The Sun.
London, England, 1849-07-04 00:00:00

SALE AND MANUFACTURE OF BREAD.

Motion made, and Question put, " That this House do rt.,
solve itself into a Committee, to consider of the best mode of
preventing frauds in the Sale of Bread, and for making
further provision to secure the wholesome quality of articles
used in the manufacture of Bread." The Howe divided :
DIAJORITY—AYES, 91.
Abdy, Thomas N. Foley, J. H. Paa', Melville
Aeland, Sit T. D. Frewen, C. H. Pryse, l'ryse
Adderley, C. B. Gaskell, J. M. Pusey, I'.
' Baring, Sir F. I'. Grey, Sir G. Raphael, 'Alexander
Barrington, Viscount Grogan, Edward Rice, E. R.
Bennet, Philip Hamilton, J. 11. Rich, Henry
iterestord, William Heathoote, G. J. Romilly, Slr,Jokn
I3oldero, 11. G. llllayard, R. C. Russell, F. C.
Bramston, T• W. llobliouse, Sir John Rutherford, A.
Breniridge, Richard Hodges, T. L. Sanders, George
Brisco, 31. Howard, E. G. Seaham, Viscount
Broadley, H. Jervis, Sir John Somerville. Sir W.
Broadwood, 11. Ker, Richard Sotheron, T. H.
Brotherton, J. Knox, Colonel Spooner, R.
Buller, Sir Y. Labouchere, Henry Stafford, Augustus
Butler, I'. S. Langston, J. U. Stuart, J.
Castleroagh, Vie. Lockhart,:A. E. Talbot, C. It.
Chichester, Lord J. Mackenzie, W. F. Taylor, Thomas E.
Clerk Sir G. Mackinnon, W. Thompson. Ald.
Clive, 11. B. Monsell, William Tollemache, F. J.
Cochrane, A. Morgan, 0. Tollemache, John
Cowan, Charles Morris, David Tuttell, IL
Cowper, W. F. It ulgrave,,Earl Tyrell, Sir J.
Currie, henry Mundy, William Westhead, J. P.
Dalrymple, Captain Napier, Joseph Williamson, Sir 11.
Deedes, W. Noel, Gerald J. Wood, Sir Charles
Dunne, Francis P. Nugent, Lord Wyld, James
Edwards, H. O'Brien, J.
Estcourt, J. B. B. Oswald, A. TELLIIIS.
Farrer, James Palmer, Robert Bankes, G.
Ferguson, Sir It. Parker, John Packs, C. W.
Floyer, John Patten, W.

MINORITY-NOES, 37.
Anson, Colonel Fox, Richard M. Ricardo, J. L.
Bellew, R. M. Ilallyburton, Lord J. Balwey, Colonel
Berkeley. C. L. G. Ilawes, Benj. Stansileld, W. E. C.
Birch, Sir Thomas Ilayter, W. G. Stuart, Lord D.
Bouvet'le, E. P. Ilobhouse, T. B. Stuart, Lord J.
Brand, Thomas Keppel, George T. Thompson, Colonel
Banbury, E. 11. Howard, Sir It. Thompson, George
Cavendish, C. C. Manners, Lord G. Thornely, T.
Cavendish, G. 11. Marshall, William Wilson, James
Cavendish, W. G. Matheson, Colonel
Craig, W. G. Melgund, Viscount TELLM.
Dundas, Admiral Milner, W. M. Mangles, It. D.
Evans, Sir De Lacy Mostyn, E. Peche,ll, Captain
Minter, Sir E. Pearson, Charles

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF QUEEIVS BENCH, July $.
(Sittings at Westminster, hot 'ore Lord DENMAN and s
Special Jury.)
VIE QUEEN V. CUTTS.
Mr. Knowles and Mr. Prentice appeared for the pro
secution, and Mr. Sergeant Shee and Mr. Bramwell for
the defence.
This was an indictment for perjury, alleged to have
been committed by the defendant in an answer to a bill
in Chancery, which answer he filed in the month of Juue,
1848. The circumstances of the case were these:—The
defendant was an attorney and solicitor residing at Little
Bradfield Hull, in the county of Essex, and near his resi-
dence were sisuated certain lands, to which Edmund
Salmon (the prosecutor) and his brothers became en-
titled under the will of an uncle of theirs, named John
Smith. A part of this property was bought by the
defendant at a sale by auction, which took place in 1845,
and for this part, which consisted of three fields'adjoin-
ing the prepilty of the defendant, he agreed to pay s
sum of 2,500/. In 1847, the transaction not having ban
completed, Joseph Salmon, one of the brothers, filed s bill
in Chancery against Mr. Ci.tts, to compel him to complete
the purchase. In his answer to that bill he set forth.
circumstances in which he denied his liability under the
bill then filed against him, but in the follodwinsgaulon,
another bill was filed against him by Edmund ucnontract
plhainvntittrer
and the object of this bill was to 0.1
re-
scinded, on the ground that the
bill had been wrongfully induced o
ok lands
p a chea.d been
thele defendant, under
inin
ttoh itsh see ccoonnd.
tract, and had been so induced. by
by his answer to this bill, denied
aal ethtoe
sold. The defendant, .ll
it,and expressly negatived
the allegations contained
cr..
whose advice and bydwhohseicdhirsejaceti
giving the adviceun
both sides, these for
Wit-
nesses were called on Lse the prosecu-
tion g sweart
-I, that the advice was given by the defendant,
while those who were called for the defendant stated
that the trustees of the parties entitled were the persons
on whose advice the sale took place.
Lord DENMAN summed up the evidence, leaving it to
the jury to say on which aide there appeared to be a
balance of testimony.
The Jury retired for a considerable time to consider
the verdict, and finally found a verdict of Guilty on the
fii st assignment of p rjury contained in the indictment.
This was an assignment which alleged that the defend-
-I.nt had advised the persons entitled to the estate, that
they had better sell hand divide the produce.

