The Sun.
London, England, 1839-02-18 00:00:00

THE SUN, LON DON, MONDAYS-EVENING EDITION,-FEBRUARY 18, 1839

cause, but as making a great innovation of the principle
Parliamentary justice.—(Hear, hear.) For these rea-
sons he had thought it requisite to address a ff w words
to the meeting, because he felt some responsibility as
being one of those who had urged them not to tamper
with this mighty question,but that they would find their
best refuge in bold councils, that they wouldbest do their
duty by combining moderation with firmness, and taking
a stand firmly by the part which they had first taken.
It was agreed that an answer slrould be returned to lir;
letter from the Encouragement of Industry Society, in.
farming them respectfully that the delegates cannot,
consistently with their duty to those whom they repre-
sent, enter into any communication with persons recom-
mending any compromise on the subject of the Corn-
laws, to the total repeal of which the delegates consider
themselves bound, and transmitting one of their funda-
mental resolutions expressive that determination.
Mr. CLOSE said he could not believe that any
Ministry would have the firmness to propose a fixed
duty, at the present price of wheat.—(Hear. hear.)
Mr. RAWSON said he conceived the delegates were
bound to ask for nothing short of total repeal.—( Hear.)

• The CHAIRMAN hadreceived letters from . Bristol
and Liverpool, in one of which it was stated that the
eallen manufacturers were permitted to be heard at
the bar of the House against certain of the provisions of
the Act of Union. It was graifying to fin.i that such
a deep interest was taken in all parts of the country in
the proceedings of the Delegates.—(Hear.)
Mr. EWART said he had received a communication

horn Coventry, stating that a meeting had been 'held
there on the 18th, when a delegate was appointed, and
a petition, signed by the Mayor. aereed to. At Glou-
cester also, a meeting had been held, when a petition
was prepared, to be presented by Mr. Phillpatts ; and
Mr. Hope was to be requested to support it.
Mr. EWART then stated that the address to the ng;-if
culturists, demonstrating that it was their interest to
have a repeal of the Corn-laws, would be ready on
Monday.
Mr. WALKER said he had received a letter from
Manchester, informing him that the cotton manufac-
turers 'were only working for three or four days
-a-week—occasioned by an overstocked market.
The trade was very.. indifferent. He had also
heard from a farmer in Norfolk, who expressed his
beiief that the Corn-lasts, like all prohibition,
were unnatural ob.tru-ttif-ns to trade.—(Hear, hear.)
It was from such a state of things that the oppo-
nents of the Corn-laws wished to free the country,
In 1815 the farmers said that corn could not be grown.
is England under 80s. a-quarter ; But Since then it •
had been found that corn could he grown for 50s. or 60s.
a-quarter. He (Mr. W.) believed that the farmers of
this country could compete with the foreign grower, if
they made greater improvements in their farming.—
( Hear.) As to the effect of the repeal of the Corn-
laws being likely to lower wages it would have just the
contrary tendency, for it would give a stimulus to manu-
factures and commerce,which would prevent the necessity,
and indeed the possibil:ty; of a reduction in wages.—
(Hear, hear.) Lord Raleigh, in a letter to the Chair-
man of a Corn-law Meeting in Essex, bad spoken of
En land being oblige l, if those laws were repealed,
to apply, Ike paupers, for relief to Boards of Con-
tinental Sovereigns. But such was in fact the case
now. We had been forced to apply for corn to
Boards of Continental Sovereigns," and had, either
through incapacity or unwillingness, been refused re-
lief.—(Hear.) The Corn-laws were not less injuri-
ous to the foreign grower than to the home farmer ;
they were as oppressive in their operation a 3 they were
false in principle.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr WEIR said, after the discussion which had taken
place it was desirable that it should become generally
known that they met in that room as a body of Dele-
gates ; that they had applied to the House of Commons
complaining of a grievance, and claiming permis-
sion to give evidence at the bar in proof of their
allegations. Of course their future proceed-
ings would be determined by the - decision
of the House upon the question on Tuesday next. But
he wished it to be generally known that it was their fixed

determination and that of those who had sent them
there, to put up with nothing short of a total and imme-
diate repeal of the Corn-laws—( Hear, hear)--and that
they would not cease their agitation until they had ob-
tained it.—(Cheers.)
Adjourned.

