The Sun.
London, England, 1849-05-02 00:00:00

LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, MAY 2 1849.

fences against the person which were not attended with
t vinlencre enrtengerireglife. Sue!) r tfenee hod ee for-
!
me( ly puniehed with drofh. 1,1!- 1 :.;.
and the effect hair been oat sus .p ,L):;
had irxre,s,d, Taking. the seven year sis his pr, (t.
the abolition of capital punishments, as compete d with
the same period which followed, offences had more than
doubled. He (lid not mean to argue that this increase
of crime had been occasioned by the mitigation which
had taken place in penal punishments, and he only made
the statement to show that statistical facts could not be
relied upon as a criterion to form a judgment on the sub-
ject. The relaxation of punishment with regard to
forging documents for the delivery of goods was attended
with the same result, us forgery had increased. With
rr gard to the statement which he had made last year,
with reference to burglary, he hnd been charged with
making a wilful mistake upon the statements he had on-
' fered to the House, and yet it had been proved with re-
gard to burglary, that offences of that description, since
the penalty of death was removed, had taken place be-
tween nine o'clock at night and six in the morning,
He did not, however, rely
umpoorne
fifrequentlyu tt
araznk
ebde *tohree.
House to consider the sub-
ject upon principles of common sense, and to say whe-
ther the time had come when it would be safe to
do away with capital punishment?—(Hear.) Next, with
regard to treason—it was argued that it was not a crime
to which capital punishment should be extended,
and it was described as an act of cold cruelty to de-
prive the offender of life; but he would ask the House
whether such a description could apply to the case
of a party who entered upon a course which would in-
volve the country in bloodshed, and, in its consequences,
lead to results that would deprive thousands of lice?—
(Cheer:.) His llonourable Friend said he hoped they
would not yield upon this question to the vindictive feel-
ings of the public. He, however, thought it was most
desirable that the public should be impressed with a
consciousness that the law was strong enough to protect
them, and that they were not required to protect them-
selves. He was of opinion that if capital punishment
was abolished, it would give rise to acts of private re-
venge which were at present kept down by the convie•
tion of the power of the law to inflict adequate punish-
ment. The Honourable Gentleman then adverted to
the practice of public executions. With regard to them,
he thought that nothing would be more injurious than
the anxiety to witness these executions, and the facilities
which were afforded, for the sake of gain, to witness
them. He begged, however, it might be understood
that public executions were not essential incidents
to capital punishment, as might be inferred from
the practice in foreign countries. It was alleged that
' certain judges were favourable to the abolition of
capital punishment; but it should be taken into con•
aideration with regard to this allegation, that the
msjority of the judges examined before the Lords' Com-
mittee on this subjeet were In favour of retaining it, and
that the Committee, after hearing the evidence of the
judges, were unanimous against the abolition of capital
punishment. He hoped the House would not allow the
Honourable Member to place the Bill upon the table of
the House, and not encourage any illusory expectation
of the abolition of capital punishment.
Mr. BRIGHT said that it was well known that the
early Christians did not inflict death, and it was known
that a Roman Emperor removed Christians from the
office of Yrtetor, because they could not carry the
punishment of death into execution ; this was the prin-
ciple of Christians for the first ages of the Christian re-
ligion. In Belgium, Tuscany, Austria, and Sweden, the
punishment of death was but rarely inflicted, and mur-
thre were much more infrequent there than in
Spain or Ireland, where capital punishments
were not infrequent. Could they believe that
any punishment would deter such a man as Rush
from his grave offence? It was premeditated, and every
precaution taken to escape detection, and was deliberately
perpetrated. Take the case at Bristol; that was not
premeditated; but the fear of death did not prevent the
perpetration of the crime. With regard to public exe-
cutions, people were collected together to see these exe-
cutions fur example; but there were none of the persons
wno went to witness these scenes who were not injured
