The Sun.
London, England, 1855-07-28 00:00:00

THE NVIN, LONDON, §ArrunriA.v 1--NINII, JULY to 1886.

that Wis a real and a substantial privilege. (Hear, hear.)
Let us for a moment consider what might be the conse-

negotiations, and a delay of that assistance which it wasof THE LATE DISTURBANCES IN HYDE-
importance to renderpromptly. Ho did not think theright PARK.
hon. gentleman had been quite accurate in his definition
of the treaty alluded to as having been entered into during
Lord Derby's Administration. That was an extradition
treaty, and he (Lord Palmerston) had objected to it when
he came intooffice.
Mr. DISRAELI—It was Lord Granville.
Lord PALMERSTON—The case of the extradition
treaty was not a parallel one, for the only result of reject-
ing the treaty proposed by France would be that the two
countries would have to fall back upon the treaty already
in force. He could not look at the late division on this ques-
tion of a loan in the light in which some hon. gentlemen
regarded it. It would have been a serious thing, indeed,
had the division turned out the other way. (Hear, hear.)
If the treaty had been contumeliously rejected by the house
and flung back with insult to the Government of France,
although that act might not have broken the alliance
with France it would have produced coldness in the inter-
course between the two countries, and its effect for the
moment would have been fatal to the military exertions of
Turkey. The convention had been proposed to preserve
the very existence of Turkey, and to further that vigorous
prosecution of the war which his right hon. friend (Mr.
Gladstone) when he left the Government was in favour;
and if his right hon. friend were still in office he should
hope ho would take the same view of the measure they
were now discussing. The object of this loan was to fur-
nish means to Turkey indispensable for her army, and
without which she could not obtain that success which her
allies and herself hoped for. It was with satisfaction,
therefore, that after the protest of the right hon. gentle-
man opposite, he heard him say that it was not his inten-
tion to interpose any further obstacle to this proposition.
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY suggested after the word
" jointly," the word " severally."
The LORD ADVOCATE said the form of words pro-
posed by the Solicitor-General was " jointly " with his
Majesty the Emperor of the French, and " severally."
These words wore then ingested, and the clause was
agreed to.
On clause 2,
Mr. M. GIBSON proposed to add words by which it
could be ascertained what sums were transmitted to Tur-
key and the purposes to which they were applied.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
English Government would have no means of tracing the
application of the money.
Mr. GLADSTONE observed that an intimation had
been made by the Government that an arrangement was
about to be made with Turkey as to the application of this
loan, and that it would be well to give an assurance that
its terms ahould be stated to Parliament.
Lord PALMERSTON said that instructions had been
sent to Lord Stratford on the subject cf the application of
the money through the Turkish commissioners.
Mr. GIBSON should like to know how much of this
money would go into the Turkish Treasury. He doubted
whether it would be applied to the " vigorous prosecution
of the war."
Lord PALMERSTON said there would be no indisposi-
tion to furnish any returns on the subject when moved for.
Mr. GIBSON said his only object was to get at the total
sum which was transmitted to Turkey, and with this view
he would change the terms of his amendment, and move
the insertion of the words, " transmitted to the Sublime
Porte on account of the capital of the loan."
The committee then divided—
Ayes
Noes

quenco of our treating such a proposition as that brought
forward by the Chancellor of the Er.-chequer as a mere
matter of course, like the adjournment of the house. The
Government might then raise all the money necessary
to carry on the war without the interference of Par-
liament in any respect whatever. If they could raise
5,000,0001. without our interference, why could they not
raise 10,000,000/., or 20,000,0001., or 50,000,000/. ? They
might thus, by a series of conventions, raise a sum of
money sufficient to carry on a war which might not have
received the sympathy of the country or the approbation
of Parliament. I am sure hon. gentlemen must feel that
nothing can be more absurd than those common-places,
which the hon. gentleman the member for Lambeth has
uttered upon this and upon other occasions in reference to
this subject. I believe that conventions of this kind ought
not to be allowed to pass without a scrupulous examination
and a severe criticism on the part of Parliament. If the
policy of the Government is a sound policy, it will bear
that examination and that criticism, and inquiry can only
serve to show the propriety of the course they have pur-
sued. If, on the contrary, there is no majority that can
prop up a policy founded on principles essentially fallacious,
then I say the course which we have taken is not unwise
or censurable. I am surprised that any gentleman can for
a moment assert that it is not merely the privilege, but the
highest duty of this house, on occasions like the present,
not to sanction a policy such as this, or to pass measures
of this kind, but with due deliberation and ample and
complete discussion. I agree with those hon. gentle-
,
, men who disapprove of the manner in which the policy
of the convention is to be carried out; and, so far as I have
listened to the debate, I find no substantial or satisfactory
answer to the objections that have been made in that re-
spect. When I find that her Majesty's Government are
not even aware of the nature of the engagement into which
they have entered, I am the more impressed with that
opinion. I think the system is not satisfactory. But I
am told that the policy may be unwise, the manner in
which you wish to carry it into effect may be inexpedient,
but it is most hazardous of you to venture to attempt to
change the course of the Government or to alter their
measures, because you are not only endangering, but im-
perilling and destroying, your alliance with France, (Hear.)
