis of SALISBURY asked when the office of Admiral of the Fleet would be filled up ? Earl GRANVILLR thought it would be detrimental to th e public service, if he replied to the question. THE FRAUD OF REDPATH. The second reading of the Great Northern Railway Bill, the object of which was to enable the Directors to meet the losses occasioned by the frauds of Redpath, was agreed to, after a long discussion. ADULTERERS' MARRIAGE DILL. Lord REDESDALE moved the second reading of the Adul terers' Marriage Bill, the object of which was to provide that after divorce on account of adultery, the guilty 'Artie; should only be allowed to marry again before a registrar, -except in cases where clergymen did not refuse to perform the ceremony. The bill was nega.ived upon a division, by 62 votes to 23 MISCELLANEOUS BILLS. The Roman Catholic Charities Bill went through com mittee. The Grand Juries (Ireland) Act 183 G, Amendment Bill, and the Insurance on Lives-Abatement of Income Tax Bill, were read a third time and passed. The Sound Dues Bill was read a second. Some other bills were advanced a stage, and Their Lordshps rose at half past seven o'clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS—THURSDAY. The Speaker took the chair at four o'clock. PRIVATE BILLS. The members appointed t 3 serve upon the Maidstone, City of Oxford, Tewkesbury, and Bury Election Com mittees, were called to the table and sworn. The Great Northern and Western of Ireland Railway Bill ; the Mallow and Fermoy, and Great Southern and Western Railway Bills ; the New Brunswick and Canada Railway and Land Company• Bill, were read a third time, and passed. The Clyde Navigation Bill was furthered considered, and ordered for third reading . TIIIC PAPER DUTIES. In reply to Mr. RICARDO, The CHANC 'LLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he had com municated with the Inland Revenue Commissioners in reference to the drawbacks on paper duty, and had been informed that the reason that the drawback was allowed on Jacquard loom cards did not apply to the paper used in the pottery manufactory. It was not, therefore, proposed to allow the drawback in the latter case. Mr. RICARDO gave notice that on an early occasion he should call the attention of the House to the subject. BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS. Mr. THOMAS Duscomnu rose to move the following reso lution : —" That in all cases when the seat of any member has been declared void by an election committee, on the grounds of bribery or trea'ing, no motion for the issuing of a new writ shall be made without seven days' previous uotiee beinz given in the votes. The SPEAKER interrupted the hon. gentleman, stating that the question was not one of privilege, and without the permission of the House, could not come on before the orders of the day. A. discussion upon the point of order ensued, and ulti mately it was arranged that the hon member should have permission to bring forward his motion at half-past four o'clock to-morrow. DIPLOMATIC SERVICE. In reply to Mr. W. EwART, The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that the nature and subject of examinations for the Diplomatic and Con sular Se. vice was fully explained in the correspondence between the Foreign Office and the Civil Service Com missioners, which was presented to Parliament on the Bth February, 1856. EDUCATI ON IN TIIE A RMY . On tlio vir,ho n for a)inz, into committee of supply, Mr. WARREN called the attention of the tiou6e to the general order-issued by his Royal Highness the Com mander-in-Chief, on the 19th of June, directing that, for the future, every soldier, after being dismissed from drill, shall attend school as a duty, until he is repir ed suffi ciently advanced in reading, writing, and arithmetic. With the concurrence of the Secretary for War, no fees are to be required for this attendance at school. Oir JOHN iln.mst.zN said the War Department had been advised that, though the order in question was not illegal, it would meet with much objection. The order had accord ingly been withdrawn, and another recommending officers to offer every encouragement to soldiers to avail themselves of the facilities offered for education eubstituied. THE STATUTE LAW COMMISSION, Mr. Looxa KING drew atten , ion to the large sums of public money which had been expended by the Criminal and Statute Law Commissions, without the consolidation of any branch of the Criminal or Statute Law, and moved that an humble aldress be presented to her Majesty to dispense with the present Statute Law Commission. Mr. HADFIELD seconded the motion. Sir F. KELLY said that the commissioners had, after considerable labour, made themse'ves masters of the whole of the statutes fr :En Magna Charts to the last sear of Queen Elizabeth, and just as they were about to produce the result of their labours, the hon. member moved to dissolve the commission. He hoped that the Roue wtuld not sanction that course, and stated that he hoped to see the work of consolidation of the laws of the whole of the United Kingdom completed in from eighteen months to two years. Me. WHITESIDE suggested that the commissioners shou'd not lose the favourable opportunity that was presented for the assimilation of tle laws of England and Ireland. Sir F. KELLY said the subject was under consideration of the Commissioners. Mr. BAINES bore testimony to the success of the labours of the Commissioners up to the prevent time. Mr. NAPIER objected that some of the Commissioners had their whole time to devote to the consolidation of the statutes, and that there was no controlling hand over thorn. ATronspv-GENRRAL hoped to mature the plan for the appointment of a department for the Justice before the end of the session, and appealed therefore to the hon. member to withdraw his motion. Lord Jona Rtrassza, thought, considering that the question occupied an unsatisfactory position, would consent to give the Government more time. After a few words from Mr. HADFIELD, the motion was negatived without a division. DESIGNS FOR PUBLIC OFFICES A short discutsi9n then took place as to the designs for public offices at Westminster, which led to a promise given by Sir 13. riali, to submit a plan to parliament to carry ont those which had been selected by the judges. TUB SUPPLIES. The House then went into Committee of Supply. .f. 46,400 for the British Museum was voted after some dis cussion. On the next vz.te of £23,165 for the National Gallery, in cluding the purchase of pictures, a motion was made by Lord Elcho to reduce the amount by £6,541, the amount of excess of expenditure over last year's vote, together with the expenses of travelling directors. Upon a division there appeare I For the reduction Against it .. .. .. ....... 89 ........ 194 Majority against Lord &ono then proposed to reduce the vote by £550, being a part of the salary of the secre.a ry, and the whole of the charge for the travelling agency. This amendment was negatived by 123 (for the vote 161), and the original vote was agreed to. de oth er votes, including £3,541, fry! the Indian a partments of Canada , also agreed The House having resumed, The Attornes and Solicito-s Colonial Courts Bill, the Peace BillE t n n Proceedings b e f ore J us ti ces o f the , eiary d t k read a second an time.