by the exhibition. Then, with regard to the execution
at Bristol, what could have been more disgusting titan
to see six or seven men dragging a girl of sixteen to the
scaffold, and the clergyman coaxing her to go quietly to
execution? Then there was an execution at Brecon,
and when the sentence of death was tpassed upon the
man, a companion in the court cried out, " Now, Jern,
die grime;" and he did die game, as they eoueidered it.
The effect of this suggestion was that he was preparing
his mind to brave the law, and was more intent upon that
than in attending to the instructions of the clergyman.
Why, he woull:ask, did the newspapers give such
lengthened accounts of these executions but that there
was a desire, on the part of the public, to read these
accounts, from a morbid feeling of curiosity to know
what was connected with the death of a criminal, arising
from what was, in some respects, a sentiment of vindic-
tiveness against the convict? He had seen cases of that
kind which were very striking. Some time ago a young
man at Stockport shot a young woman with whom he
had been living, and was hanged at Liverpool. Shortly
after another stabbed a young woman also, and he suf-
fered death: but since that another murder of a similar
description was committed at Leeds; two in different
parts of the country, following each other in such rapid
succession, that he believed the effect of the notoriety
given them was to create the offences.—(Hear; hear.) If
the punishment, fur example, were perpetual imprison-
ment, they could relax it in the case of a deserving cri-
minal, and continue it to those who did not deserve
such relaxation. Besides, the present system often in-
duced men to commit murders, because juries often
seized on objections which were not valid, and fre-
quently acquitted the most notorious criminals.- He
himself had seen a letter from a medical man, in
which he stated that to his own knowledge
four persons were acquitted, and then at large,
who were notoriously guilty of murder, but escaped in
consequence of the state of the law. The Right Hon.
Baronet must recollect the case of the two men at Dur-
ham lust year, charged with the murder of the Duke or
Cleveland's gamekeeper. One of those men was found
guilty and hanged and the other acquitted, on the ground
that he did not fire the shot which deprived the man of
life, whereas at that moment it was believed that the
man acquitted was really the person who fired the shot;
and what was more, two persons were now in gaol for
another murder arising from motives of revenge out of
the murder of the gamekeeper. Indeed it was well
known that so great was the terror inspired on the occa-
sion, that many witnesses examined for the prosecution
he would ask the Right Hon.
might be murdered
for
redngttiloev
giving
egaanve, ev td%hnhenyoce.o u:atsr y Now,i t
letshtettheAynnette Meyers was
respited, and Harriett Thomas executed? Both were
equally guilty of murder in its most dreadful form.
He (Mr. Bright) rejoiced that Annette Meyers was
not executed,
family
indeed,
expressing
s itahge time,a w
wish
receivedtha t hae
of -the soldier, which did
Itehtetnner fromm uoh
h credit,ae n dfa,
should state to the House their anxiety that
ahe should not be executed. These things evinced how
perfectly impossible it was to be impartial in these cases.
He (Mr. Bright) really had commiseration for the Right
Hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department.
Ile had a veto in all those cases given him by the law—
the whole responsibility almost fell on him when he had
to take each case into his consideration, after they were
adjudicated on by judges and juries, and his difficulties
were every day increasing. He had been in the habit
lately of referring cases of that description to the judges,
and without venturing even to insinuate anything dero-
gatory to those eminent personages, differences of opi-
nion might arise from feelings entertained on the subject
before the House. In one case a deputation waited on
a judge, and stated as their reason for asking a commu-
tation of punishment, that they were opposed to capital
punishments altogether, and his reply was that he could
not listen to such a reason, but that he should be happy
to hear any which he could consider, as he was most
unxious thej execution should lot take place. Deputa-
tions of that description were of frequent occurrence,
and it was hardly necessary to say that they - indicated
the anxiety of the public mind on the question. Then
there was a case at Monmouth, where a memorial was
Sir G. GREY—Not on the merits.
presented to the Right Hon. Baronet.