NATIONAL CONVENTION.
(THURSDAY.)

Mr. MOIR, of Glasgow, in the Chair.
At the time the list of names were called over some
twenty members were absent.
The SECRETARY read a letter from Rochdale, enclosing
three pounds towards the national rent ; he also read a
letter from the Chartists of Todmorden, saying they had
forwarded their petition.
A long conversation took place between Mr. Cobbett, Mr.
Sankey,Dr. Wade,Dr. Taylor, Dr. Fletcher, &c., on the great
delay that bad taken place in the production of the report of
the " Rules Regulation Committee," which Mr. Cobbett
said was not yet ready, owing to the absence of those
Birmingham gentlemen who were members of that Corn-
mittee.

Mr. COBBETT, in bringing forward a string
of resolutions, said he had to congratulate them on
there being neither a Liberator nor Precursor Society, those
blessings they left for the enslaved inhabitants of another
part of the empire. His motive for proposing these resolu-
tions, was the necessity of having some defined plan of
operation for the government of their principles, in order
that there may be no misconception in the public mind as to
how far they are responsible as a body for the acts of indivi-
duals. With regard to the two first resolutions it is neces-
sary that we deny the name of National Convention. This
name has been attached to us without our eJusent. We
are not the National Convention—we are, to all intents,
" A General Convention of Delegates from the Working
Classes," and this name only will we assume. And also
the second of these two first resolutions will bind us to a
line of conduct, as a body, which will prevent our responsi-
bility in that capacity for the actions of individual
members. With regard to the two last resolutions, could
an) thing prove more their utility than the motions brought
forward the other day for the purpose of sending Mission-
aries throughout the country, and that relating to ulterior
measures. All who listened to the very lengthened
debates on those questions must feel with him that
seine perfectly defined system was necessary for the
purpose of steering us clear from all difficulties
raised by the introduction of subjects not relevant to
the purpose for which we were delegated. Our business
is to forward the interests of those who sent us, by taking
their directions, not to recommend what measures are to
be adopted by the people. We cannot recommend the
people to do anything but to petition. This only would be
lawful. How can we be answerable for any other recom-
mendation ? What other duty but to recommend the
people to petition? To tell them to refrain from petitioning
is not our duty, as some of the members of this Convention
have recommended. Will any gentleman say that if we
only came here to wait on Members of Parliament that our
mission has been futile ? I submit, that if we do this we
will have discharged the most important object of that
mission, arid as yet we are unauthorised to do more than
superintend the presentation of the National Peti-
tion, and I maintain that we ought not, as a Conven-
tion, to offer any advice to the people as to their conduct
in future. We are not yet pledged to give this
this advice before you decide on this question ; reflect on
it seriously. It will be found, if wo_adopt these resolutions,
our course will be successful ; if not, we may have reason
to repent.
Mr. WAGE, in seconding the resolutions, said that
their business was to receive advice from the people,
not to dictate to them, what ulterior course they
should pursue. We have no authority to advise them
to any future course. Our object is to leave
no stone unturned to obtain for the people a consideration ;
our business is to wait on the Members of the House of
Commons, and strive to induce them to allow the claims
of the general mass of the people, not of the 101. class in
particular. Let us not trifle away our time, let us go to work
at once, and endeavour to procure for the people the
restoration of their liberties.—( Cries of " Hear, hear.")
Mr. PIERCE said that the first resolution of Mr. Cobbett
prevented the necessity of the others. If we did not choose
to do the work of the people, no matter what the term used
may be as to our designation, what they were sent for ? Can
it be thought that 1 was sent from Birmingham onl) to
superintend-the presentation of the petition.—( Hear, hear.)
That was not our object in coming here.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. Pierce concluded his observations by saying that be
regretted the necessity he was under to move an amend-
ment against the resolutions of the Honourable Member
Mr. Cobbett—( Hear, hear)—but his duty, and the know-
ledge he had of the feelings of the people on this subject,
compelled him to do so.—( Hear, and cheers.)
Mr. VINCENT opposed the resolutions of Mr. Cobbett in
a
of
speechthe
length, in wngtliteicdh
up
ple
buyrgreesdoltuhteionnescweshsiicthy
Conventionofsome not
went to take from them the functions with which they
were entrusted by their constituents. He begged leave to
second the amendment of Mr. Pierce.
Mr. COLLINS said that he did not wish to do any thing
that would draw down on any one the terrors of the law.
He had a wife and family, he did not wish, very far from it,
that those whom he held SO dear should suffer; but for him-
self he did shrink from the fate of a Fitzgerald, or any
of those who suffered in a righteous cause—( Hear, hear).
He did care for what could happen to him from the ma-
chinations of the " Attorney- General," the " Solicitor-
General," or the " Mayor-General" ( Hear, hear, and
long continued cheers), he would be very sorry to return
to Birmingham, and have to say ;to his constituents
that he bad voted for Mr. Cobbett's resolution—( Hear,
and cheers).
Mr. SANKEY supported the amendment.
Mr. HETHERINGTON said, that their friend Mr.
Cobbett in proposing ;hese rrsolutions was insti-
gated by motives that would be was sure claim
their gratitude with respect t') to the first tresoiution
there was nothing in a tome. with respect to he others,
he was of opinion with Mr. Benthetnitsat the laws are a