° Municipal Corporations Bill, were aommi The tteeConstabulary F orce (Ireland) Bill went through The Enclosure Acts Amendment Bill was read a third time and palmed. The Chairman of the Wareham Election Committee brought up the report, Whi c h mittee bad determined that John statedal that the corn elected; that.two p P e i r k so e n , s owneereofbrited, and unduly Hales Calcraft was duly influenced by Mr. J. thaet theremembers of John Hales Cslcraft's committee, but was no place with evidence to show that such proceedings t oo k the consent of the said John H. Calera& The other business was disposed of, and the If ouB4 ad punle4 at one o'clock. THE NORTHERN TIMES,---LIVERPOOL, FRIDAY, JULY a, 1857. LIVERPOOL & BIRKENHEAD DOCKS' BILL. (FROM OUR OWN RRPORTZR.) HOUSE OF COMMONS, THURSDAY, JULY 2. The Committee appointed to inquire into this bill, re• assembled at twelve o'clock this morning, Sir J. Graham in the chair. The object of the bill is "to exempt ships using the docks on the Cheshire side of the Mersey, and not using the Liverpool docks. from certain rates which they now pay to the Liverpool Dock Trustees, if any part of the cargoes are shipped or discharged within certain limits on the stream of the Mersey." Mr. Phillips was not pre sent upon the Committee, the honourable gentleman hay. ing been discharged from further attendance, upon a resolution moved in the House of Commons yesterday, by Sir James Graham. Mr. John Laird was re-called, and, in answer to Mr• Johnson, said: I have prepared a statement of the cost of loading in the river, as compared with the cost in the dock. I have taken a vessel, capable of carrying a cargo of 2000 tons. The cost of loading that cargo in the dock would be £lOO, or ls. per ton ; but the same cargo, loaded on board the same ship in the river, including the extra cost of coaling, would be £412 10s. Sir J. Graham asked if all the articles forming the cargo were identical in the two cases assumed by the witness ? Mr. Laird: The cargo is identical in both cases. The sum of £412 lOs for loading the vessel in the river, is composed of the following items:—Porterage into the lighter at 23 per ton, £200; lighterage from the dock at Is. per ton, Xloo ; towing lighters to the ship, £6O; watering the ship in the river, £l5 ; and coaling, .t 37 I have framed this estimate from my personal knowledge of the charge. I have frequently paid such charges, and occasionally even higher rates, if the weather happened to he bad. By Mr. Alexander, Q C.: The is a ton which I mention as being the cost of loading the ship in dock, is simply the cost putting the cargo on board. I have not included any charge for putting coals or water on board. The cost of coaling in dock is is per ton, and in the river 24 6d. I believe that salt is frequently' shipped in the river. No vessel will ship in the river that can get into the dock, because the loading is much more safely and expeditiously effected in dock. Mr. Alexander : Are you not aware that in many cases ; even Manchester goods come down by the Sankey canal, and are transhipped in the stream of the Mersey ? Mr. Laird : Occasionally such goods may be shipped in the river, but it is not often done. By Mr. Johnson : I did not include in either estimate the prime cost of the coal and water, but simply the extra sum charged for labour in shipping coal and water in the river. Mr. Weir was the next witness. He said ; lam part owner of the Khersonese. In the latter part of May, the Khersonese, which is 1,796 tons builders' measurement, and has a cubic capacity of 2.400 tons, was loaded in the stream of the Mersey. The cost of loading from the quay into the ship, and stowing cargo away in dock, is Is. per ton, or about £lOO, and of loading in the river, '366 I3s. 4d. The latter sum is composed of the following items': Porterage into the lighter, .£169 13s. 4d. ; lighterage, £105; extra cost of coaling, +x'2s; expense of steam tug for seven days, £7O. I have not included anything for the extra cost of watering the ship in the river. I have no doubt that the imposition of the Liverpool Dock Rates upon vessels using the Birkenhead Docks, but loading and discharging a portion of their cargo in the stream - , would very injuriously affect the interests of Birkenhead. By Mr. Alexander : In May last the Khersonese loaded the whole of her cargo in the Mersey. It is a great loss to load in the river, and we should have loaded in dock if there had been water enough there to flat us out. By Mr. Johnson : It is a great drawback upon a ship owner to load perishable goods in the river. Mr. Johnson said he had other witnesses, but as their evidence would be precisely similar to that already given, he did not propose to call them. Mr. Alexander, Q.C., then addressed the committee on behalf of the Dock Trustees. lle saw that the uliete F t v ceedings in this ease were most anomalous. Mr. Laird was the owner of docks at Birkenhead, and he now sought to promote a bill at the expense of the Dock Trustees, unsup ported by any favourable testimony, for the solo purpose of conferring an individual benefit upon himself. He (Mr. Alexander) had understood from the opening address of his learned friend, that the imposition of these rates was destructive to the trade of Birkenhead; and he had certainly expected that - a - cloud of witnesses —merchants interested in the development of Birkenhead—would have been called to prove his learned friend's assertion. But what had boon the course which the promoters had taken ? Instead of establishing any injury to the trade of Birken- head, Mr. Laird and Mr. Weir, two gentlemen pecuniarly interested in the question, were the only witnesses called, and all they had proved was, that their pockets would be benefitted if these rates were not levied. The learned counsel then referred to the authority under which dock dues were levied by the Dock Trustees, stating that from time immemorial the Trustees had exercised the power of imposing such dues upon all vessels loading or unload ing their cargoes within the port of Liverpool. They had, however, placed a most liberal interpretation upon the powers which the legislature had vested in them, inasmuch as they never attempted to levy dock rates on vessels which shipped or discharged their cargoes in the Birkenhead docks. At the same time, they considered it necessary, as a police regulation, that a charge_ should be imposed upon vessels loading or discharging in the stream of the river. The Mersey was limited in regard to space, and the enormous traffle: which took place upon it rendered it absolutely imperative that it should be kept as free as possible from anyi hing in the nature of an obstruction. If vessels were allowed to load and unload at will in the Mersey, the river would become so crowded that it would be impossible to transact the ordinary business of commerce upon it, with safety and expedition. Ile contended, also, that the bill was introduced by Mr. Laird at a very inopportune moment, inasmuch as the Birkenhead Dock Trust was now amalgamated with the Liverpool Dock Trust. He pro posed to call evidence before the committee to prove that there was no more hardship in subjecting vessels diseharg. ing or loading their cargoes in the river to the payment of these dues, than in requiring the ships which passel a lighthouse in the day time to pay light dues. It was necessary, in order to prevent the trade from being impeded, to levy these charges. At the conclusion of the address of the learned counsel' the committee room was cleared, and, on the re-adrniasion of the publip, Sir J. Graham said : The unanimoug opiTion of the committee is so strong anti decided in this case upon !he the evidence, as it now stands, of the two witnesses who have bee❑ examined iu ftvour of the bill, that we are not disposed to trouble Mr. Alexander to call witnesses; bnt from the circumstances of the ease, if the counsel for the promoters wishes to be heard in reply, the committee will listen a' tentively to any statement that may