ij. ;t

Mr.—BIZIGIIT—Not on the merits, certainly, but
pr Lying that it should not take place at Monmouth.
Then, at Bristol, 3,500 Wome❑ sent IT a memorial in

favour of Harriet' Thomas, and five different religious
congregations for the same object. The Mayor and
corporation of Gloucester did the same, showing that
puolic opinion was miming hostile to the system now
pursued.- An iutimato friend of his (Mr. Gilpin),
whose name when the question was settled would be ever
remembered with gratitude for his exertions in the
cause, informed him, that at upwards of fifty meetings
at which lie attended, in various parts of the country,
he bad never witnessed before, no matter how exciting
or interesting the subject might have been, any question
which gathered together larger assemblies, or filled
larger roomy than the present, not to condemn pas-
sionately or foolishly the abolition of punishment by
death, but tc, consider and discuss it, calmly and dis-
passionately, and from these meetings all but unani-
mous declarations in favour of the principle of the pre-
sent motion were come to, which was a good test of what
the public feeling was on the subject.—(Hear, hear.)
The Right lion. Baronet had, however, one difficulty in
considering this question ; he was under the impression
that the opinion of the House was against such a propo-
sition. Such may be the notion entertained in the
House of Lords, where it was said by some one, on the
presentation of a petition from Lancashire in its favour,
that its prayer ought be granted as a punishment to the
people of that district, fur their tenacity in seeking it.
But such was not the case in that House. He believed
five-sixths of lion. Members never considered the ques-
tion at all; and he was also convinced that, if the Right
Hon. Baronet proposed a measure for the abolition of
capital punishment, scarcely a Member in the House
would be found to oppose it; or, if so, only to the length
of limiting the duration of the measure for a few years.
For the grounds stated he implored the Right lion. Gen-
tleman to give the question his best consideration; and
for his own part he shouid support the motion of his
lion. Friend the Member for Dumfries.

Ztlr. HOME DRUMMOND regretted to see on every
side increased sympathy for murderers. Murders had
increased in intensity, and ho believed it was so in con-
sequence of the debates in that House, and the syrn-
p.viny shown:for murderers el,evvhere, so that the people
thought that murder, after all, was not so great a crime,
and Si) it Was thought 113 little of as during the middle
ages. The Honourable Gentleman said they cAild
mitigate and modify the punishment ; that they could
modify in some cases, and, in fact, in others let them
out altogether.

Mr. ITRIGIIT observed that the Hon. Gentleman
mistook him altog-ther. What ho said was, that in
oertain deserving cases the punishment might be miti-
gated, but in no case whatever would he consent to have
a murderer return to society.
Mr. DRUMMOND begged the Hon. Gentleman's
pardon. He should, however, give the motion every
opposition in his power, convinced, as be was, that—

" Whoso mhccideth mar's by tu,u shnuld his
Fe shed."

n

!I ihr

interp.a tea trot. to pu:. do- Lx' , . a,
its b: aring on the subj. et then indier wa4
nor, however, prepared to vote for the motion of his
Hon. Friend, because it seemed to him that they had
not at present arrived at that point in which they could
say there was any uncertainty or difficulty in obtaining
convictions when murder was committed. On the other
hand, it appeared to him that there was an increasing
dislike, growing up to convict in capital cases. He had
seen it in the county which he had the honour to repre-
sent, in ,he instance of semi. most atrocious cases. About
two years ago a woman was tried for poisoning her hus-
band, and, notwithstanding the evidence given, she was
now at large. So convinced was the prosecutor of her
guilt, that she was tried again. A second indictment was
preferred against her, but she, was acquitted, one of the
jurors subscquomtly stating that she would have been
convicted but for the punishment of death. In the fol-
lowing year another ennui was tried and con icted, bet
in the present a third was tried and let off: Be (Sir E.
N. Buxton) certainly did think it was right they should
watch the course taken by jurors, and if they found there
was an increasing difficulty in getting a conviction in
cases of murder, he certainly should be prepared to
support the question. Although he could not then con-
vince himselt that he should be acting right in voting
for the motion, yet, as to the expediency of putting an
end to the present mode of public executions, he had no
doubt whatever.—(Hear, hear.) A person was no doubt
publicly tried in a court of justice, but it was in a room,
and it was impossible that more than a limited number
of persons could be present. Executions might take
p!:ce within the precincts of a gaol, for example, so
that, while they maintained the principle that the ends
of justice should be satisfied, only a certain number of
persons, as witnesses, should be present to see the law
curried into effect. On these grounds he could not vote
for the motion of his Honourable Friend ; but he con-
fessed he came to that conclusion after much difficulty
and doubt.