heap of rubbish, from which any man may pick out that
which answers his purposes. Our business is is, not to
mind what the Attorney-General, who is a paid officer, !
and for whom he held a very contemptuous opinion, does,
we are bound to do our work without looking to the
consequences. If we are to be trammelled up by legal
phis eology, we may as well break up. It would be non•
sense to do so. In some case in which he was concerned,
on a trial concerning some breach of the Stamp-office-
laws, be bad employed as a counsellor one who, having
been paid, said its his behalf all the law allowed him to do,
but not so much as would ensure the gaining of his
suit, although contradicted by his counsel, he persevered
in his own course, and made an appeal to the Judge, who
said there was no precedent for his taking on himself to
address the Court. He then introduced the case of Mr
Wakicy, in the King's Bench, which instance was allowed.
by the Judge. He then addressed the Court on the facts
of his case ; and, by the statement he made, he gained the
object fur which he contended. This was sufficient, be
was confident, to make those admit who, with Mr. Cob-
bett, are willing to be bound by legal difficulties, that there
is not much to be thought of the technicalities of the law.
He therefore hoped they would be unanimous in the vote
they would give for the amendment of Mr. Pierce.
Mr. M'Dowant. and Mr. BURNS supported the amend-
ment. The latter said he conceived that if Mr. Cobbett
was sent by a constituency that had to weave thirty yards
of cloth for 6d , or a dozen of sheets for 10d.. if he was
he would have other notions oe the t vent of our mission.
Ile would find that we were not sent hero to superintend
the petition only, but also to advise the people as to what
they should do hereafter if their petition was unsuccessful.
—( Hear, hear. )
Mr. FROST said, that for the consolation of his friend
Sankey, he could be sent to any prison in London or
through the kingdom but what be was acquainted with.
He could tell him the best prison in the country, or the
softest tread-mill—(Loud laughter.) Their beds, it was
too true, were not to he beds of roses. It was by reason
clone they could hope to obtain the object of their
request, a weapon would not have any effect on the
gentlemen who on quarter day took such pleasure in
receiving their salary, are we to suppose that we will have
little trouble in obtaining our rights from persons who have
all their lives lived on the public, unle.s we depend on our
assn individual exertions for the attainment of the liberties
of the people, we may as well give up at once.
Mr. Burn and Mr. Neeson supported the amendment,
as did the Rev. Dr. Wade, after a protracted debate, the
amendment, which stated that are resolutions should be
postponed until the decision on the petition by the House
of Commons, was carried, Dud the resolutions of Mr.
Cobbett lost by a large majority.
Mr. COBBETT.—As this question had been decided in
opposition to Ir!s views—views which he did not take up
without mature consideration, he must say that his mind
was mind was made up to take Ohne of conduct, which
although it might not meet the approbation of his consti-
tuents, yet in justice to what he thought would be prudent
to adopt he would therefore give in his resignation as a
member of this Convention, and would not consider hirnself
a member of this body any longer.—( Hear, hear.)
PETITION COMMITTEE.

