The Express.
London, England, 1862-05-17 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, SATURDAY EVENING, MAY 17, 1862.

system of finance this could not be done ; bet
under the present system, had been eapacateddtz •
tion. The subject was a diificult one ; there were, however,
many modes of dealing with it.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER mid be did
not wish to commit himself to all the opinions delivered
by the hon. member for the Tower Hamlets, but he
must coulees that in the speech he had made he
had shown that he was amply justified in calling the
attention of the house to this important question.
And to • great extent he agreed with him that the house
ought to consider whether they should not have before them
a practical measure on the subject. (Hear, hear.) But he
must ay that he thought the hon. gentleman had hardly
been fair towards the Reform. Act. He had contrasted the
period since the Reform Act with the period before, and had
stated that the latter was one of eocoomy. and the former
of extravagance. Now he (the Chancellor of Exchequer)
did not think that the period since the Reform Act had
been one of extravagance nor that there had been
an undue augmentation of the public charge, but
it should be remembered that a great many mimosa of
evil government had come into view, which it had been
impossible to meet without considerable expenditure, and
therefore the course of reduction on civil charges was
Preened. Taking the period from the Reform Act down to
the Russian war, and there would not be found such another
period of honest and judicious economy, combined with
such an 010110030 extension of beneficial offices which the
government had to discharge. _ But loco the latter period
he would not say that they had been squally good stewards
of the public treasury. (Hear, hear.) Am to the made of
introducing public charge by estimate, he was not sanguine
in the belief that much remained to be douse by rule;
to be laid down ; but that part of the 'abject
should be considered with the reel in committee.
The hon. gentleman quoted the vote on education, and in
reference to that he would say that it had increased eon-
mainly and rapidly, but it had increased with the full con-
currence of parliament. In regard to the charge by civil
estimate, if parliament had been to blame he did not think
it was for the want of good rules of practice. With regard to
bills creating charges, there were various modes of intro-
ducing them, and one of the most common forms of creating
charges was by creating establishments, with a train of clerks
and other officials. But that was one of the easiest portions
of the question to deal with. (Hear, hear.) There were
other means of creating charges—those, for example,
in reference to the construction of public works. But
what they had to wander was the way in which
these matters were brought before the boas.. Some
of these bills came down from the other home, mats
were presented by private members, end some by the go-
vernment. As to the first class, when they touched on
questions of finance, they must be considered as being under
the special chasm of the Speaker, but in other respects they
might be considered as coming under the same claw as the
bills of private members. One of the most important pro.
positions of the bon. gentleman was that in reference totbe
practice which had grown up of introducing into bills
particular provisions by which establishments were created
sad the faith of parliament pledged ; as to which the initi-
ative of the crown and the rules of parliament were evaded,
bet by which a charge was thrown on the consolidatedfund,
sad that amounted almost to a nullification of dices excel-
lent provisions under which parliament had taken security
against itself. With regard to bills brought in by the
government, the bon. gentleman said that some one
minister ought to be responsible for those charges. That
sounded very well, yet in theory it mud be considered
that the finance minister was 'ble for them ,•
yet, after all, responsibility of that was vague and
indefinite, end it must be so unless the home gave that
minister a more stringent power. His (the Charcellor of
the Exchequer's) opinion was this, that the controlling
functions of the Treasury were eminently useful functions,
and there was very little danger or inconvenience to be appre-
heeded from any extension of tholes controlling fusobons
which the house might think proper to entrust to them. But
as to any direct expeditere by the Treasury, the Treasury
had as much need to be controlled sad watched by the
holm as any other department. There was no department
of the government which was supreme over other
meats. It was quite true that the rest Lord of the
sury was heed of the cabinet, and that if he gave as cedar it
would be obeyed, but that order would not become a part of
the administrative system, but would die with the cabinet.