Now, before I had any idea that this convention would be
placed on our table, with reference to other subjects, I
took the liberty of warning the house not to encourage
those stereotyped declamations of the Government about
our alliance being endangered by the free expression of
opinion in this House. (Hear, hear.) If our alliance
with France were endangered by any such proceeding,
then, indeed, I would say that that alliance is not as sub-
stantial as I thought it. (Hear.) I say it is the free
expression of opinion that will support and cement that
alliance. But if we are not to discuss the question, but
always to speak in whispers when the name of our ally is
mentioned, I say the time that will elapse cannot be very
great before that alliance will be endangered. (Hear, hear.)
Unless the alliance springs from a sympathy of feeling and
an identity of interests between both countries, there is no
diplomatic arrangement, no Ministerial management that
can maintain it. (Hear, hear.) It is my opinion that it
arises from the homogeneity of interests and feelings that
has for many years prevailed between the peoples of both
countries. I am sure the alliance is sound and lasting, and
that it cannot be maintained by better means than by
speaking where our interests are concerned with the ut-
most frankness, as well as friendship. (Hear, hear.) Now,
without going so far back for an illustration as the period
of the treaty of Utrecht, I will take a more modern in-
stance of the stable nature of our alliance with France.
So recently as 1.8;2, when my right hon. friends and my-
self were placed in the responsible position of having ac-
ceded to office, we found there was a treaty negotiated
and concluded by our predecessors—the authority of Par-
liament alone being wanted—with the Emperor of the
French, on a much more important subject than the pre-
sent—the extradition of criminals between the two coun-
tries. To carry it into effect it was of course necessary to ap
peal to Parliament. The Government of my Lord Derby
willingly acknowledged that the treaty had been negotiated
by our predecessors, and claimed no credit for the high po-
licy that characterised it. My noble friend the then Foreign
Secretary introduced the subject in the House of Lords.
It was one of great difficulty, and if not of vital, it was at
least of vast, importance to the interests of the peace of
Europe. Well, sir, notwithstanding we had the honour to
receive the opposition of our predecessors in office in the
House of Lords, though they were the very individuals
who had negotiated the treaty—a specimen of that remark-
ably candid conduct which the Administration of Lord
Derby so frequently received. (A laugh.) I acquit the
noble lord (Palmerston) of all participation in it ; and I
must say that in all matters of foreign policy the noble
lord behaved in a most candid spirit. Well, the noble lord
the Foreign Secretary consulted his col:eagues as to the
course he sould purilue, and the possibilityof carrying the
measure through Parliament. I gave my opinion to the
effect that such was the prejudice raised against our Govern-
ment it was impossible to carry the bill through Parliament
which would have ratified the treaty. I added, " the best
thing you can do would be to express that feeling to the
French Government, and throw yourself on the good sense
and high spirit of the exalted individual who governs the
destinies of the French empire." (Hear, hear.) Now, sir,
had we to appeal to a common-place sovereign, his feelings
might be outraged, and the consequences might be serious.
But we had to appeal to a man of great capacity, and to
one who had long lived in this country and understood
its constitution, and his Imperial Majesty acted in a
manner that became his great position and his emi-
nent talents. (Hear, hear.) He did justice to the spirit of
the English ccnstitution, and the alliance was not destroyed.