.Mr. PIERCE moved that Mr. Moir, of Glasgow, and Mr.
Jones, of North Wales be added to this Committee.
ADDRESS COMMITTEE.

Dr. TAYLOR said, that he was happy to have it in his
power at last to be able to bring up the Address to the ro-
p:e of G:eat Britain; he would refrain from making any
remark on it at present. He would read it and leave it in
the hands of the Members for consideration. He then read
the Address, which was as follows :
ADDRESS To THE PEOPLE OF GREAT BRITAIN, FROM
TIIE DELEGATES ELECTED BY THE INDUSTRIOUS CLASSES,

IN GENERAL CONVENTION ASSEMBLED.
" Men of Great Britain and Ireland. —The day Iris ar-
rived We, the representatives of your wishes and your
sufferings have met—assembled from all parts of the coun-
try—bound together in unity of object we feel it right in
the discharge of the important trust you have reposed in us
to address you as to your present situation and your fu-
ture hopes.
" We naturally waited, however, till the speech from the
Throne, and the responding addresses from Parliament,
should put us in possession of what might be the inten-
tions of the Government as to the great question of
Universal Suffrage, which, as it alone can meet the jus-
tice of our demands, so it alone will satisfy the expectations
of the people.
" In vain, however, have we looked for any indication
in the opening speech to give us hopes that the Mi-
nistry or the Legislature have at length began to ap-
preciate the true situation of the country and the wants
of the people.
" While the mind of the Sovereign has been axiously
directed to arrange the terms on which the separation of
Belgium from Holland, began by physical force, may be
completed and established by negotiation—while a like
concern has been manifested in the affairs of other coun-
tries—only a few lines are given to the internal affairs of
our own. These few lines, however, are enough. They
declare war against the Dissenters ; they intimate a deter-
mination to support the unchristian connexion between
Church and State ; but, above all, they intimate an inti
tention of striking at your liberties—of establishing a rural
police, an unconstitutional power, and subversive of Bii-
tish liberty, under the false pretence that you have dis-
obeyed and resisted the law.
" Such is not the language which the Queen of Eng-
land should be mace to address to the people. Such is
not the policy that should be pursued by the Ministers of
Great Britain. It calls upon the people to prepare for
that Constitutional resistance, which is the last argument
of freemen.