He(the Chancellor of the Exchequer) came to the conclusion
that this was a matter which required consideration by the
house itself, and some authority appointed by the houseand
misted by thegovernment ought to review thewhole matter
and see what amid be done. The government had consi-
dered it, and their opinion was that a select committee of
experienced members would be very desirable for the pur-
pose of investigating the various points referred to by the
hon. gentleman, and he confessed that he thought a report
of such a committee would be creditable to the home, and
be greatly conducive to a better conduct of the business of
the house. It was his intention to propose to the house at
an early period that a 'sleet committee should be appointed
for the purpose of investigating the matters which the
hon. gentleman, with great judgment as well as well as
ability, brought under their notice. (Hear, hear.)
SUPPLY.
The house haying gone into oonimittes, a vote of 150,0001.
was moved for harbours of refuge at Alderney, Dover, and
Poetised.
Mr. BAXTER moved to reduce the mm by 90,0001, the
grant for Alderney. (Cheer) The harbour at Alderney
was called • bar'oour of refuge, but it would only hold seven
ships, and in point of fact no vends ever went into it ex-
cept Fraeh revenue cruisers. (A lam) He hoped our
neighbours would duly appreciate this delicate attention
which we were paying them at so large a con. (Cheers and
laughter.)
Sir J. ELPHINSTONE seconded the amendment, re-
marking that before they talked about reducing the
national armaments, the nation ought to have some maw
mente to reduce. He could remember four reconstructions
of the navy within his own time ; and the average life of
ewe race of war vessel maned to be only tan years. At the
present moment, when money was wanted so urgently for
the construction of armour-plated ships, he could not con-
sent to the expenditure of funds upon a scheme which had
its origin in an exaggerated fear. (Hear, hear.)
Lord B. MONTAGU wished to call the attention of the
committee to the real extent of this vote. Its nominal
amount was 150,0004, bat there remand an minx.
balance from last year of 134,0001., so that
seeded
had really at It. disposal this year
en less than 2144,0001. Adding to this the vote and balance
from last year of the ram granted for Cork, the total sum
left in the hands of the government to be expended this
year on harboues of refuge was no less then 416,6241.
Col. sfacrmar said the question was whether this
harbour, when complete, would be worthy the acceptance
at the Ltion. From permed inspection and knowledge
he was quite sure it would be of value ; but if there was to
be • harbour at Alderney at all, it ought to be one which
would be useful in cue of war.
Lord C. PAGET said that the decision of the question
was one which must depend upon the temper and feeling
of the House of Commons ; all be could do was to appeal
to the committee not to leave in an unfinished state a point
which in war time would be • very important work.
Lord H. LENNOX, who rose amidst loud cries of divide,
said he should not detain the house for more than a few
momenta. He could understand the derisive cheers of
those who eat behind the Treasury bench wit an inde-
: pendent member meet° protest against wanton expenditure.
His noble relative called on the house to support this vote,
because the harbour wee in reality a harbour of refuge. But
the fact was the argument in defence of this work shifted
every year. One 040600 the work was defended on strate-
gioal grounds, and the next it was defended on the ground
that it would protect commercial ships. Last session his
noble and pliant relative told them that the utility
of the work had diminished by one half. The estimate of
the work was 650,000/.. but it bad already cost 900,0001.,
and would cost 300.0(01. more He should oppose the vote.
Mr. PEEL said if the question was whether they were to
construct this harbour now, it would be a different question
from that which was really before- it. The harbour of
Alderney was intendedfor defensive purposes and not as a
harbour of refuge.
Mr. BENTINCE end that the opposition to the present
vote was not an attack upon the present government, any
more than it was an attack epos preceding governments
which had given their emetics to the expenditure 'heady
incurred. Alderney harbour was admittedly not a harbour
of refuge. It was sot even what it me stated to be—a
harbour of shelter. Grave • matter is the cost of these
works was, it was a much more serious consideration that
the defence of them would look up 5,000 men.
Mr. H. SEYMOUR supported the vote on the pound
that se loss
_as the harbour of Alderney was maintained as
a place of defence hostile ships ovoid not leave Cherbourg.