be mode for the purpose of shaking our opinion as it now stands. Mr. Johnson : I am obliged tl the committee for the opportunity they have offered to me, but I am not vain enough to suppose that I conld alter an opinion which has been so decidedly expressed on the part of the committee. Sir J. Graham : The committee are quite unanimous in the opinion that, considering the rights of the creditors the rapidly increasing trade of the Mersey, the tide way, and the narrow channel, they would injuriously affect the rights of the creditors, and infliet a ge.!at injury upon commerce, if they were "to entertain this measure. The committee are quite unanimous la the opinion that they cannot pass the preamble of this The bill was consequently rejected. ST. HELENS CANAL AND RAILWAY BILL. This bill, which is the last upon the list, was nroceeded with immediately after the Liverpool and Birkenhead' Docks Bill was disposed of. The p ea lke St. Helens Canal and Railway of the Garston d oc ks, th e preamble are own tha e t z; Company mble recites Widnes docks, and lite Sankey Canal, all of which cow municate with the river Mersey, and are within the port of Liverpool; and that the vessels resorting to the said docks and canal are, in certain circumstances, subjected to the payment of rates and dues (besides harbour, buoy, and light dues) to the Trustees of the Liverpool Docks and to the Corporation of Liverpool ; and that the goods shipped or unshipped in the said docks and canal of the company are also subject to the payment of like rates and dues, and to the payment of rates or dues for the town of Liverpool; and that it is expedient to relieve the said vessels and goods from the payment of such rates and dues (other than harbour, buoy, and light dues) where no service is performr.d by the said trustees or corporation, and where the docks and works of the said trustees and corporation are not used for the purposes of the said vessels or goods ; and to grant a partial relief when such docks and works are only partially used." Mr. Sergeant Wells (in the absence of Mr. S rgeant Wrangham) and Mr. Johnson appeared for the pro- moters. The bill was opposed by the Liverpool Corpo ration, represented by Mr. Merewether, Q.C., and by the Liverpool Dock Trustees, represented by Mr. Alexander. Q C., and Mr. Paget. Mr. Alexander said the bill was similar in character to that which the committee had just rejected, and he there- fore submitted to his learned friend whether it was de sirable to proceed with it. Mr. Sergeant Wells, in opening the case of the pro moters, denied that the bill was analogous to that which the committee had rejected. The only analogy between it and any of the bills hitherto disposed of was con tained in a clause which contained similar provisions to the 37th clause of the Mersey Conservancy Bill, namely, that no sums should be payable, in respect of docks, by any vessel that did not use them. It was only as a matter of safety, in case the more important bill should miscarry that this bill was introduced on behalf of the St. Helen's Canal and Railway Company. There were four points upon which he was anxious to address the committee. In the first place, he would call attention to the fact that the bill contained- clauses which were identical with those- contained in the Mersey Conservancy Bill; secondly, that it sought to exempt ships which used the works of the company, - and did not use the Liverpool or Birkenhead Docks, from Liverpool Town Dues;. and to exempt vessels which used both the works of the company, and the Liverpool or Birkenhead Docks, from one-half of the Liverpool Town Dues; thirdly, that the Liverpool Town Dues conferred no benefit upon the Garston Docks. In the fourth place, the promoters claimed exemption from certain penalties and conditions contained in the Liverpool Dock Act, for enforcing pay ment of the dues, in respect of which exemption was claimed. The learned counsel stated that Garston docks were four miles above Liverpool; and that the promoters of the present bill supplied the buoys and lights between the docks and Liverpool. Nevertheless, all vessels resort ing to the Garston docks• were compelled to pay Liver— pool Town ales, from which they did not receive the slightest benefit. Mr. Alexander remarked, that at the present moment dues were not levied upon vessels using the Garston docks, unless they shipped or unloaded their cargoes in the stream of the Mersey. Mr. Sergeant Wells continued : His clients did [not object to contribute to the harbour, buoy, and light charge; but the grievance they complained of was, that they were taxed for an object fro n which they did not derive the slightest benefit. The learned counsel then referred to the report of the Board of Trade, in February last, in which the Lords Commissioners stated that Garston, Whines, and other ports in the estuary of the Mersey outside the borough or Liverpool had a peculiar claim to be heard on the question of Town Dues, because it appeared doubtfnl how far the legal right of the Corpora. tion of Liverpool to claim dues beyond the old borough of Liverpool was justified by the title they had shown, and because the places in question derived no benefit whatever from the expenditure of the dues. The learned serjeant submitted that there was a clear case for parliament ary legislation, inasmuch as a tax was imposed upon a portion of the shipping frequenting the Mersey, which was most unjust and unfair. At the close of the learned serjeant's address the com mittee room was cleared, and when the parties were ro-atlnkitted, Slr J. Graham said: Bafore you proceed to call wit - nesses, I am desired to state that the committee have carefully considered your opening speech, and have looked at the bill, and the report of the Board of Trade upon it. They perceive how intimately it is connected with the Mersey Conservancy Bill, which they reported to the House yesterday, with a special report upon the measure And here we must incline to the opinion, that what we have found to be just and reasonable will be confirmed by the House, and that the other House of Parliament will not differ from our decision. At the same time, we are aware that that result is doubtful. Our desire, oar earnest desire, would be, if the Conservancy Bill should become law, that the status quo in the Mersey should not in the present session be disturbed. In the new trust, as we pro. pose to constitute it, local interests will be much stronger and more represented than in the present governing body. There is a clime in the bill which we have reported to the House, which provides that an application shall be made by the new board in the ensuing session of Perna_ ment, for the consolidation of all the Dock Acts, among which acts are the two to which you have made special reference, as constituting a portion of your grievance, and not:giving you the full exemption to which you think yourself in equity entitled. There are strong arguments .in favour of leaving matters as they are until the corn ,rnencement of the next session. At the same time the other alternative cannot be overlooked that possibly, and probably you may feel inclined to say, the bill reported the Mersey Consorveney Bill will not become law ; and in that case, as you have opened your address to us there would be a prolongation of injustice. Thu leaning of this committee is strongly in favour of leav- lug untouched all the minor questions in their bearing on the greater questions of the conservancy as a governing body. If you persevere in this bill, we cannot refuse to hear your evidence, and the answer to it. At the same time we give you