" Your demand is for Universal Suffrage, it is your right
by the mere fact of existence, a right of which no human
power can justly deprive you, a right upon which all con-
stitutional power is based, a right of which you have been
foully cheated, and which you must regain at any risk,
peaceably if' you may, forcibly if yon must.
" If the display of physical force which accompanied
the Queen to the opening of Parliament be the emblem of
moral power, it is a power which we do not approve of;
but if forced to the contemplation of it by the foolish ex-
travagance of our rulers, if forced to a resort to it in self-
defence, even to that last tribunal we are prepared to ap-
peal rather than to continue in bondage, and rather to lay
our heads upon the block as freemen, than rest them on the
pillow as slaves.
" Appealing solely to the laws and Constitution of our
country we are prepared before any tribunal, and against
any opponent, to argue the justice of our cause, to prove
our fitness for the exercise of the rightS we demand, and to
work out our redemption from political bondage and social
suffering by peaceful means alone. We know that there
exists in the country sufficient moral power to secure to us
all that we require ; and if not interfered with in the legiti-
mate exercise of it, to that means alone we intend to trust ;
such interference, however, depends not upon us; and if
the infatuation of those in power prompt them to have re-
course to it, so sure as in the exercise of it, they dare to
trench upon the liberties of Britons, so surely shall they be
met with that stern resolve which prompts men either to
conquer or to die.
" What the dangerous and illegal practices, referred to
in the Speech from the Throne, maybe, we pretend not to
know; but well we are assured that nothing can be more
illegal than for any Government to trample on the rights
of a once free people, and well are we assured too, that
nothing can be more dangerous than to outrage wantonly
their feelings, after having deprived them of their liberties.
Not having succeeded in drawing off your attention from
the question of Universal Suffrage, by a pretended anxiety
for a repeal of the Corn-laws, that question will no more
be heard of ; but similar attempts will be made from time
pai slnaohttyl ahtor
neeewemesnenhpv
taeat
attempts
ro:eftatooodcf yha
sinnl.
lead
adaotrtmcei fiyhne
your
nhrmibsmfeyanicatnt
facto-
ries. odts_fl
ttthoT
en t
di
Ame
rcei, an and
relatingo Secretaryn e o
toof
of
themthset
aet
emh,
everyries.
oltth
ewr i lslu
chhe
ionusri di
ouut ys ,
from the contemplation of the only subject which is
worthy of your consideration. What are to be the
measures necessary to secure your happiness will pro-
perly occupy your attention when you are fully and
fairly represented ? to secure that representatation must be
your first object, and that it may be secured with the least
possible amount of suffering to any party, and by such
means as to carry with it the respect of every class for the
people who so obtain it, we urge you to be calm, indus-
trious, temperate, but still determined, and to press on with
untiring spirit towards the mark of the high calling of free-
men, which is in Universal Suffrage.
I " n politics, as in war, the post of honour is the post of
danger. That post you have confided to our charge. To
us you have entrusted the recovery of all the rights you
have lost, the defence of all that remain; and by our zeal,
our perseverance, our courage, and our prudence, we are
resolved to show that 'we are fully alive to the :nsgnitude
of the interests committed to us, and determined to assert,
as we are prepared to defend, the rights of the people.
Bet, as in the continuance of your confidence in us lies cur
whole power to serve you, we have a right to expect that it
be manifested on every occasion, and by every means ; and
as you require from us individual attention to the most ar-
duous duties, so from you we demand prudence of conduct,
firmness of language, determination of purpose, and energy
cf action."
After it bad been read,
The CRAIRMAN hoped that the gentlemen of the press
would not take any notice of it, as it was yet a document
which had not received the sanction of the Convention.--
( Hear. )
Dr. TAYLOR said that that recommendation would be
inoperative, as the gentlemen of the press, he was sure,
had taken a note of the document while he was reading.
MR. FROST AND LORD JOHN RUSSELL.
Mr. VINCENT moved the resolution of which he had
given notice yesterday, " That Mr. Frost be requested to
lay before the convention the correspondence which had
passed between himself and the Secretary of State."
Mr. HETHERINGTON seconded the resolution.
After it passed, Mr. Frost said he had no objection to
produce it, he therefore laid it on the table ; upon which
the Secretary was ordered to read it. Accordingly it was
read, and those parts of " Mr. Frost's Letter to Lord
John Russell" which were most remarkable were vehe-
mently cheered, and on its conclusion there war a distinct
round of applause when this had ceased,
Dr. TAYLOR gave notice of a motion for Monday, for a
vote of thanks to Mr. Frost for the manly and spirited
rebuke he had administered to the Ministers.
Upon this notice being entered on the book the thanks
of the Meeting were given to the Chairman and the meet-
ing dissolved.

The following is a copy of the correspondence referred
to by Mr. Praed in the House of Commons, on Tuesday
night, as having 'taken place between Lord John Russell
and Mr. Frost, a magistrate of the borough of Newport,
Monmouthshire, and a delegate for that county to the above
named body

~ Whitehall, Jan. 16, 1839,

" Sir—l am directed by Lord John Russell to request
you will inform his Lordship whether it is true tit you
are a delegate to a body calling itself the National Con.
venti9n, and whether, on the Ist instant, you attended a
meeting at Pontypool, at which violent and inflammatory
language has been used. Lord John Russell wishes to
kt:')w thy correctness of these reports, which, if true, will
render it incumbent on his Lordship to recommend to the

Lord Chancellor the erasure of your name from the Com-
misiion of the Peace for the county of Monmouth.
" I have the honour to be, Sir, your obedient servant,
4' Frost, Esq , Newport. " F. MAUL E."

" Newport, Monmouthshire, Jan. 19, 1839.
"My Lord,—ln your Lordship's letter of the 16th, there
13 a mistake. I am not a Magistrate for the county of
Monmouth, but for the borough of Newport, in the county
of Monmouth.