Sir S. NORTHCOTE (who was indistinctly beard) in-
quired whether if this vole was panted a further sum
would be required for the completion of the harbour.
Sir M. PEW, said he believed that the entire expenditure
at Alderney was a waste of public money. The committee
would not be justified in going further, more particularly
after the statement made by the noble lord the &notary to
the Admiralty, that he would not have beep a party to pro-
posing the original vote to the house for the commencement
of the works. If we MAUI maiden of the Channel those
works will be of little use, and if we do not, they will,
after coning perhaps two millions of money, fall into the
hands of another power.
Lord PALMUSTON—I ask the house to consider this
question with calmness, not only with regard to the nature
of the question intrinsically, but with respect also to the
condition in which the matter now stands. I could quite
understand a difference of opinion as to the advisability
of beginning any work at all at Aldersey. For my own part
I think that the fortifications there and the harbour were a
wise expenditure of pudic money ; but I can, am I
have said,uaderstand other persons thinking they were not.
We have the recorded spines of the Duke of Wellington in
favour of the work. My hoe. friend who made the motion
says we are now living in 1362, thetthe Duke of Wellington
stormed that minim =mans ago, sad 9liaga have
altered snob that time. (Hear, hear.) II is true, no
doubt, that diedoubt, different meats of war vary from
time to time, but the principles of carrying cm war an very
much the same in all times, and the grouch ups whisk the
Duke of Wellington thought it advisable that we sheath
have a "Wipe on one sided the Channel to support a station
au the oth ,er that we should have Ablereay au the one aide
end Portlead ow the other, eve Joel es applieshis is thermoset
time and the principle es as whoa the Duke el
Weßisttos severed that Bat not only have we
the delibersde mad well apiece el the Duke d
Wallington upon this matter, bat we thee it meted epos by
govemasent after government Thee net a ems Teme the
govessignst an progenies for &a Ant Was he War plat

64eaes 61;ra Xs ;which they originated. tiVe4 are only
earryingen woks that were carried on by those who pro- I
cede ss, by this. who sit on the other side of the boom, I
and by the government before them. In short, for several
years each son:naive government has ape its respoo-
idbillty, 'and Upon full consideration of the value and has
portions of the matter, determined to go on more or less I
extensively with the work we are now considering.
It is said this is not • harbour of Wage. Primarily it is
not, primarily it is a harbour of military defence, combioed
with Portland, for the purpose of giving un e position in the
Channetwhich is of the utmost importance ; but, no doubt,
to • certain extent, it would be • bartiour of refuge, and •
safe harbour, not if left in its present condition, but if
completed. It was stated by my noble friend and my right
hon. friend who have spoken in this discussion, that it is
not thnintention of the goveroment to carry the work be-
yond the points for which the foundations have now
been raised. The proposal of my hon. friend is to
leave the work in an unfinished state, it is to
leave the foundations a source of danger for a quarter of •
mile under the water, instead of completing the work.
(Hew, hear.) I can understand any one saying with respect
toe building on land, that it is deficient in point of taste,
or useless in point of application, and we think it better to
leave it in an incomplete state rather than proceed
with it. In that cap you would only be doing that which
would possibly expose you to some obserration and criticism ;
but in dealing with a construction under water you are
doing infinite mischief in leaving it incomplete ;
you are perpetuating • source of great danger
to navigation, instead of doing that which is
• source of safety. Here is • work which, whether the
hon. member may think it expedient in the beginning or
not, has been deliberately begun, which bee bees carried
on by successive governments, and which has received the
sanction of the highest military authority. It is now in that
condition that, if left unfinished, it will not only be useless,
but • looms of absolute danger. You are asked to furnish
this limited sum to carry out the works to the limited extent
that they are laid down, and I really think the good seen
of the House of Commons will induce them not to reject
the vote. (Hear, hear.)