notice, that our leaning is strong against pro!. ceeding ; and, having given you that warning, it w ill b e for you to consider what course you will take. Under a similar warning, the Trustees of the Liverpool Docks, and the Corporation of Liverpool, have withdrawn from prosecuting two measures. To-morrow morning we shall meet at twelve o'clock and hear your decision. We have no desire to cut the matter short ; but even if we pass the preamble, it will be necessary to accompany it with a special report to the House, stating the further considera tions that might weigh with us. Upon the whole, it will be for you and your elicits to consider what course you will adopt. The Committee then adjourned. BELFAST INDEMNITY BILL. the opinion that, in the present state of the case, they could not allow these entries to be read. They did not know that the person referred to under the name used in these entries was the prix ner—no proof to that effect had been led; and, therefore, they apprehended that that, at any rate, was not in the least degree a fitting time for reading the entries. They gave, however,•no opinion as to whether it might be competent or not to proceed with the reading when a foundation had been made. No doubt it had beer) proved that L'A.n4e lier went to Edinburgh on 10th March, and that that date tallied with the one under which the entry " went to Edinburg k" was foond ; but that was not sufficient. It would be a very difficult .question to be dis- cussed. William Stevenson recalled—on Mondy, did Yon ale two dlasks brought in ?' I did not see them on Monday. did not examine the repasitori. sin Mrs. Jenkins'S en the Monday at all. I saw no let- ter& except the one found in the rest pocket. On thtllday I examined . . his desk in my otice. I found a great many letters t here. ome of them I examined that day. I observed they were principally in the sime hand. flocked tha desk. I went to the Bridge of Allan on Friday. I went to Mrs. Baynes's IcdFings there She showed me things that had belonged to L'Angeller. A leather portmanteau, a hat, a cigarette-case, a little travelling bag, a dressing-c ise,and a rag. The portmanteau and travailing bag were both lac ked. (These articles being shown witness, he identified them.) I thi ek the dress. ing case was open. I don't remember exactly. I desired Mrs. Baynes to send them to Huggins's office. I found a key to open the port manteau at ifeengelter's lodgings.. On opening the bag, 1' found it to contain a little- leather case for holding letters. There were Several letters in it. lathe portmanteau r found clothes and a p rayer-book, but no letters.. r sent the bag first to Mrs. Jenkins's, aloi ig with the portmanteau. I gave the letters and payers in the desk to Murray, the police officer. It was a paper ben into which they were put. I assisted, or at least saw that they were put in. I sealed the- box as soon as they were put in. I did not initial the letters when they were opened in the fiscal's office. I did Initisl several of them some d;ys afterwards. I went with the oilier and Mrs. Jenkins. The little leather bag was not opened in his presence. Murray took peesassioa of it,.and carried it away. Ido not think I gave him the key. then. I afterwards saw it opened in the fiscal's olee. I took the key there • for that purpose. On that Monday I saw Murray open L'A riga/lees desks in Mrs. Jenkins's, and noticed that the letters found In them were similar in leandwrlting to those in the desk in the warehouse: I saw Murray take away all th 3 letters that were in different articles at Mrs. Jenkins's. I sew thorn at the fiscal's office. I del not accom pany Murray there. I saw Murray tare possession both of those in the office and times in Mrs. Jenkins'a ; but could not say afterwards which bed been found in one place and which in the other. (W tnes having been shown a number of letters, declared them to be all in L'Angelier's handwritinee I was at the funeral of L'Angelier. It took place in theetTying gro tine Of St. Mary's Ceurch. I was also present when the body was exhum el. The funeral wcs on the Thursday. I saw the body witea exhumed its the hands :if Dr. Steven and Dr Corn - sack. That was, I think, on Tnesde.y the 31st. 1 examined the lettere that were in the small bag. I read some of them, and marked " b ig" on several. I kept the levers in their original envelopes. That applies to all the letters I examined. I did not shift the envelopes in any way. At the conclusion of this witness's examination, tile Lord Justice. Clerk intimated that, as it W 49 six o'clock, the court would now be adjourned. He advisee the jary to abstain from communi cating with any human being upon the subject of tee trial, and to kee,o their minds clear of everything but the evidence. The court then adjourned. Daring t'e whole day, the doors of the court-room were besieged by crowds of people, thouge there was not the slightest hope of obtaining admission, and large numbers remained congre gated in Parliamente:quare, and eaeerly discussed every stray rumour and item of intelligence tint faund its way out of court. By Blitish and Irish Magneie Tilegraph. The Select Committee upon this bill met yesterday, and, after some discussion, the bill was withdrawn by the pro moters. It is understood that an arrangement was entered into between the promoters and opponents of the bill to consult together for the framing of a measure meeting the views of bolt, to be introduced next session, and that the Chancery proceedings are to be stopped in the meantime. SPORTING INTELLIGENCE. By Telegraph WORCESTER RACES.—YESTERDAY. TRIAL 8 rAKES. Jesuit Six ray. Two-xx.f.u-OLD STAKES. Polly Peachum...l f Mainstay 2 I Mamein—.. 3 WORCESTRIOHIRE STAKES. Oakball... Eleven ;an, THE GLASGOW POISONING CASE TRIAL OF MISS M. SMITH, FOR MURDER HIGH COURT OF JUSTICIARY, EDINBURGH. We yesterday gave a portion of the evidence taken on the first day in this extrao-dinary case, and now append the evidence afterwards adduced—yesterday summarised In our telegraphic despatches—up to the adjournment of the court:— Thomas Ross, auctioneer, Glasgow : I recollect being In St'rling . . . on 22nd March last, and leaving by afternoon train for Glasgow. I went to Coatbridge by the train. I saw a foreign gentleman when I got out of the,traln. I did not know his name. The guard intro duced him tome as a gentleman who was going to walk to Glasgow. I had nothing to eat, but the other gentleman had some roast beef and a small bottle of porter. It took us ra , her more than two hours to walk to Glasgow. It is eight miles. lie had a Balmoral cap on his head. [Shown the cap.] It was one like that [Shown coat.] That is not the coat he had on. He walked well, and was not tired. He was smoking several fines, and appeared to be In good spirits. We parted at top of Abercrombie-street, in the Galloweate. He told me he was go'ng to the Great IVesterna•cad. Ido not know whether Franklin-place is war that. Cross-examined : He told me he had come from Alba that morning. He said lie bad walked from A lea to Stirling. Ha said it was eight mils. He said nothing about Bed: a of Allan. Our conversation was merely on local affairs. I was not in any house with him from Coathridge to Glasgow. I am quite certain of that. We were in no shop. By the Lord-Advocate : We left Coatbridge at twenty minutes after five. William Stevenson. lam warehouseman in the employmmt of llnggins and Co. The late If. L'Angelier was in our warehouse. He was in the department under me. He was unwell ha March. lam aware of his being un well one day in my absence before that. Ha got leave of absence in March. He was going to Edinburgh. lam aware he afterwards- went to the Bridge of Allan. Tend not see him between his going - to Edinburgh and then to the Bridge o: Allan. I got a letter from him from the Bridge of Allan : March 20. Dear am happy to say I feel much be' ter, though I fear I slept in a damp bed, as my limbe are a'l sore, and scarcely able to bear me. But n day or t ..o will put me t rights. What a dull place this is ; I went to Stirling to-day, hut it was so cold and damp, I soon hurried hone again. Am I wanted? If so, lam ready to come home at any t. me. J rat drop me a line al the post-office. You were talk ing of taking a few days to ymrself, so I shall coati up whenever you like. If any letters come, please vent them to me here. I intend to be home not later than Thursday morning.