(Hear.) He did not turn round and say, " There is an end
of the good feeling between France and England." On the
contrary, he said, "I respect the feeling, whilst deploring
the lamentable event to Europe that this treaty has not
been carried into effect; but the alliance between France
and England is too valuable to be subject to these political
accidents." (Hear.) Well, that, I think, is an answer to
those who come forward and assert that if Parliament ex-
presses an opinion upon the convention negotiated by
Ministers we are endangering the alliance between the two
countries, and destroying that cordial understanding
which, I admit, is at this moment, and I trust always will
be, the corner stone to the power and prosperity of the
people of both countries. (Hear, hear.) But whether we
look to the policy of the convention, the manner in which
it is carried into effect, or the risks which we may run by
attempting to change or modify its terms, I confess I can
see no grounds whatever for accepting the opinions of the
noble lord (Palmerston) opposite. (Hear.) I am not satis-
fied with the progress or the principles of the war. What
we want is a change in the conception and management of
the campaigns. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord may come
forward, and, in the same patriotic style of effusion, de-
mand greater sacrifices from the people. But if they make
them, excited by the fervid patriotism of the noble lord and
the right hon. member for Southwark, the people of Eng-
land will Lind out that they are neither securing their end
nor maintaining the independence of Turkey. (Cheers.)
Mr. LABOUCHERE said the right hon. gentleman had
not confined himself to the question exactly at issue. No
one denied the right of the house to criticise or oppose con-
ventions entered into with foreign powers. Such a doctrine
I would be quite unconstitutional. (Hear.) It was the
duty of the house to express its opinion freely upon such
subjects, especially with respect to taxation. But the
house must exercise this right with judgment and with a
due regard to consequences. (Cheers on both sides.) And
he stood appelled at the boldness with which gentlemen
I who urged the Government to a vigorous prosecution of the
war should have overlooked the perilous character of the
course they had pursued on this occasion, in opposition to the
present measure. He had been astonished that so many
members of such eminence should have united in such a
course, in the present posture of public affairs—endeavour-
ing to persuade the house to strangle the measure, and
declare that the Crown should not fulfil its engagements.
He rejoiced that their opposition had not succeeded ; be-
lieving, as he did, that the defeat of the Government would
have led to the moat serious consequences. (A laugh.) He
hoped the danger was escaped of imperilling the stability
of the Government. (Laughter.) Ho believed the majo-
rity of the house and the country were averse at this time
to a change of Administration. (La ighter. No government
could have continued in office after an adverse vote on such
I
a measure. If the friends of Lord Derby came into power,
however, and prosecuted the war with vigour, he should
be unwilling to disturb their tenure of power. (Hear.)
But what would have been the effect of an adverse vote
on the measure upon the Continent- at Paris, at Constan-
tinople, or St. Petersburg ? It would have produced the
idea that we were disposed for peace at any price. He was
in favour of peace so soon as it could be safely and honour-
ably obtained. But undl then he should support the Go-
vernment in a vigorous prosecution of the war, and the
house should not refuse its assent to the convention except
upon the most serious grounds. (Loud cries of " hear.")
Nor did he consider that such grounds had been shown to
exist. Therefore he rejoiced that this measure had not
been defeated.
Mr. CARD WELL said his right hon. friend had favoured
the house with a lecture on constitutional principle, in-
stead of urging any argument in support of the present
ineasure. (Loud cries of " hear, hear.") No independent
member had endeavoured to defend the measure by argu-
ment. (Hear.) His right hon. friend had relied on the
importance of the stability of the Government. But it
was improper to sacrifice to this object the most serious
objections to a system of injudicious subsidies. (Hear.)
As to the effect of a rejection of such a measure on the
continent, where was that sort of argument to stop ? Was
it to prevent all discussion on every measure propounded
by the Government vs to the war ? (Hear.) It would be
cowardly and unworthy conduct on the part of the house
to abstain from a free expression of opinion upon such a
measure? (Hear.)
Lord PALMERSTON said. the Government had been
accused of hurrying on the measure; but this was an ac-
cusation- which might rather be urged against the Opposi-
tion, who had endeavoured to stifle the measure on the
first stage, and to prevent its discussion. (A laugh.) The
Government did not at all pretend that Parliament had not
a right to criticise or even reject such a measure. (Hear.)