" In the spring of 1836, the Council of the borough re-
commended me as a proper person to be a Justice of the
Peace. I was appointed, and I believe that the inhabitants
will hear honourable testimony as to the manner in which I
have performed the duties of the office. Whether your
Lordship will retain my name, or cause it to be erased, is
to me a matter of perfect indifference ; for I set no value
on an office dependent for its continuance, not accord;ng to
the mode in which its duties are performed, but on the will
of a Secretary of State.
" For what does your Lordship think it incumbent to
t my name erased from the Commission of the Pere ?
For attending a meeting at Pontypool on the 1 t of
January ? If the public papers can be credited, your
Lordship declared that such meetings were not only
:egal, but commendable. But ' violent and inflam-
matory language was used at that meeting.' By
whom ? Not by me. I deny that violent and inflam-
matory language was used, and I call on your Lordship
ea prose the truth of the charge. I will go fie-tiler, and
say Out at no meeting at which I was present was violent
and inflammatory language used. There was a time when
the Whig Ministry were not so fastidious as to violent and
inflammatory language uttered at public meetings.
" By what authority does your Lordship assume a
power over conduct of mine unconnected with my office ?
liy what authority does your Lordship assign any action
of mine as a private individual, as a justification for erasing
my name from the Commission of the Peace ? Am I to
hold no opinion of my own in respect to public matters?
Am I to be prohibited from expressing that opinion, if it
be uepleasing to Lord John Russell? If, in expressiug
that opinion, I. act in a strict conformity to the law, can it
be an offence? If I transgress, is not the law sufficiently
stringent to punish me ? It appears, from the letter of
your Lordship, that I, if present at a public meeting, should
be answerable for language tittered by others ! If these
are to be the terms on which her Majesty's Commission of
the Peace is to be holden, take it back again, for surely
none but the most servile of men would hold it on such

:erms,

13 it an offence to be appointed a delegate to convey
to the constituted authorities the petitions of the people ?
Why, my Lord, have we not had for many years dele-
gates sitting in London during the sessions of Parliament,
to supttrintend the presentation of petitions to enact, alter,
or repeal laws ? Can it be a crime for a person to be ap-
pointed at a public meeting to get laid before the House of
Commons a petition praying that the Legislature will re-
store the ancient Constitution of the country ? I know
of no body calling itself a Convention. Your Lordship
is aware that a Convention existed at one -time in this
country. Your Lordship is aware what that Convention
did, and that its acts are called glorious !
`• I was appointed a Justice of the Peace to administer the
laws within the borough of Newport. Was the appointment
made that the inhabitants might benefit by the proper ex-
ercise of that authority entrusted to me ? Or, was it made to
be recalled at the will of your Lordship although the inha-
i)itants might be Tifectly satisfied with the performance of
she duty? Your Lordship receives a very large sum of

money for holding the office of Secretary of State, paid in
part out of the taxes raised on the inhabitants of the
borough. Does your Lordship owe them no duty ? For
',hat is your Lordship invested with authority? To be
..xereised merely at the caprice of your Lordship, regard-
less of the effects that may. follow ? I have se, ved the in-
habitants for three years zealously and gratuitously, and the
opinions which I have formed as to the exercise of
public authority teach me that they, and not your Lord-
,hip, ought to d•-•eide whether I ought to be struck off the
Commission of the Peace.
" Filling an humble situation in life, I would yield nei-
ther to your Lordship nor to any of your order, in a desire
to see my country powerful and prosperous. Twenty years'
reading and experience, have convinced me that the only
method to produce and secure that state of things, is a
restoration of the ancient Constitution. Deeply impressed
with this conviction, I have laboured to obtain the end,

by means recognised by the laws of my country—petition ;
and fOr this your Lordship thinks I ought to be stricken off

the Commission of the Peace 1 Violent and inflammatory
language, indeed lam convinced that in my neighbour-
hood my attending public meetings has tended to restrain
violent language. Does your Lordship wish that peace
should be preserved? I have always been a preserver of
the peace, and of this your Lordship may be convinced by
t.pplying to the Duke of Beaufort and Lord Grenville
Somerset.

" Probably your Lordship is unaccustpmed to language
of this description ; that, my Lord, is a misfortune. Much
of the evil 3 of life proceeds from the want of sincerity in
those who hold converse with men in authority. Simple
ni:n like those best who prophecy smooth things.
" I remain, your Lordship's obedient servant,
"JOHN FROST.
" To Lord John Russell, &c. &c."