Mr. BROTHERTON should support the motion of
the Hon. Member for .Durntries, and as to what had been
said by the Right Hon. Baronet and others, that the time
was not as yet come to make the proposed change, he
wished to know what sign they were to have when it
should come? The great end of punishment was refor-
mation; but capital punishments did not prevent crime,
and demoralised rather than improved those who wit-
nessed them.
Sir G. STRICKLAND said ho hoped to live to see
the time when capital punishments should be abolished
altogether. From the infirmity of human tribunals the
innocent had often, he was convinced, suffered as guilty.
Then he thought that they should not have recourse to
a punishment which never could be recalled.
Colonel THOMPSON said he did not think that
transportation had all the effect attributed to it, but he
thought that expatriation, under hopeless circumstances
of ever returning, might, in many instances, he substi-
tuted for threepenny-worth of rope and the hangman.
—(A laugh.) At present transports were buoyed up
with the hope of returning home, or of obtaining a par-
don, or at least a material mitigation of the severity of
their punishment; but if the murderer were deprived
altogether of that hope and banished for ever to some
tar distant country, that he believed would be a safe
substitute for the degrading s.) stem of public executions.
Sir GEORGE GREY said he hoped that, from the
tone of the debate respecting the punishment of trans-
portation, an erroneous impression would not be conveyed
to the country. No Governor had the power of exer-
cising the prerogative of mercy, nor could any convict
escape the severity of his sentence, xcept by the exercise
of the prerogative of the Crown.
Lord NUGENT said that capital punishments had a
tendency to increase crime, and therefore the punish-
ment of death was unnecessary and unjustifiable. The
majority of the Judges were in favour of the abolition of
this punishment. Several eminent criminal lawyers
were of the same opinion, and their reason was that
within their knowledge several persons had suffered
death who were innocent.—(lleiir.) Ile would entreat
Hun. Members, it' they had any doubt on this subject, to
remember that if they thought there was an) thing in the
argument in laveur of abolition, every year was a year
of unjustifiable bloodshed.—(Hear.)
Sir H. VERNEY could not yet make up his mind to
abolish the punishment altogether. Public executions
were abhorrent to the feelinca of humanity, and some
other mode of executing criminals should be devised, if
that punishment was to be continued. A gentleman
who had seen Rush executed had informed him that he
was convinced it a criminal was soon no more after sen-
tence of condemnation it would have a greater effect
upon the public mind than the preeent system.
The house then dividsd, when there uppeared—
For tilt motion
Against it ...
Majority
The motion was consequently lost.
CROWN PROSECUTIONS IN IRELAND.
Msre. ItioEthOeGgHenpe
rraolcemedane dagteomeeanitl
otficieroawttn ention of the
prosecutions
in Ireland at assizes and sessions, and to the expendi-
ture incurred in those prosecutions. The expense of
those prosecutions to the country in 1847 amounted to
71,0001., while in 1830 it amounted only to 37,5001.,
showing an increase in the intermediate period of 34,000 k
per annum. There was no effectual check upon this ex-
penditure, and the uncertainty attending the trials was
so great that offenders speculated upon an acquittal. It
was perfectly well known that extensive alterations had
of late been made in the criminal laws; and, therefore,
the counsel taking charge of criminal prosecutions should
have a good knowledge of these alterations. He had
moved last session for a return as to the conduct of
criminal prosecutions in a certain county in Ireland, but
that return had not yet been made.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said it had been laid
on the table.

... 75
... -24

.Mr. KEOGII said he should have been glad to have
seen it before it had been laid on the table.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he had not been
aware of the circumstance till now.