After MORN remarks from Mr. BANTU,
Mr. LAIRD said he should like to see a plan laid
upon the table showing how far the government propcnal
to go in the work.
Lord PALMERSTON said the plans had been laid be-
fore parliament over and over again.
Mr. MONSELL observed that there bad been four plans
laid before parliament, all involving different etas of ex-
penditure. What the house had to consider was this :
would any minister in his senate, in case of a war with
France, take the responsibility of leaving some 6,000 men at
Alderney, knowing that the present appliances of war wenild
make the destruction certain of any fleet that might be
there if the enemy had the command of the Channel ; and
if theenemy had not the command of the Channel, It was
quite obvious that these works would be useless for the
purpose of war.
The committee divided.
For the amendment that 90,0001. be
omitted from the vote l3O
Against it
The result was received with cheers by the ministerial

en
rvamote we then agreed to.
The home this resumed and the chairman reported pro-
gress. .
I The Pasco Preeravation (Ireland) BM, the landed Pro-
tiret=t (Ireland) Acts Amendment Bill, and
Peir kn. (Mash Forme India) Bill, severally
pared through committee.
The house adjourned at 20 minutes to olio o'clock.

lab) intelltionct.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BRNCIL--Dirr 16.

--- - - -
Sittings an Nig Prima at Weatesineter.—ffidere Lord
Chief Auden Cookbura sad a Coalmen Jam.)
HALL V. WM? AND PAILICIN—HZTEAOHDLIAIT VASIL
Tbie was an istorpleader issue relative to an alleged
wrongful seizure of goods for distress far rent, but in reaUty
the action was to best tin. Parker's, one of the dolmans*
title to the house in question, No. 4, Nornington-plece,
liarapate•d•road. In consequent:ea the pleadings the issue
was as the defeedants, and they had to open their awe

first.
Mr.Edwird Jamas, Q.C., and Mr. Prentice were counsel
for the plaintiff ; Mr. Serjeant Mass and Mr. Day were
wooed for the delandaate.
ayrearod from the evidence of Mrs. Parker that she
the house as bee property, and that she had in-
structed the other defendant to levy for the rent. Mrs.
Parker, whose maiden name was Elizabeth Lenin Smith,
was a divorced wife, and had sioce 1.860 cohabited with a
gentleman Darned Mr. Robert Palley, who was poisoned of
the home asabove, and also choose in the Maryleboue-road.
That he had sold the latter house, and they had spent the
money, and he had also spent other sums of money since
their ooliabitatioa. Me had frequently promised to pro-
vide for her, and in August last, when he was ill of typhoid
fever, of which be died, he executed shortly before his
death • deed of gift to her of this house, and also • will
confirming it. The deceased's relatives denied his comps-
teary to make a will, and had by this action called oa Mrs.
Parker to support it.
Mr. Edward James, in addressing the jury, said he nomi-
nally appeared for Yr. Hall, but in reality he appeared for
Mrs. Pedley, the deceased's mother, an aged lady and a
widow, who murdered it was her duty to her family to
have this matter fully investigated, honestly and bosh fide
believing that these were not the deed and will executed
by the deceased. No member of the :family bad had the
slightest opportunity offered to them of ascertaining the
truth of the transaction. Mrs. Parker was not a woman
that had committed a fault and become attached to the
man, for whom all would entertains degroneof sympathy. and
consider a man was doing no more then he had a right to
in providing for her to a certain extent out of his property,
but she stood in the position of a divorced wife and • sys-
tematic adulteries with Mr. Pedley and other men. The
deceased was &steady respectable man until unfortunately
he met with Mrs. Parker, in the year 1859, since which time
be had been a sad victim of diesolute habits and improper so •
ciety. He had also taken to drink massively, and squaudered
his property with Mrs. Parker, and dna tenons was the cause
of his death at the early age of 33. The evidence he should
call before them would show the manner in which the do-
omed had squandered his property with this woman. It
would be for the jury to be satisfied that the deceased at
the time of making this will was of sound disposable mind,
and that he perfectly well knew that at the time he gave
the deed of gift be was die g himself of the property
the moment that be 4n the document, and that if he
had recovered he would have been a beggar, dependent upon
this woman. The learned counsel then called the following
evidence :
Mr. Frederick Pedley deposed—l am a surgeon dentist.