" Whitehall, Jan. 24, 1339.

Sir,—l am directed by Lord John Russell to acknow-
!edge the receipt of your letter of the 19th instant, in
reply to my letter of the 16th instant.
• You appear entirely to have mistaken the import of
Lord John Russell's communication, when you attribute it
to an objection to your individual opinions. With them,
whatever they may be, he has no desire to interfere ; but
he does consider it to be his duty, as responsible for the
peace of the country, to see that no man carries his opinions
info practice to the danger of that peace, and with the risk
of spreading alarm through the community.
"If felt it his duty to act so towards an individual
uninvested with any official responsibility, how much more
is he called upon to notice such conduct in a Magistrate ?
And it was under this impression that my letter was, by his
direction, addressed to you.
" By your answer, you disclaim all intention to excite
the people by inflammatory language to violent and dan-
gerous courses. You should have done more, in Lord
John Russell's opinion ; it was your duty to have discou-
raged to the utmost of your power its use by others. But
he trusts that, by your example, you will act up to your
assertions ; fur he holds that not less benefit is conferred
upon the people by a wholesome example on the part of
the Magistrates tban by their strict and impartial dispen-
sation of justice ; for if they, whose duty it is to admi-
nister the law, are amongst the first to trench upon its
limits, they cease to enjoy the confidence of the people,
and afford encouragement to the evil-disposed portion of
the community.
" With such opinions, Lord John Russell considered
himself bound to call upon you for an explanation of your
attendance on the various meetings to which he alluded,
and likewise as to the fact of your being a delegate to a
body calling itself a National Convention, of which he is
glad to hear the existence denied, except as a Committee
to watch over the fate of certain petitions intended to be
presented to the Legislature.
" In these circumstances no immediate steps will be
taken with respect to your position as a Magistrate, and
Lord John Russell trusts that you will abstain from coun-
tenancing any violation of the law, and assisting at meet-
ings where others assemble for such disorderly purposes.
" I have the honour to be, Sir, your obedient servant,.,"
" F. MAULE.
" John Frost, Esq., Newport, Monmouthshire."

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

QUEEN' S BEI% CH, Feb. 16

THE QUEEN V. THE LONDON AND BIRMINGHAM RAILWAY COMPANY

The Attorney-General, Sir F. Pollock, and Mr. Hoggins, ap-
peared for the prosecutor ; Sir W. Follett, Mr. Alexander, and Mr.
Channell, were for the defendants.
The ArroaxEy-GENCItiL said this was a complaint ofthe inhabi-
tants of Pinner against the London and Birmingham Railway
Company, for not having complied with the terms of their Act of
Parliament. Previous to the passing of the Railway Act, there was
a road through the hamlet of Pinner which led between Uxbridge
and Stanmore, which had been set out under an Inclosure Act, and
was forty feet in width, there being an excellent footpath on each
side of it. It was one of the best frequented cross-roads
in the kingdom, along which great quantities of cattle
and sheep were in the habit of travelling. It was also very much
frequented by the inhabitants of that part of the country. The
Railway Company, by their Act, obtained power to carry their
railway across the road; bat the 67th section provided, that where
a road was taken, another good and sufficient road should be set
out, as convenient for passengers and carriages as the road to be cut
through. Having to cross this road, it was necessary that a viaduct
or bridge should be constructed. The road should have been 40 feet
wide, but, for one-third of a mile, it was only 97 feet wide; and
for the space of 156 feet it was contracted to 16 feet 9 inches, and on
the east side it rose very rapidly—in fact, it rose: so abruptly, that
passengers, coming up on one side, were unable to ascertain
what they were to encounter on the other ; and droves of sheep,
which could pass this distance along the old road in ten minutes,
were now frequently an hour in passing, to the great obstruction
and inconvenience of the public. To 'save the expense of an em-
bankment, the Company had carried the parapets of the bridge to
an unnecessary length. In consequence of this an application was
made to the Court for a mandamus to compel the .company to
comply with the provisions of the Act. To that writ they made a
return ststing that they had so complied, and that the road was as
convenient for passengers and carriages as the old road This the
complainants denied, and that was the question which the Jury had
to decide