Mr. KEOGII continued, atid said that a great portion
of the duty of the Crown solicitors devolved upon the
stipendiary magistrates, who were riot, from many cir-
cumstances, qualified to perform the duty.—(hear,
hear.) The consequence was, that the people felt there
was what was tantamount to a deniki of justice, for
the people were astute enough to see that where the
chances of escape were so numerous, justice was but im-
perfectly administered, and the matter, therefore, called
for immediate investigation. He thought he had laid
sufficient grounds to induce the Government to
grant an inquiry, and he was of opinion if a Committee
were granted, that a system might be devised which
would give them a cheaper and certain system of admi-
nistering justice in Irelund.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL thought that tho
matter might be safely left in the hands of his Right
Hon. Friend the Irish Attorney- General. His Right Hon.
Friend came into office in '4B or in the latter end of '47.
As the Crown Solicitors were paid by fees, it was not to
be wondered at that they should be desirous of increas-
ing-ta to this
t h ini s
abuse,lB3s (
andM
her.
Bl
the number of counsel, and of course the number of
briefs. The Irish Atttioorinoeuy
calledGrrier
his attention
the counsel to the number of
:lestobeuiri ne
an)
order had hil
two, allowing that in certain cases an additional counsel
should be called in. The Right Hon. Gentleman then
went on to explain in detail the mode which the fees of
the Crown solicitors in criminal cases in Ireland were
under the old system so largely increased. When the
present Attorney-General (Mr. Monahan) came into
office, or soon after July, 1848, he issued an order that
the practice should be uniform on all the circuits, and
directing other arrangements as to the employment of
counsel, namely, that in certain cases one counsel only
should be employed. There were other minor arrange-
ments for reducing the expenses of Crown prosecutions,
and he (the Attorney-General) thought that the arrange-
ments which had been made by his Right Hon. Friend the
Irish Attorney-General were highly honourable to
him. lie held in his hand a return which showed
that in the season before the new arrangements
came into operation, 37$ Crown prosecutions had
been carried on, at an expense of 3,2231. 10s. Since
the new arrangements had been acted upon, the return
showed that 348 cases had been tried, at an expense of
8761. The House would, therefore, see the great re
ductiou which had been effected already by the Irish
Attorney-General, and when ho heard his Right lion.
Friend blamed for the mode in which he had conducted
the prosecutions, he was happy to be able to refer to
the opinions of men who were well acquainted with his
c:,nduct, and who gave that conduct their deeidt d ap-
proval. The Hon. Member (Mr. Keogh) had alleged
that there was u failure of justice, because the Irish At-
torney-GeLeral would 11,t, prosecute for patty larcenies;
but he thought his Right lion. Friend was quite right
in acting upon that principle.—(Hear, hear.) He was
of opinion he had sufficiently answered the statement of
the lion, and Learned Member (Mr. Keogh), and ho
trusted therefore he would withdraw the motion.
Mr. KEOG II explained.

Mr. O'FLAHERTY was glad to hear of the reduc-
tion of the expenditure which had been effected, and
hoped it would be continued.

Mr. HENLEY felt that the statement which had been
made of the former practice in Ireland in Crown prose-
cutions was so startling, that there was great reason to
rejoice that the reform had been carried so far, and he
trusted it would be still cmied farther.
Sir W. SOMERVILLE said a few words, after which
the motion was withdrawn.

CORPORATION OF LONDON.
On the motion of Mr. DIVETT a retnrn was ordered
of all, moneys paid to the Chamberlain of the City of
London by persons either nominated or elected to the
office of Sheriff of London and Middlesex, with the date,
cause, and amount of each payment, and the names and
addresses of the respective payers, from the Ist of Ja-
nusry, 1800, to the present time; stating also the amount
received in each year, the sum total, and the purposes
to which the money was applied by the Corporation of
London.

IRISH RAILWAYS.
Mr. KEOGH asked for leave to bring ;1 a Bill to fa-
cilitate the transfer of land to railway companies for
railway purposes in Ireland,—Leave given.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL next obtained leave to
bring in a Bill granting relief against defects in leases
made under powers of leasing in cPrtain cases.
The House then adji,urne-d at Nine ,)'Click.

ESCAPE OF 'lwo CONVICTS.— W OOLVVICII, MAY 1.
—About twelve o'clock last night two convicts escaped
from the convict hulk Hebe, recently moored in the
river near the west end of the Royal Arsenal. One
of them is named Charles Lsnker, 28 years of aga, a
Sheffield,i
native of and cutler by trade. The other s
named Thomas Bradbury, 19 years of age. He was a
native of Coventry, and followed the occupation of a
hawker.

Lord Carington, the High Sheriff of Bucks, and the
Town Clerk, had an interview with Sir George Grey
yesterday.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
VICE CHANCERY COURT, May 1.