—Yonrs, P. EMILE , L'ANGELIER. He usually signed in that way. He was generally addressed " in the office. I answered that letter. I found my letter in the p )st office, Bride of Allan, after L'Aegelier's death. That was in the forenoon of Friday, 27th March. I never saw L'Angelier after he went to Edinburgh. I got notice of his death on Monday, 23rd March. Mr. Corbett, a partner, mentioned it to me. I went direct to the French consul's office. I saw M. Thuan, a fellow-lodger of L'Ange lier's, there. He told me D. Thompson was L'Angelier's medical man. I got Dr. Thompson to g) to lire. Jenkin's lodgings. I saw L'Angeller's corpse there. I heard of another medical man having attended him—Dr. Steven; and I sent for him. He came while Dr. Thompson was there ; and they p ()posed an examination of the body. I did not then authorise a post mortem examination ; but I did the next day. I informed the procurator fiscal on Tuesday. I was present when the examination commenced, and saw it was L'Ange lier's body. I did not expect L'Angelier would be in Glasgow on the Sunday night. That would have been inconsistent with his letter. His clothes were lying on the sofa al - de bedroom. I examined the clothes, and Inn: various articles, such as pipes of tobacco, three finger-rings some silver, and a bunch of keys, Sze ; and there was also a letter in his vest pocket. It was a letter and an envelope. (Shown latter and envelope.) These are they : Why, my beloved, did you not came to me. 0, beloved, are yon ill ? Come to me. Sweet en% I waited and watched for you, but you came not. I shah wait again to-morro e night, the same hour and arrangement. Do come, sweet love, my oen dear love of a sweet heart. Come, beloved, and clasp me to your breast. Come, and we shall be happy. A kiss, fond love; adieu, with tender embraces.— Ever believe me to be your own dear, fond Mass The letter was addressed " M. Emile L'Angelier, Mrs. Jenkins', 11, Franklin Place, Great Western Bold." I made some remarks on that letter, but Ide not remember what they were. I remarked that that letter explained why he was in Glasgow, and not in Elinbur e h. I found a bunch of keys in his pocket. I took them with me. I gave them to Mr. T. F. Kennedy, our cashier. I knew M. L'Angelier had a memorandum-book. I saw it on the Monday. I had it when came from his hdgings, but I cannot soy where I got it. I got it in his lodgings, but I cannot tell where. [Shown a memorandum book, and asked if that was the book. Witness repied that it was, identifying the handwriting as his.] I took it with me to the office, and put it into a parcel and sealed it up. I saw it subsequent y given np to the public authorities. Crossemamined by the Dean of Faculty : Look at that label and read it. " Glasgow, 30th March, 1857. Found in the desk of the deeeasea Pierre L'Angelier, in the office of W. B. Huggins and Co., 10, Rothcharch-street. J. Mac kensie, B. 51' Lachlan, W. Anderson, J. Stevenson."—You signed that ? I did.—You signed that d icument which states that the book was found in his desk in Heddlngton's Warehouses, ferl you swore jest now that you get in his lodgings ? I put it in hit desk sealed up, and it was opened afterwards, and labelled when it was taken ont. By the Court : Did you put that sealed parcel into L'Angeiier's desk after you sealed it up? I did. By the Dean of Fatality: When you pm, it tete W. desk, yr.) it acaloa uy t IL IN.O not. Did yotletake it out of his desk? Nat after it was pat in till the officers got it. Did you take it out of his desk at any time whatever after you put it in? No.—Do you know who took the book out of the desk ? I am not quite certain which of the officers it was.—Do you know at all who took it oet ? I caw two officers take the things out. —What do you mean by saying on the label that this was found in the desk? I meant that they found it there.—ls that what you say? You say it was found? Why did yen say so.? Because they took it out.— How do you know they took it out that day? The book was there when they came.—How do you know that? I saw the book.—Did anybody see you find the book in the lodgings ? lam not aware.— What day was it ? Oa the Monday.—Who was present ? Dr. Stevens, Dr. Thomson, Mr. Thuau, Mr. Wilson, and Mrs. Jenkins might be in the room. Can you tell me whether anyone of them people was aware of your having found this book ? lam not aware.—How long, after finding it in the lodging-house, was it before you put it into the desk ? I cannot tell how long.—Was it the same day ? Ido not mind.—Was it the same week ? The same week.—That is all you can say about it ? That is you carry it about in your pocket? I did not, beyond taking it from the lodging to the office.—From the time you left it upon the desk, when did you next sea it ? I saw it several times that afeernom ; and it was opened once or twice that atfernoon.—ls that the Tuesday ?No ; the Monday. —By whom was it opened? By me. By the C tart : Was it sealed ? It was sealed, and opened and sealed again. By the Dean of Faculty : Was It sealed with the office seal ? Yes.—Was there nothing to prevent anybo iy breaking the seal, opening the book, and sewing it again? Nothing.—The fiscal recpelted you to bring over the letters to him which were in L'Aneeller's desk, and you did so ? I die so.—You took some of the letters, not all ? Not all.—You saw the book. then ? Yes.—Was it sea'ed ? No ;it was open.—Had you the key of the desk I had. —Where did you get the key ? In the bunch I got from his lodgings. —Was the back of the desk in a very frail state ? I was aware the lock was.—Are you aware the back wan ? lam not aware.—Are you aware L'engelier had complained that soma of the lads is the back warehouse hod got into his desk ? lam aware that he complained to me.—You saw the book in the desk upon Wednesday morning ; when did you see it neat ? Ido not mind.— Did you ever see it again till to-day? Yes.—When? I saw it repeatedly in the desk ; I can not say when.—Did you ever see it out of the desk after that ? Yes. —Where ? I saw it out of the desk in the fiscal's office.—Did you see it receive this label ? I del.—flow many times do yea suppose the desk was opened between the ems L'enge'ler died and the time you signed this label ? I cannot tell.—Has it not been a great number of times? Frequently.—And by other parsons? I was always present, although some other persona were looking at the letters and books. By the Court.—Who were these people ? Mr. T. F. Kennedy, our cashier; Mr. Wilson, oar invoice clerk ; and I think Mr. Miller was present, and oneor the warehouse lads. By the Doan of Faculty.