residing at 12, Great George-street, Hanover-square. I
have a mother and two siatersaigi . My brother Robert,
the deceased, left home about A 1859. He returned, and
left home ' in October, 1 and from that time he
neverrwded with my mother again. My brother was poi-
semed under my father's will of two houses— one in Maryle-
bone-reed, the other the one in question. I afterwards saw
him in Stanhopsetreet, where be was living with Mrs.
Parker. I saw him in J uly last. I was then aware that he
had sold one of the houses for 4801. Hs was in bed. I
asked if he knew what had become of the money. He
said he thought be did. Mrs. Parker was present. She
said, "If he and I know what has become of the money,
what is that to anybody else!' She said she had then 5f .
of the money in her pocket, and that when
that was gone my brother most sell the other house.
In that cue I said he will be • beggar, as it is the last
thing he has to dispose of. I saw my brother after his re-
turn from Hampered. He was almost unconscious, and
was unable to convene with me. Mrs. Parker said he was
very ill. I did not think him 11l enough to send for his
immediate relations. I had no idea he was within 33 hours
of his death. On the Saturday morning 1 received a letter
announcing my brother's death. I went to Stanhope-street,
and afterwards went therewith the undertaker. I askedher if
my brother had left any will or papers and instructions. She
pointed out two desks as containing his papers. I only
found there useless papers. She said she bad HI is her
pocket. She said I should know in time if there was a will.
My brother's remains were removed to my mother's house,
and at Mrs. Parker's request she was permitted to see them
there. Mrs. Newbold came with her, and handed me her
bill for 61. 4a. for Mrs. Parker's mourning, and asked me if
the family would entertain it. My brother was buried at
Higbgate, and on my return I found a letter from Mrs.
Parker and my brother's will. The letter stated that she
had sent the will after the funeral in accordance with my
brother's request. (The will was put in and read. His
brother and sisters were to lose all interest in any of his
effects if they disputed his will or disturbed Mrs. Parker in
posses • n of this house.) I have not proved the will though
lam named executor. There is no property left.
Onesexamined—My father died poisoned of considerable
real property. I knew latterly that Mrs. Parker passed as
Mrs. Pedley. My mother knew it, but I don't think she
ever went to see
Mrs. Pedley, the mother, an elderly lady, was called.
She deposed that she paid the expresses of the funeral. In
1868 he made a will, dividing hie property between his bro-
ther and sisters. He bed sold out 3001. of stook, diners
1001. from the lavinp bank, sad had sold one home, an
all was gone.
Mr. Chutes, surgeon, Parketreet, Groevenoregnare, had
attended the deceased for three or Roar rears. Be. ailments
were entirely owing to intemperate habita. He considered
him thoroughly broken down in constitution, and he looked
upon him as having a softening of the brain so late as the
27th of July, 1861. He was under continual Intemperance.
Typhoid was always accompanied, especially at the last,
with erns and
The jury having been locked up two hours, were alit
charted, without returning a verdict.
Thr ens the last of the after term nisi prim sittings at
*Westminster. The courts will sit to-day at Guildhall.

EXCHIQI7ER CHAMBER—MAY
Si is Error.—(Bdore the Lewd Chief Bans, Taros
NA Jobless (hoop Sea, Bhisichara, sad Kellar.)
UMW IP. oratuus.