:311- .1 1

IC; UT B

SoTER

• ei motion for an injunction to fesii,.4.o. toe
cis feriliant :rum preventing the plaintiff from having ac-
cess to the books of account in the partnership in the
bill mentioned, and from exercising the rights of a part-
ner. The plaintiff alleged that early in 1848 he in
vented a beverage called " Tortoni's Anana," and gene-
rally known as " Soyer's Nectar," and that he entered
into partnership with the defendant, John Gibbs,
for the purpose of making and selling said
beverage, and that in consideration of said
partnership, and also of the undertaking becoming
the property in equal moieties of plaintiff and said de-
fendant, the latter brought 2001. into the concern, and
prenni,es were taken for the business in Rupert-street,
Haymarket. The capital not being sufficient, it was agreed
that Gibes should bring in 200/. wore,which was to he con
sidered as a debt due by the partnership. Subsequently,
in the same year, it was agreed between them, that the
derendant, Alexis Benoit Soyer, of the Reform Club,
should be admitted as a partner, it being considered that
his 'mule would be of great advantage, and it was agreed
that be should bring in 100/. only, in consideration of
his acquiring one-tbird interest in the concern, the two
previous partners each retaining a similar share. In
September, 1848, it was agreed, for the further extend-
ing the business, that the defendant, Richard Baker, of
Bisson's-grove, St. John's-wood, stockbroker, should
be admitted a partner into one-forth of the business.
on consideration of his bringing 1,0001. into the con -
cern. It was also agreed that the 2001. advanced
originally by Gibbs should be charged to the plain-
tiff's share, that each partner's share should be one-
fourth, that " the manufacture and sale of Soyer's
Nectar should be common to the four partners, that the
agreement be for seven years, and that the firm be called
Soyer and Co." The plaintiff alleged, that during the
old partnership he had kept the secret of the manufac-
ture of the beverage to himself, but that the defendant
Baker refused to enter into the partnership unless such
secret was communicated, and that accordingly on the
execution of the agreement it was communicated. Dif-
ferences soon arose, which ultimately led to the present
proceedings, and to the arrest of the plaintiff by Mr.
Groowridge, one of the creditors of the firm.

His HONOUR directed the partnership to be dissolved,
as from this day, without prejudice to any question, the
defendants within 48 hours to discharge the judgment
obtained by Groomridge, without prejudice to any ques-
tion, they to be entitled to credit in the account for what
they shall pay to Groomridge. His Honour likewise
directed a reference to ascertain and arrange, on equit-
able terms, the interests of the respective parties.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner FANE.)
IN THE BANKRUPTCY OF SAMUEL BENNETT.

This bankrupt who was a draper at Islington, Came
up on the question of certificate.
Mr. Linklater supported. The bankrupt was op-
posed on behalf of the Leicester- square Loan Society.
The ground of opposition were misrepresentation to
his creditors, and the vexatious defence of an action.
Mr. LINKLATER contended that his client had
acted with perfect sincerity and honesty, and that
at the time those representatives were made the
bankrupt's books showed that he had not
in any way misstated his position, and that as
soon as he found himself in difficulties, he placed his
affairs in the hands of accountants, who were concerned
for his principal trade creditors. As regarded the
second charge, the plea was put in for the purpose of
preventing the Loa❑ Society sweeping away the pro-
perty under an execution.

The COMMISSIONER said, as the plea had been put
in for the purpose of protecting the other creditors,
much of the blame which would otherwise attach to
such a proceeding was pardonable. Under all the
circumstances he would grant the certificate.
A bankrupt named Chappell, a wine merchant in
Water-lane, Tower-street, came up on the question of
certificate, which was suspended for two years, on the
ground of reckless trading. The debts and liabilities
were about 1,7001., and there was not a penny for the
creditors.

POLICE IN' ELLIGENCE.
MARLBOROUGH-STREE'P.
A well-dressed man, who gave the name of Henry
Edwards, and who is supposed to be a clergyman of the
Church of England, lodging at No. 8, South Molten
street, was charged, before Mr. Bingham, with having
indecently assaulted George Gough, a young country-
man, living at 42, James-street, Oxford-street.
The prosecutor stated that about three o'clock on Sa-
turday afternoon he was proceeding along Oxford-street,
when the prisoner, who is a perfect stranger to him,
accosted him, and asked him to have some porter. Wit-
ness accepted the offer, and they went into a public-
house, where they had a pint of porter between
them. When they came out of the house,
witness thanked the prisoner and wished him
good afternoon. Witness then walked away, and
had got as far as Regent-street, when the prisoner came
up to him again and asked him if he had been to tea.
Witness replied that he had not, when the prisoner said
if he would take him where be could have some tee, he
(the prisoner) would pay for it. Witness then took
him to a public house in Shepherd-street, but as they
were entering the tap-room the prisoner observed some
men there, and refused to go in. They had a pint of
porter at the bar, and then left the house. The pri
soner then took him to his lodgings in South Molton-
street, and desired him (witness) to wait at the
door whilst he ran upstairs. The prisoner then left
him, and after a few moments' absence he came down
and asked witness to follow him up stairs. Witness did
so, and went into a room at the top of the house. The
prisoner then gave him half-a-crown, and, subse-
quently conducted himself in such a filthy man-
ner towards witness that ho ran out of the
house. The prisoner followed him, and.•on witness
meeting with a constable, he gave the prisoner in charge.
The constable whp took the prisoner in charge said be
found upon him several letters, addressed to the Rev. R.
8., 1, South Molton-street, where he had been lodging
about a week.
The prisoner, who denied there being a particle of
truth in the statement made by the prosecutor, was fully
committed for trial.