The terms of the convention itself implied that it could
not be carried into effect without the consent of Parlia-
ment. But what the Government contended was that the
right had been abused—(oh)—and exercised without a due
regard to the interests of their country. The measure was
essential to the vigorous prosecution of the war. How
could the war be vigorously carried on if the Turkish army
was unable to keep the field? And how could it keep the
field if not paid and supported ? And how could it be
paid and maintained without money? (Hear, hear.) The
object of the measure was to supply the Turkish Govern-
ment with money for the purpose, and it was quite in-
consistent in those who professed a desire for a vigorous
prosecution of the war to oppose the measure. He could
not understand the objections to it. (Laughter.) Was
it that the guarantee was not several ? Was it that it
was a guarantee instead of a loan ; or that it ought rather
taos
re
eu(lbhavestihd
aybte?ietn
Ifs
should
theguilfdt
objection
or, on
inobntuhtwe contrary,hearde that
yieldedi
tt aatts itn
ttwhaae was elao
severallnlyg
g:iashraenst:fe,ththeeFornenswcherGwovasenithmatentth, enotGodveeermnimnegntthheapdocilnet.
of such importance as was supposed. The real objection
(Hear.) It was said ti political aspect of the question.
e
ag-
grandisement at e
appeared to be to th
the answer was, that
powers a pretext for territorial i'of the guaranteeing at the guarantee would offend either
se of Turkey. (Hear.) But
a disposition existed, or ever
could be supposed exist, several guarantee would
afford a greater facility for its exercise than a joint and
reiagshet otfo separateTE:'urereis remedy separately.
he .t
llani h
ae
guarantee, either
is
)ea vr et
yr a
ml
gn
In the case of a joint and several
party to it might prevent such a course by
the other
claiming the
em
right to pay the whole of the money, and so
text for territorial aggression on the part of the remove the
; and
the pre-
those who had been members of the Government of Lord
Aberdeen could hardly object to a course which had been
proposed by that Minister in regard to the Greek loan. He
thought
that less polit;cal difficulty was likely to occur
from the form in which this treaty was drawn up than
from the
form proposed by hie right hon. friend. The prac-
ticel question, however, for the house to consider was
should they treaty •
throw into the teeth of France a which
had been entered into ih°n dference toits ver 'Ares ? Thecourse
ro posed bythe rightll.e
P P gentleman would involve fresh

36
124
Majority against the amendment... -88
The clause was then ordered to stand part of the bill,
which was passed through committee, and reported to the
house.
The Customs' Laws Consolidation Bill was passed
through committee.
The amendments on the Excise Duties Bill were agreed
to.

Government intend to propose to Parliament a grant
of 8001. for the erection of a monument to Sir John
Franklin and the officers and men wh.o have lost their
lives in the Arctic expedition.
[A.Dvzirrismissr.l—Among the numerous extraordinary
cures without medicine effected by Du Barry's delicious health-
restoring Revalenta Arabica Food, the following are not the
least remarkable :—Cure 48,615.—" Plymouth, May 9th,
1851.—For the last ten years I have been suffering from
dyspepsia, headaches, nervousness, low spirits, sleeplessness,
and delusions, and swallowed an incredible amount of medi-
cine without relief. I am happy to say that your food has
cured me, and I am now enjoying better health than I have
had for many years past—J. S. NEWTON." Cute No. 180.
" Twenty-five years' nervousness, constipation, indigestion,
and debility, from which I have suffered great misery, and
which no medicine could remove or relieve, have been effec-
tually cured by Du Barry's Food in a very short time.—W. R.
REEVES, Pool Anthony, Tiverton." No. 4,208. —" Eight
years' dyspepsia, nervousness, debility, with cramps, spasms,
and nausea, have been effectually removed by Du Barry's
health-restoring food. I shall be happy to answer any inquiries.
JOHN W. FLAVELL, Riddlington, Rectory, Norfolk."
In canisters, 11b. 2s. 9d.; 21b. 4s. 6d.; 51b. 11s. ; 121 b. 22c.