- ----- -
Ain. MACREADY.—At the close of Mr. Macreadee
performances at the Birmingham Theatre on Friday
night, ho was called before the curtain, and delivered
the following short address:—" Ladies and gentlemn.
your pa-
it is not my intention to trespass long upon
tience, but I really cannot resist the impulse that prompts
me to thank you for the fervent, may I not "Y enthusi-
asticcmpensates for
reception with which you have honoured
all the au-
me—a re-
ception which I assure you,
noyances I have been called on to encounter elsewhere.
with your leave return to complete my
—(Applause.) With the early spring, ladies and gen-
tlemen, I :hall,
unfinished engagement. and then I shall be able more
fully to express to you the pride and gratification I feel
that those patrons profession with such indulgence on
the opening. ot wynal- career, hare' continued
my undeviating and constant 'fiends to its present close.
111 r. Macready retired amidst the most enthusiastic sr
plans&

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

ROUSE OF LORDS, July 3.
Their Lordships assembled at Five o'cicek.
BEER SHOPS.

The Bishop of NORWICH presented a petition from
ll*inhabitants of St. Giles•in-the•Fieldi against the
pread of beer shops.
THE MAIIRATTA WAR.

The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH rose to state the
circumstances under which 'booty taken from the enemy
in the Mahratta war in India had been granted by the
Crown to the East India Company or to the Indian army.
This property had been transferred to the East India
Company, which was in point of fact the Government of
India, but that transfer in no way respected the private
interests of the individual directors of the company. Ac-
cording to universal custom, with certain reservations as
her Mejesty might be advised to make, the booty in
question had been made over to the Court of Directors
and the Indian army. Confiscation implied power over
the object confiscated, but the property in question,
situated in the state of Lahore, belonged to the
enemy in the Mahratta war, and it could not
be rightly confiscated by the Governor-General
of India according to the principle which he (Lord
Ellenborough) had laid down, for that property was not
in the power of the Governor-General of India. That
pmperty, consisting of all the state jewels of Lahore,
wias acquired by war, was retained by right of conquest;
it never changed hands, and belonged, therefore, to her
Majesty in right of her crown, and the Governor-Gene-
ral of India had no right to dispoie of it. It was a
matter of policy, as well as of justice, to deal with
this property as the law directs, without throwing any
difficulties in the way of its legal appropriation. If this
booty, which belonged to the Crown, as he contended,
were not conceded to the army of India, the army of
India wr,uld have no reward whatever.
The 'Marquis of LANSDOWNE said he would inter-
pose no objection to the production of the papers fur
whif.:h the Noble Earl had moved. The question was,
hcr.v far the state property of Lahore was to be consi-
dered as booty of war, and bow far it was to be consi-
dered as state property, liable to the provisions of a
treaty? He held in his hand the treaty applicable to the
case in point, one of the articles of which was that all
the property of the state, of whatever description and
wheresoever it should be found, should be con-
frscated in part payment of the debt due
Iron the state of Lahore to the British
Government. Upon that treaty rested the right of the
East India Company to the property which they had
acquired, and the right of the Queen of England to the
precious stones to which reference had been made by the
Noble Lord.
The Duke of WELLINGTON thought the most re-
gular mode of proceeding would be to leave her Majes-
ty's Government to settle this question with the Court of
Directors, He must do the Governor-General of India
the justice to say that his Noble Friend (the Earl of
Ellenborough) was mistaken if he supposed that the
transactions in question recently performed in India
had not been well and maturely considered by the
Noble Lord in his recommendation to the public autho-
rides of this country.
Alter a few remarks from Lord GLENELG,
Lord BROUGHAM said the Governor-General of
India could not change the nature of the property in
question by anything that he did. If the property
was booty, using the word " confiscation" was a little
inconsistent with all idea of treaty. Confiscation seemed
to him to exclude the idea of contract.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH replied. There was, in
his opinion, enough in this case which rendered it in the
highest degree necessary that this matter should be fully
and judicially considered.
After a few _ words from Lords CAMPBELL and
BROUGHAM,
Lord ELLENBOROUGH consented to withdraw his
motion.
Lord CAMPBELL laid on the table a Bill to empower
the Crown for one year to appoint a sheriff for the
county of Westmorland; which was read a first time.
On the motion of Lord BROUGHAM, a copy was
ordered of certain correspondence, in which the General
Board of Health had taken part, relative to the printing
of official reports in the octavo instead of the felio form.