CLERKENWELL.
William Jackson, a portly- looking man, six feet high,
was brought before Mr. Combe, charged at the instance
of the board of directors of St. Pancras parish, with
having committed a burglary.in St. Pancras workhouse,
and stealing twenty sovereigns and 155/, in silver.
The prisoner, who has been a patient in Guy's Hos-
pital, with a broken leg ever since February last, was
brought to the court in a cabriolet, and was supported
into the presence of the bench by the officers with the
aid of a pair of crutches, and his foot in a sling sus-
pended from his shoulders. He appeared to suffer great
pain, looked very pale, and was allowed a seat in a chair
near the space allotted for solicitors.
Mr. Howarth, the barrister, attended on the part of the
parish to conduct the prosecution,
Mr. Cosfee asked the prisoner if his health was
sufficiently strong and restored to have the case pro-
ceeded with ? The prisoner replied in the affirmative,
but he would prefer a postponement, as he expected
Mr. Huddiestone, the barrister, wham he had retained
to attend for him.
After some desultory conversation it was resolved to
take the necessary evidence to warrant the remand of'
the prisoner, when
Mr. Howarth stated the case for the prosecution,
which was a reiteration of circumstances which have
already appeared before the public.
It may be recollected that on the night of the Bth of
February the strong-room in the workhouse where the
property had been deposited was broken into, and, 20
sovereigns and 1551. in silver was stolen; and on the
same night the prisoner was found within some area
railings near the workhouse wall, where his cries for help
brought assistance, and he was conveyed in a cabriolet to
Guy's Hospital, Borough. On the following morning
the robbery
,was discovered, some housebreaking imple •
silents were found in the washhouse, and near the spot
where the prisoner made the alarm were found some
skeleton keys, a large pair of list shoes, such as are used
by housebreakers, and a dark lantern, &c. There was
little doubt that the prisoner was the perpetrator of the
robbery, and having afterwards dropped from the work-
house wall tell within the railings and met with the acci-
dent to his leg, which was of a very severe description;
but there was so much mystery about the case that for
some time a few of the parish functionaries were sus-
pected, until a reward was offered for the discovery of the
cabman who drove the prisoner on the night of the rob-
bery, and of the person who was attracted by the pri-
soner's cries and who assisted him over the railings into
the cab. They were at length traced, and on the pri•
soner being visited by the officers he was identified as a
returned transport.
Mr. Henry MiGahey was called, and deposed that he
is son of the vestry-clerk of St. Pancras. On the night
of the Bth of February last he deposited 155/. in silver
and 20 sovereigns in a box in a drawer in the strong-
room. On the following morning the cashbox was
found empty on the floor, having been forced open, and
the property was missing.
Mr. Joseph Lye, compositor, of the Metropolitan-
buildings, St. Pancras-road, deposed that at about 12
o'clock on the night of the Bth of February last he was
passing near St. Pancras Workhouse when he heard
cries for help, and discovered the prisoner within some
iron railings, leaming_with his back against the wall. He
begged of witness to help him over the railings. Wit-
ness asked him, " What was the matter?" and helped
him over. He said that a man had thrown his hat over
the railings, and on clambering over to get it again he
fell, and had broken his leg. Witness said, "I had
better ring the workhouse bell and obtain assistance."
Ho objected to that, and begged of witness not to do so.
He said he had no business at that end of the town; ho
had been drinking with some friends, and wished to avoid
exposure, and would thank witness if he would put him
into a cab. With great diffieuky ho did so, and he was
driven away.
Mr. Howarth—flow high were the railings? Wit-
ness—Four or five feet high.
Mr. COMBE—Had the prisoner the appearance of be •
ing drunk? Witness—He hsid the appearance of having
been drinking a little, but he was not drunk. He was
exceedingly agitated and excited.
Mr. Benjamin Lamberd, of Gray's-inn-road, one of
the board of directors of St. Pancras parish, had accom-
panied the directors to the strong-room on the morn-
ing of the robbery, and found a crowbar and screw-
driver, &c. (now produced). The place had been broken
into.