The 121 b., carriage free, on receipt of Post-office order. Barry
Du Barry dr Co., 77, Regent-street, London ; also at Ih2,
Piccadilly; 60, Graceenurch-street ; 330, and 451, Strand;
4, Cheapside ; 60 and 68, Cornhill ; 49; Bishopsgate-street ;
55, Charing-cross; 54, Upper Baker-street; 63 and 150,
Oxford-street; 89, High-street, Camden-town; 18, Pen-
man; 7, Pall-mall-East ; 132, New Bond-street ; 24, Mot
comb-street ; 13, King William-street, City ; 30, Conduil.-
street; 21, Cockspur-street; 95, Farringdon-street; 67, St-
Paul's Churchyard ; 6, Edward-stret t, Portman-square.

INQUIRY INTO THE ALLEGED MISCONDUCT
OF THE POLICE.
The Commissioners took their sea's yesterday morn-
ing shortly after 11 o'clock.
Police-sergeant 12 A was the first witness called. He
stated he had been upwards of eleven years in the ser-
vice, and five years a sergeant. He took Adam
Holding into custody on Sunday, Ist July (the
man sitting on a heap of earth with his wife read-
ing the Family Herald). The force acted on this
occasion in clearing the drive as they did at races
and other public places ; such as flourishing their
truncheons over the heads of the front rank to in-
duce those behind to move back. No doubt some
person's hat might have been struck; it was the case on
other occasions, and then the public took it in good part.
It was necessary some times to assume an attitude of
determination to intimidate the people and induce them
to keep back. Holden was apprehended in consequence
of his hooting and yelling, and flourishing a paper about,
and calling on the people not to allow bins to be taken
into custody. His conduct was so violent he had to
be handcuffed. Witness denied that the man taken
from the Serpentine was struck in the yard of the re-
ceiving-house. The police did not strike at the people
as had been described. Witness struck no one that day.
He dil not throw a delicate young man over the rails,
as spoken to by Mr. Sims.
Cross-examined by Mr. Mitchell—The police always
draw their truncheons when they act in a body. He
was unable to say who gave the order for the truncheons
to be drawn. He could not see how a prisoner could
be irritated at having handcuffs put on him. He did
not consider this a serious case as regarded the police,
although by the 14th clause of the Metropolitan Police
Act, if the charges were proved against the men charged,
they would be liable to a fine of 101., or imprisonment
for a limited period.
By Chief Commissioner Wortley—The usual manner
of flourishing the truncheons was likely to mislead people
at a distance, and induce them to imagine the people
were being struck.
Mr. Herbert William, superintendent of the Royal
Humane Society, was at the receiving-house on the Ist
July. He did not see the man brought from the Ser-
pentine struck in the yard. He was not bleeding.
Witness heard no violent language used by the police.
He saw many persons take stones from the heap near
the receiving-house and put them into their pockets ; the
police then made a rush and drove the people away.
Cross-examined by Mr. Mitchell—He was only in the
yard about 10 or 15 minutes. A mistake had been
made in confounding the receiving-house with the park-
keeper's residence, where the prisoners were taken, and
the statement of Henbery, the park-keeper, as that of
the Royal Humane Society's man, who in consequence
had been subject to much annoyance. The stones were
not considerably diminished. He saw several respectable
people break through the police ; it was principally
mechanics who resisted them.
Re-examined by Mr. Ellice—He saw soma stones
thrown in the direction of Superintendent Hughes from
the crowd behind.
20 D was identified by Mr. Floyd as the man who
struck him when he was held by three other policemen.
He was also identified by Mr. Couchinan.
Inspector Durkin said he was 39 years of age, and had
been in the force nearly 20 years. The man who was
taken from the Serpentine was very violent before lie
got into the water. The man was intoxicated. He
found his reasoning with the people had great effect.
There were seine obstinate people who would not listen
to reason. He cautioned the men against striking the
people, and he, did not see them strike any one when
flourishing their truncheons to cause the people to stand
hack. He used great forbearance that day, and impressed
it on the men. He saw Superintendent Hughes repeat-
edly, but did not see him strike any one during the day.
Mr. Mitchell said he witnessed his forbearance.
377 A took the " wet man" into custody. He was
very violent, and it took four men to take him to the
Dairy-lodge. He saw no one strike him, nor any blood
about him.
Cross-examined by Mr. Mitchell—Referring to a copy
of the magistrate's clerk's notes, he asked the witness if
be did not state before the magistrate at Marylebone-
street, in reference to Mr. Mair's case, "that, being a
gentleman, if he had gone to the superintendent he
might have got off by making an apology ?"
Witness said he did not.