This was aa whoa brought for *Nona, MOW to
Lady Sophia •Wiadhara before her marriage isegi the go.
hadast. At the trial an object iou woe taken that the
debt haste( bese sweated by the wife before har awhile
frith the deltadeat she ought to bare bees Maul you the

record as a co-defendant. Upon an application to that effect
to the learned judge at the trialtbe declaration was amended
by adding the name of the wife. Leave, however, was re-
served to set aside the verdict if the court had no power to
make the amesidmeut, uud upon the case corning before the
full court they decided the learned judge bad no power to
reeks the amendment. That decision was now appealed
The The court decided 'that the learned judge bad no right
to make the amendment.
Affirmed the decision of the court below.

Newgate-market. Them MOMS were seised by Mr. Fuller,
one of the inspectors of the =sleet, and proved to be in a
most diseased and unwholesome state, and lately unfit for
human food, them facts being deposed to by Dr. lathery,
the medical °Him of the City, as well as the inspector.
When the defendant was questioned upon the subject be
admitted he had sent the meat to market, but said that he
did not intend it to be sold for human food but to be boiled
for the dogs and he called a witness, a bone boiler, who
stated that the defendant had spoken to him upon the sub-
ject of the caresses in question on the same morning.
The jury acquitted the defendant.
Thomas Stevenson, 53, was charged with a similar °Heuer.
The defendant in this CllllO, it appeared, was • jobbing
butcher at Leicester, and on the 27th of March he sent up
to Newgate-market the careen of a calf which was in a
diseased slate and quite unit for human food. When he
was questioned upon the subject he said that he had pur-
chased the caroms of • farmer residing tear Leicester, and
that he did not think it was sa had as it turned out to be,
but it appeared that the animal had been very ill, and that
it was killed an scoount of there being no chance of its '
recovery, and when the prisoner went to purchase it he was
told that it was worth es. for the dogs, and he replied that if
it was sent to London it might "male a sovereign."
The jury foiled the defendant Attire.
In answer to • question pet by the learned judge Dr.
Letheby said, that from • ton tea tan and a half of deemed
meat was sent to the City =riots every week.
Justice Wiles observed Widths offence of which the de-
fendant had been convicted was • very serious one, and be
sentenced him to six months' imprisonment.

FOURTH COURT.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Kerr.)
James Burrow, 22, shoemaker, was indicted for feloniously
*media; Slis Burton, his wife.
Mr. Homy prosecuted ; and Mr. H. Gifford defended the
prisoner, a very respectable-looking MAD, who during the
trial was so overwhelmed with grief that he could marealy
support himself in the dock.
The prosecutrix, a pretty-looking young woman, deposed
that she bad been mimed to the prisoner about two years
and • half, and had one child, but that they had since bees
separated in consequence of his violent conduct to her. 'Oa
the 4th April she met the prisoner, who bed bees drinking.
liar sister was with her, whet he begged at her (peones-
trix) to come home with him, bat she refused to do so, sad
he then told her that she must keep the child. 11111 said
the could not do that, as she could somosly keep Issmalf.
I He again pressed her to come home, and die still retudeg,
I be put his arm round her neck, and stabbed her twice au the
back part of her neck. The prosecatalm who gave her evi-
deem with evident reluctance, and was much affected, ad-
mitted that they bad frequently quarrelled.
The evidence of the prosecutrix was corroborated in the
leading features by her sister.
Mr. Osytoo surgeon, maid he was called in to attend the
prosecutor, and found her iassadble sad bleeding from
two *minds in the back of the neck, oar cm each aide of the
spine. They were about so inch in depth adtkree-quarkas
of au inch wide.
The remaining evidence merely related to the apprehen-
sion of the prisoner, and to show that the kaffe had been
found.
Mr. Oiffard made an appeal to the jury, cootending that
there was no evidence of a felonious intent, that what was
done had been committed in the heat of peadon, and the
offence only amounted to that of unlawfully wounding.
The Oommissiceser, in summing up, emd—This is one of
the lamentable results of drinking. More eases came ander •
judge's ootioe from this muss than from any other. It is •
painful case, sad I oosent in the view taken by the Ow
ner's counsel.
The jury found the primeer guilty of unlawfully woos&
ing, and sentence we ashen&