— Anybody else? There may have been some young men belonging to the works in the , same apartment. Any people who were strangers to your establish , aent ? No. Ace you quite ears of that? Not a single one. What do you say to Mr. elites? He was not in that day. Has ha not been in year warehouse since laangelier's death? Several times. I suppose he saw the latter, ? I do not think he saw any of the letters in our place; not to my knowledge. What did he come for? He came to implies after the death of M, L'Angelier. Did he not ask to see anything? lam not aware that he did. Did he address himself to you or to other people? I saw him once or twice when he was in, and ha addressed himself to me. Were you not at one time ander the impression that you found this bock in the desk at the worchsuse, and not at the lodging ? I stated so. You stated 30 more than once, did you not, in year precognition ? I am not aware that I did so more than once ; I did so once, and that was ray impression at that time. How long is it since you changed your mind ? On the day that I wrote a note to Mr. Hart, as soon as I remembered that I had found the book.—How long ago It is a few days ago.—Did you make any inventory or list of the things you found in L'Angeiier's lodging? None.—Did yon make any inventory of the letters he had in his deee in the warehouse? No.—lou never saw any list of them, dal you ? No. You are not aware of any list being made of letters or clothes, or any of the other things that were found in his lodging-house be fore 30th March ? No. By the Solleitor.General.—l have turned over the memorandum bock, but did not attend to entries. (Sho vn the. book). The entries are ail L'Angelier's handwriting. Tee last entry Is on 14th March. The Solicitor-General then asked the witness to read the entries. Objection having been taken to that by the Dean of Faculty, the wallow' was removed. The Dean of Faculty argued that there was ne eridenee whatever of this book being a journal at all. It might be a memorandum-book, hut there was no reason to believe that the entries were put under their proper dates. The Lord-Advocate raid they had proved that the memoranda were in L'AngelleVeheadwriting, and that they ware written under cer tain dates, Whether all these entries were written on the dates they bore waa 'another matter ; but they would bo able to prove that very many of tie t' lags mentioned in that book did happen on the dates when they were entered. 7 hat, therefore, this was most mate• flea and weighty evidence he nought it was impossiele to (lees , . They had there, in the deceased's handwriting, and under carte n dates, a mention of circumstances which tallied with many of the events, as they would be able to prove. The judges retired to con sider this posit. On their return, the Lord Justice Clerk said he and his brethren had, with a view to determine the general question taken the women ®tap of looking at the entries ; end they had fermet.l. SECOND DAY.-WEDNESDAT. The judges took their seats at ten o'c ock. W. A. Stevenson was again placed in the witness box. Ho said—Before the great mass of tho letters were taken possession of by M. Murray, some of them were handed to the fiscal. That was on IVednes lay morn[ ng, the 20th March. I handed them personally to Mr. Young. I did not mark them at the time, but I took a note of the date. I have not that note, bat I have a note of the numhers put on HIS - letter, at terwards. By the S)licitor-General—Do you remembar how many letters you gave up at that time? I think seven in all. Will yon look at that letter, N 0.75, and say if its mark corresponds w.th that in your note? You will understand that when 1 say No. 75, it is not a , number that yea know anything about, but is mo"ely a number in the inventory ? This is one of the letters. How do you know ? By the number 31, and my initials on it. I recognise it as one of those of which I had a note, and then I put my initials to it. Is the word " desk" on it ? It is ; and was written on by me. I found it in the office. Shown No. 93. That is another of them. It is also marked "desk" by me, and indicates the same thing. What is the ntur,ber ? No. 45 of my marking. Shown No. 97. This has No. 3 on it. It is one of tho letters in the list, and marked by me. Shown No. Ib7. This was also in the list. It was No. 54, and is one of those I gave up to the Fiscal. Shown No. 169. This is one also ; it is marked No 5'3, end marked by me as being In the desk. Shown No. 71. Mat was not in my list. Iu regard to those letters which you gave up on the Wednesday, had you read them? l i ;read portions of them . Did you again kok into them? Did you when you afterwards marked them? No, I did not read them afterwards. I. first com municated to the fiscal on this su j3ct on Tuesday afternoon; that was after the doctors had made their post na)rtem examMa tion. Did you, on that Tuesday or Wednesday, ens:xtain any ap prehension of a criminal charge? Not on the Tuesday; on the Wednesday I was kept uncomfortable about it; but noticing fur ther; Wednesday was the 25th Ma:ch.—Did your feelings of dis comfort, as you call them, point to any eartiosular person at that time? They potatoc to e pAittettla quest= where it was lit' 01y to have been, but nothing more. Cross-examination by the Dean of Faculty: I made a list of six oreeeven letters I gave to the fiscal. I made no other memorandum of letters. There were in all about 300 letters. Tee deceased had many correspondents France and England. Hs was veto of his parsoaal ap pearance. He was excitable and changeable. After some other questions the examination of this witness was concluded. Dr. IMO Thomsen - knew the deceased. Ho consulted me professsionally. lie co . salted M 3 a year ago. Neat on the 3 d Februery last. He was feverish tub had a boil on his neck. He had a dry eisugh. I SAT him aeatri on the 23rd. On the 23rd he was better of tie cold, but he complained of feverishness. His Meese was furred. He complained of naitsee, and said he had vomited, and been purged. I took his complaint to be blioas. Visited him on the 24th, 25th, and 26th. Oa the 2ith ho was feeling considerably better, and cooler, and I did not consider it necessary to repeat my visits, unless I happened to be in the neighbourhood. It did not °czar to me at the time that these symptoms arose from the action of any irritant poison. The symptoms wore such as might follow the action of au irritant poison. I did not ask him when he was first taken 111. I had not seen him for some little time before this illness, but he certainly booked dejected and ill-like. His colour wee darker and jaundiced. There was a black ring round his eyes. After the let March, I saw hee a gain, about eight or ten days after. 113 was thou mach the same as when I saw him last. He told me he was thinking to going to the country, but did not say when. A message cams to me on the morning of the 23rd Marsh. Mr. Stevenson and a gentleman (Mr . Thuau) called on one, and mentioned that H L'Angelier was deal, and that they wished me to go and see the body, and give an opinion as to what was the cause of his death. They did not kaow that I had not seen him alive during his last ieness. I went to the house. The body, laid out on a stretcher, and dressed in the best clothes of deceased, was lying on a table. The skin had a slightly jaundiced hue. I took a note of the appeaaance of the body immediately after visiting the house. I examined what he vomited. Dr. Steven arrived; but no resolution was taken as to a post mortem examination on that day. That examination was made next day, at the request of Messrs. Huggins. In the detailed report of that examination wa concluded as follows : The appearance of the mucous membrane, taken in connection with the history s related t us by witnesses, being such as is, in our opinion, justified a suspicion of death having resulted from poison, we considered it proper to