Witnesses were then called to support the statement of the
Learned Counsel, and the case was expected to occupy the greater
part of the day.
During the examination of one of the witnesses, who was called
to prove the width of the old road, he was asked by Mr. Hoggins
the number of sheep which were in the habit of passing along it.
Lord DENMAN—To talk of the number of sheep which pass along
a road, and where they come from, and where they go, is certainly
a trifling, which we ought not to have. It is impossible that the
business of the Court can go on if there is to be no accommodation,
but every thing is to be contested at arms' length. We may go on
for four or five days if that is to be the course pursued.
Sir F. Pouocic—lf that is meant as an appeal to me, that I am
to reply, I can only say that there are here three issues, and it is ne-
cessary that we should show the state in which the road is and was.

Lord:DENMAN—Sir W. Follett is:willing that some person shall say
what is right to be done with regard to the width of the road, and no
one for whom you appear can be placed in a better situation than
that. I therefore, strongly recommend that the offer be immediately
accepted and acted upon.
Sir F. POLLOCK again referred to the issues on which he said it
was necessary to have the opinion of the jury.
Lord DENMAN—I wish you would attend to what I say, and not
refer to everything else.
Sir F. POLLOCK—I have attended to what has fallen from your
Lordship with every possible respect, and I do not know that there
was anything which required your Lordship to address me in that
manner

Lord DENMAN—I don't know that it is very proper in you to
observe upon my manner. Will you be so kind as to answer, if you
think proper to attend to the suggestion which I have thrown out.
Sir F. Po►.r.ocx—Nothing could be thrown out by your Lordship
to which I should not attend with the utmost respect; tut your
Lordship has addressed me in terms to which I have not been ac-
customed.

Lord DeNsra N—l am not accustomed to be answered in that man.
ner. I threw out a useful suggestion, and am answered by obscr,
vations upon every other point of the case.

Sir F. POLLOCK-1 wish with the utmost respect to state that my
instructions (coin my clients are Dot to refer the issues in question.
The Full ct !.as been one of deqi cun."deration to me and my Lean:ea
Friends, and I regret that the Attorney. General is not now here. It

was arranged, in purtuance of those instructions, that we should I
take the verdict of the Jut y.
Lord DENNIAN—T:Ien you don't act upon my suggestion.?
Sir I% POLLOCK-1 would m, t rfuly, but my clients, who
hear your Lordship, do not consent.
Lord DENMAN—I am sorry we have wasted so much time.
Mr, Hoooms th'en rep attd the question, What quantities of
sheep are in the habit of passing along the road ?
Lord DENMAN—I will not hear that question—it is absolutely
riling with the. t:na-t of the Caurt—it is too bad.
The evidence for the proAcutio 1 having be. n gme thrcu;h,
Sir W. FoLLarr addressed the jury for the defendants. He said
the object of the Company had been to make the diversion of this
road as convenient to the public as they could, and they had ex-
pended many thousand pounds for that purpose—they had erected
this bridge when they had the power of crossing the road at a level.
The Company had the absolute power under the Act to divert or
alter any highway, and the Cad section of the Act rraved
that where any brhige should be erected for carrying a
public highway over a railway, the road over such bridge
should be continued of such width as to limit a clear and
open space between the fences of such road of not less than fifteen
fect. The Company were justified in doing this, and the conve-
nience of the highway, therefore, did not turn on the construction
of this bridge. This was, therefore, a question of law.
Lord DENMAN said that law was made a parcel of this issue, but
they wished to make out that the road was narrower in other parts.
If there were no inconvenience but the narrowness of the bridge, it
would be a pure question of law.
Sir W. FOLLETT then contended that no inconvenience whatever
had been occasioned by the diversion of the road, because it was at
present of ample width for every purpose, and there was no proof
whatever that any obstruction had ever been caused. The Learned
Gentleman then proceeded to call witnesses for the defence, for the
purpose of proving that the defendants had made such a road as
was directed by the Act, and that the new road was, in all respects,
as good as the old one.
Lord DENMA:V Witty summed up, when the Jury returned a ver-
dict for the Crown in all the three cases.