72 D went with the " wet man " in a cab to the sta-
tion. The man's nose was bleeding when he first saw
him at the dairy lodge. He did not see any one strike
him. Witness struck the man in the cab with his
truncheon in self-defence. The "wet man" made a blow
at him with his fists when handcuffed. The man made
no complaint before the magistrates, but apologised that
day for what he had done. The " wet man " did not
actually strike him.
Cross-examined by Mr. Mitchell—The truncheon
touched the man on the forehead. Witness was much
punished that day. He did not hear a policeman say,
" this was the best day's lark he had ever had."
63 A was identified by Mr. M'Lowman.
229 A, usually on duty at the House of Commons,
spoken to by Mr. Coulcher, was put in the box for iden-
tification ; but Mr. Coulcher was unable to attend to do
so, being in Devonshire.
229 A said he was at home the whole of the day, be-
ing off duty.
Charles Thomas Henley, with whom 229 A lodged,
corroborated his statement.
Inspector Lester, of the A division, said he was 37
years of age, and has been 19 years in the force. He was
on duty in Park-street on the Ist July. He denied hav-
ing struck any one that day. There were no policemen
stationed in Lord R. Grosvenor's house that day.
Cross-examined by Mr. Mitchell—The men had no
beer supplied to them that day. He was of the C divi-
sion, attached to the reserved A division.
Mr. Sandell spoke to having been assaulted by an in-
spector, he believed of the name of Lester, who had the
letter C on his collar.
Witness had no coat with the letter C on it.
84 C stated he was 23 years of age, and had been in
the service two years. He was in Park-street for ten
minutes. He had no recollection of hitting a man on
the back as he lay in the street or kick a man in the side,
as deposed to by Mr. Humphries.
By Mr. Commissioner Armstrong—The street was
cleared in ten minutes.
Mr. Mitchell—Then you made a sharp, short, and
decisive charge ?
Witness—l don't know what you mean. He did not
know if ladies were in the balconies of the houses in
Park-street. There were women there. He saw one man
bleeding.
This witness gave his evidence ire a very abrupt man-
ner. He was asked by Mr. Mitchell. what part of Suffolk
he came from ; but he declined aaswering till he had
appealed to the Commissioner. He then stated became
from Hyde. He was not aware of a saying, " Silly
Suffolk.' (Laughter.)
Poiice•serjeant 21 C said he was 30 years of age; and had
been in the service 10 years. He denied having felled
any person to the ground on the 1,4 of July, or having
committed " more frightful destruction than ever mad-
man committed" as deposed against him. He touched
a man on the back with his truncheon who had a stone
in his hand. He ran after him and put the truncheon
against him to stop himself short rather than strike the
man. He did not think it prudent to apprehend him.
He ran after a second man, but soul. I not overtake him.
Cross-examined by Mr. Mitchell— -He heard one man
say, "Give it to the blues," and lit 3 ran after him, see-
ing he had a stone in his hand. Tb e description given
him by Mr. Humphries was anything but correct ; it
had given him a new character. He estimated the
people in Park-street at 2,000. He vv itnessed no violence
by any policeman. He used persurs mon to disperse the
crowd. He could not account for tis e blood on the man
he had referred to.
By Mr. Chief Commissioner Wortlts: v—He saw nothing
of the attack on the people by the pol ice as described by
Colonel Lindsay.
147 A said ho was 21 years of age and has been in
the force about 12 months. He se las on duty in the
Park on the Ist. He struck a boy o n the temple (John
Thomas King). On his return from. Vine-street he was
assaulted with stones • one struck child in a female's
arms. She pointed the boy out to h im, and he went to
apprehend him. Witness was then assailed by a number
of men with sticks, one of them to k ing his truncheon
from him, and the boy was rescued. Witness described
the attack, and said he was also ki'eked, and produced
a stick which be said he took from erne of his assailants,
A female struck him over the head with her parasol.
Witness's head was cut, and the nee ct morning a place
had swollen up the size of an egg. S tones and pieces of
railings were flying in all directions.
Cross-examined by Mr. Mitchell- —He took a Mr.
Smith to Vine-street for riotous condi ict, and assaulting
him. Mr. Smith was the son of a member of Parlia-
ment. The case stood over for a we ek, when witness
withdrew the charge.
The Court then adjourned.