preserve the stomach and its contents in a sealed bottle for rurther investigation by chemical analysis, shooed such be determmed on. We, however, do not imply that, In our opinion, death nosy not have resulted from natural causes ; es, for example, severe iuternal congestion, the effect of exposure to cold after much bodily fatigue, which we understand the de' eased to have undergone Before closing this report, which we make at the request, of the pr marator-fiscal for the county of Lanark, we bog to state th at having had nu legal authority for making the post mortem examinee. tfon above el, tailed, we rnstrieted cur examination to the organs in which we thought we were likely t find something to account for the death. Given under our hands at Glasgow, the 28th day of Mach, 1857, on soul an it conseienee. (S Riled) Hus" THOMSON, M.D. ; M.D. I was summoned to attend at the procarator-fiscal's ortise, not after, but before I had writtea the report. That was on the 27th. The contents of the stomach, and the stomach itself, I handed over to Dr. Penny on the 27th. Dr. Penny is a chemist. The stomach. and con tents were in one bottle, which was sealed. I received lasatructione from the fiscal on the 31tt. On that day 1 was requested to attend at the Remsheru Church to make an inspection of this body of Laengelier, which was to be exliumei. Taere ware present, Dr. Steven, Pr. Corbett, and Dr. Penny.—ln w eat state aed yell inn, the body ; did you recognise it to to the boey of H. Lakeigelier ? What appearance did it present generally ? Much the same as When we left ita—Was it well preserved? Considering the tixae that had elapsed, it was.—Was it particularly en ? Yes.--Did you, on that occa sion remove other parts of the holy for anelatth ? o did. (Shown No. 15si of inventory, and identified it tee s, report of that second examination.) Having read the report of this essaminatioa, the witness was r e-ex mined —D d anything deenote the action of an irritant poison? The on nous membrane of the ditode 001m.—Anything else? The patellae of vas.ealarity In the rectum' might also he considered as effects of, an irritant polscra. Were they characteristic of an irritant prelson? Not very.—There were. ulcers there? Yes.—Vag there earthing in their appearance winch led you to form any opinion as to tee length of their dresauee —No; we could not form an omission as to the time. Thee, all these substances removed from tee body me e left in the eier„ 4 , of Dr Penne ?—Trsey were. Wore MOM ulcers a probable re sult of un produced tent polsol ?—They mien hsve resulted from ale irritant Poison, but I am sot aware that they are ca. oraete ristics. They roi4ht have been produced by,other causes , bat they tr'ght n ave b.ea by an irritant poison ?—They might hlv,o 105011 produced by say cease which might h ove produced i n e ee „ , netion. Cross-examined by the Deal of Faculty: I see you 111_2:lin:a:: of the stem tch a th liall e°U b te :t.t t L ; y o u mean the sore poured, on the 26th M 4 Contained?—Yes, What sort of bottle liquid which the stomach was ti — lt Was a Pick l .o bottle, which Dr. Ste'ren went out of the room and brought, And the stomach itself, what did you do with it ? We pat it moos the same hotde. Did you take any part of the intestines oat the body on that Oecasiea, or wrs that not done till thy heoasiO!, in kamshorn Churchyard ? —Oaly then, When pu,t UPI 'Romani' and contents Into this bottle, what did you do % 744 t We secured it welt with oilskin, ted Cart, anti tlss-ead, in the lodgings. Was the of skin tied over the cork ? There was a piece of oilskin tied over the cork to make it fit, and make it more secure; and over the whole a doable piece of oilskin was fixed. What was done with the bottle when it was tons secured ? Ws wished to seal it, but not flndingit convenient in Mrs. Jenkins's, we adjourned to Dr. Ste ven's house, whee Dr. Steven affixed his seal to it. I took the bottle with me, and after that it remained in my possession. It was In my consulting table. Dr. James Steven, physic's:set in Glasgow, was next examined b, the Solicitor-General—l was applied to by Mrs. Jenkino early on the morningof the 23rd March. Sine asked me toga to a lodger who was ill. I did not know her before, nor her lodger. It was named to me as a severe bilious attack, and I nought from the • symptoms that it was so. I desired her to give him laudanum, and to a•,ply hot waterexternally tehis stomach. She came again the same morning about seven o'clock. I then went to the lodgings, as it was represented to me that he was a Frenchman, and I was afrail that I might not ba understood. He was depressed, his features were pinched, and also his hands. Hes complained of chillness and palm over the region of the stomach. The fingers were shrunk. His face and hands were and. He was physically and mentelly depressed. Z• spoke to linn but I observed notir ng-psnutiar In his voice. The pulse was very wean. but the action of the heart did not seem particularly weak. The symptoms imported that there was a week circulation at the extremities. The feet were net cold as hot bottles" dad been applied to them. He complained of .hirst, and asked for cold' water, being evidently afraid of hot water making Into vomit mere. He said he had beet, vomiting and purging. I saw a chamber-pet tilled with the combined matter. 1 ordered it to be removed because it was offensive r and I did not afterwards see It. it was thrown away. He said e Tette is the third attack. The landlady sail it was bile, but I never thought it was that." By the Solicitor-General : I called again a quarter to eleven o'clock, and went intethe bedroom, and found he was dead. He was lying en-sight out, his right arm out of the bed. He was in &comfortable position for lying. His lees were not unnaturally drawn. up. I was sent for al oat mid-day. Dr. Thoms:n was there at that time. I asked hini if there h.d teen any' previous which amnia account fcr death. He gveme no = information as to any serious illness, so that I couldnot account for the death upon any r•ateral sepoosition. I declined giving a certifi cate-of death unless •I.was allowed to satisfy myself o. the toiet. We had then a post nioram. iSh ,wn report of first post-mortem exami re net by Dr. Steven, mad identified it as the report which h 3 signed along with Dr. Thermion.] I was subsequently present at the exhumation of el. L'lngelier'e body, and we made a seeond post mortems exesnination. Identified the second' report real by Dr. Steen. The first rep , rt boars that The .tomeeh and its contents were pat into a pickle bottle. I washed it myself, and f 'am noisffed that it was quite clean. It was taken tie ray house-and there sealed. By the Gwen: You tested the water whiteh came et tee b tits after it was cleaned, to see thetit was quite. clean ? No ; bat I weshol it myself, art it. was (mite clean. Frederick Penny: professor of che mistry, Andereenian Un vereity. Glas row : I recollect, on the 27th March lest, teeing communicated with by Dr. I hemson, He carne to the Uraversity, and delivered a bottle to me. The battle was eesnrely closed and sealed. I broke. the seal and made as exa mination of the contents, which were a stomach and a reddish coloured fluid. I was requested to melee that examination for the purpose of making an amaysis. I commenced my analysis on the day following the 28th. Professor Penny- then real his report, stating the various treatment to which- he had steljeated the 'contents; and expressing his opinion that the matters sub mined to hire for analysis contained. arsenic; and, secondly, that the enantineof arsenic shown to be in the body was more