James Hale, an inmate pauper of the workhouse, was
called, but was too drunk to be examined, and was or-
dered to stand down.
Jeremiah Lockerby, 180 S, being, called, said he had
every reason to believe that he slsould be enabled to

produce sufficient evidence to substw tat ft ft: charge of
tel9ny against the priscil,,,r it ho wa4 re Tn,t,:e-'•
umBE aklted tlitt prisoiftc • •

pled, at Shirk

Mr. CONDE said he would retna.iiii tm, as he WO
anxious to have his legal advocate present, who, it was
said by Mr. Howarth, was unavoidably absent. He then
remanded the prisoner, with instructions that all the De
ct ssary evidence should be brought forward at the next
and final examination.
SOUTH WARK.
William Leigh and Augustus Crossly, alias Cosa,
were brought before Mr. Cottinghatu for re-examine'
tion, charged with conspiring to obtain money by false
pretences, as agents for collecting advertisements for
the Watchman, Nonconformist, and British Banner'
weekly newspapers.
Three cases were selected against Leigh, from which
it appeared that he followed the avocation of newsPre.,
advertisement agent, and in that capacity had s,oliciteu
advertisements iron thre, traneinen fur insertion in the
above journals. He had received a commission
each advertisement from the newspaper in which it or
peered, and there, as far as he was concerned, the tYpria;
action should have been at an end. However, instead();
adhering to that course of business, it was proved di!,
he subsequently called upon each of the advertisers sod
received the amount of the insertions, which he devoted
to his own purposes without any authority from the
parties to whom the money was due, and the discover/
of this fraudulent mode of doing business was brought t°
light when the bills were sent in from the newspapers ,„
question.
The necessary evidence to establish the &Ogre
against the prisoners having been produced, and the':
solicitor (Mr. Roberts) having contended that
it
not sufficiently strong to come within the meaning atm"
Act,

The MAGISTRATE expressed his intention to send tlig
cases for further investigation before another tribulum;
and in doing so, remarked that under the circumstance!'
as it was a bailable offence, he should adjudge the
soners to enter into their own recognizances in 401. al",
and two sureties of 201., to answer the charges at the
next sessions.

LAMBETH.
The Rev. John George llounsfield, chaplain to the Earl
of Airlie, and who stands fully committed to take
trial at the ensuing sessions at the Central Crinol
Court., on a charge of obtaining 2001 from Mr. hiao3tl
a meat salesman, by false representations, was brook,
from Horsemonger-lane Gaol for the purpose of putt:l4
in the required sureties to appear and take his trial. .
Mr. Newton, the barrister, appeared on behalf of "tua
prisoner, and tendered as bail for his reverend
Sir Robert Price, of 11, Stratton street, Piccadilly, Or
of Foxley, Herefordshire (one of the magistrates
that county. and M.P. for Hereford city), and Mr. H0!..,11
Dick Woodfall, of 14, Great Dean's-yard, Westmingol'
printer.
A clerk to the solicitor for the prosecution said Ih-S1
the names of the parties tendering themselves as bail ',.n°
the prisoner had not been given in until a late hour "-
Saturday evening, and the time for inquiry was thee:
fore se short, that the understanding was that the gel!
tlemen should not present themselves before his Wool*
before four o'clock. ' -

e
Mr. NORTON said, he was perfectly satisfied with 4h
-A
solvency and respectability of the gentlemen who offi,,_
themselves as bail, and their sureties haviag been 0.00
in 1001. each, and the prisoner's in 2001., the latter "vi
discharged from custody.