than eufficimet to destroy life. It is not meant to say how much arsenic will desno life. Cans a , eon record where lire in .s been destroyed by twa or tin ee grains, but four or six grains is the amount genera,ly considers d enough to destroy life. The amount I determined as existing in tb e stomach was eighty-two grains.. cn the 31st Manna 1 with Dr 3. Steven, Thompson, and Corbett, at tins exhumation of L'Ansrelier'a body, aul sew the coffin opened. I did not see the coffin taken out of the grace. I saw the body taken oat of the conin, and the portion s taken removed from the body. These portions of the body ware event 11y preserved for the, teat analysis by myself. Thee were placed in jars . I did not see the jars se cured ; but ! never lost sight &them till are ived at my laboratory. Dr. Penny then road the analysis which he ms 4 e f tee portions of the dy.. The conclusions he drew from the an, elysie were that the body of tine deceased contained arsenic, and that ti le arseme must Wive been administered to him while living. The ac tual qnantity ceZ arsenic in those portions was not ascertained. it was unnecescary alt r the previous process. By the Court: How do you account for- the larger intestine yl-•1 ling less arsenic.than the smaller. Weeald opurging and vomiting have the effect?—Purging would lewd to th..t result... Examisiation continued: After your analysis was corn pissed, dia you remove any portion of these substances to Bdinberegh? did, on the. llth of April. i delivered them to Dr. Chrlstison. Teem ;art cles have been eetirely in say custody till delicery to Dr. C nristisr n. They were portions of the body of InAngelier.—Were y on, in the course of tie investigation in this. case, directed 1 ;o me re inquiry at the shop of Mr. Currie, Druggist,, Slur . Mahal' _street, aid at Mr. alueloch'e, in the same street?. I v eas, I made a report on that subject. The object I had i e vie w in making that inquiry was to ascertain if the substance sold by these parties as arsenic, ieally did contain arsenic, and in what, proportion. On the 18th I purchased, at Murdoch's shop, an o slice and a half of arsenic, said to be mixed with soot, and in the eta' Ain which it is sold retail at that establishment. On th e same d ay I PJ rchatel, at Mr. Carne's shop, an mine.: of arsenic, sand to be mix ed sal indigo. I found these two quantities of arsenic to contain reap ectiv sly the followieg portions p2r cent. of arsenious acid ; that is, the. paw s white arsenic —Murdoch, 9b.1 per cent ; Carrie, 54.4 per cent. the rest of the substance coa sts' ed of inorganic matter. In the s tbste nos got from Murdoch I fund particles of carbenaceou3 unseen,. nn iu sea,, „en, Voles of indigo, and also of cat-bona-smut is matter, ash or inorganic matter. What you purchased from Cur rie, was it mixed with indigo? It contained an extremely small prof ,ortion of coloured matter of indigo. Could the coloured matter. be separated by washing? A great part of it might, by a peculiar •xr id dexterous manipulation, be removed, and the arsenic would: I afterwards apeear white to the an of that arseni c were adminis tered eye. If a suffinent pand tered so as to cause death, andew a knew that violent vomiting had taken place prior to death, would/ you expect to find, on an analysis in solution ? Bl ue . B y the Court Jr? Not if it wer e i nd i go. What at of the body, the colouring resit kind of colour would indigehef —lf arsenic, mixed with lea go, were administered in port wine, would it colour the wine?' ir se portion of Mae colouring matter in arsenic would net colour will aof any sort. Examinat on continued.— The arsenic I purchased at tar. Murdoch's esti mined with carbona_ ceous particles. If s rich f ,rsenic had been administered, would you expect to find in the hod y traces of that ca bonaceous matter on a post mortem analysis? If any of the matter had settled down from thetcentents of the stoat utch, as in this case, I should have suspected it. Suppose there hte i been a prior administration of ar,entc for some months pn rrior rs'y, and the arsenic had been similar to what you purchased at. Me rdoch's, would you have expected to have found traces of these car •bona eons particles in it? Certainly. These reports I have read . are true reports. After the last report I made o further examen alien of the substances removed from the body. ELEQ TION COMMITTEES -YESTL RDA British and Irish Magnetic Telegraph. PONTEFRACT. The whr )18 of the morning was occupied with rebutting evidenee'orought, forward on behalf of the sitting Members. MAYO. Mae} I excitement was occasioned by the announcement, that A rchbishop Mac Hale would be examined, bn the was not ci died at the oornmencament of the pecceedings, though here mained within the precinteof the Roues; and, in order to timid the gaze of the crowd, was conducted to the De ,ptity-Sergsruit's room. Sir Richard 0 D onnell was examined. Fie canvassed the connty for Colonel Higgins. Ln many pares the Colonel was prevented canvassing from fear of personal violence. Oa arriving at Belleyhawley, he saw a pleelfortu. on which seven or eight Roma Catholic Pi iests were standing, one of whom was addressing the mob,.--eoesisting of, at least, 2,030 person,. The Priest said, that if they voted for Higgins, they would vote against their religion, and in, the name of their religion he called upon them to vote for Moore. Colonel Higgins in vain endeavoured to address the people, and the whole affair ended in a frightful row. At Castlebar a priest nam e d Cilriey went among the mob. with a breviary in his hand, encouraging them all to all antes of violence. Every man in the mob was armed. Curley led them. He was not in the committee room. The learned counsel read from a Mile newspaper a series of resolutions signed by John, ter:hbishop of Tuatn, and other ecclesiastics, urging members of the Roman Catholic Church to oppose Higgins and support M oore , an d en d eavour ed to establieh agency on the part of the priests alluded to, and to implicate Mr. M oore with them, as the placard, it was alleged, was posted at Mr. Moore's committee room. This latter fare was proved by Sir Richard O'Do nne ll i n his cross-examina tion, sud by Mr. G. iffia, who was examined on a previous day. Archbishop Mac Hale was called and examined by Itir. James. He said he was Archbishop of Tnam in the Roman Catholic Church. The chairman said he could not recognise him as Archbishop Mac Hale. The Archbishop said he was certain:he was Archbishop of Tuam, but that was not hie legal designation there ; he we. , quite car tented being called Archbishop Mulltie. He proceeded to say that he appointed the parish priests and c u rat es in the diocese of Tnam. The Archbishop was asked at length about all the priests whose names had been all of whom h e sa id were men tioned during the inquiry, appointed by him in September. W as p resent at the laying of the foundation of a Roman Catholic chapel in Louisberg, 32nd performed the ceremony. A. meeting of bishops and clergy connected with the County of Mayo was held at Tuam on a Sunday in March at St. Jarlath. It was a council of some of the bishops and clergy, who had assembled to aseiit at; the consecration of the Bishop of Galway. A. resolution was passed, declaring that all the energies of the people should be directed to the rejection of Colonel Higgins, and to vote for Mr. Moore. He declined to say whether or not he had signed that resolution. If the writing was pro duced ha would admit or deny it as the case might be, He signed a resolution at this meeting, but he caald riot say whether that was the proceeding referred to, d, id ey is