The Sun.
London, England, 1849-03-28 00:00:00

FRAN CE.

M. Napoleon Bonaparte presided at the popular
Electoral Committee held at the Hotel de Ville yes-
terday. A number of operatives were present, who
loudly cheered the sentiments given expression to by
the Emperor's nephew in a speech in which he declared
his strong disapprobation of the reactionary tendencies
of certain political celebrities.
Napoleon Bonaparte has prepared an amendment
to the budget of the Minister of the Interior, allocat-
ing a sum of 25,0001. towards the erection of a monu-
ment to the memory of the late Marshal Ney.
A letter from Toulouse states that the votes for
Municipal Councillors in that city, at the election
which took place a few days since, were divided
amongst the political parties in the following propor-
tions :—For the partisans of henry V. and of the
Count de Paris, 16,202 votes; for the partisans of
Ledru-Rollin, 8,306 ; and for the friends of Louis
Napoleon Bonaparte, 1,608. The friends of the Pre-
sident of the Republic assert that this result is to be
ascribed to the exertions of M. Delmas, the Prefect
of the Department, whose Legitimist tendencies are
well known.

FRANKFORT.
The Frankfort papers state that M. Pfordten has
declined the Regent's offer respecting the formation
of a Cabinet, and it is stated that M. Korner, who
was also sent for, has taken the same line of action.
The three persons whom the Oberpostamts Zeitung
now mentions as likely to suit the Regent's views are
the Count Lerchenteld, Baron Konneritz, and M.
Ileckscher. The Austrian members have of late
(since the division on M. Welcker's motion) thought
proper to ask for the protection of the Speaker of the
House. They complain of the contemptuous treat-
ment they receive at the hands of the other members.
This
seems somewhat pusillanimous in a victorious
party.

STATE OF TRADE.
(From the Manchester Guardian of this d:iy.)
MANCHESTER, MARCH 27.—Although the mercantile
letters from llamburgh do not manifest much appre-
hension of actual war, they have received a complexion
from the military preparations in progress, which has
led the German merchants to keep still more de-
cidedly aloof from busim ss to day than they had
previously dune. Advices from Trieste have produced
a similar effect to those from the northern entrspot of
Germany. As might be expected, letters from Leghorn
and other Italian markets continue to give such un-
favourable reports of trade, ef money matters, and of
the difficulty of procuring hills upon England, as to
prevent anything being done for those places. At
the same time, the purchases of the Levant houses
have been of very limited amount, and effected with
extreme caution. As, under these circumstances, the
offers for yarns fur the continent have been insignifi-
cant iu number, much uncertainty must necessarily
attach to quotations: it is unquestionable, however, that
sales have not been practicable except at some conces•
sion from the rates of this day week. And the recent
accounts of twist, by the Overland Mail, have operated
so injuziously upon India qualities as to occasion a fur-

ther &cline in their value also. In spinnings, for
h•:rile manufacture, ih--re is, too, an iiicreas,d dul-
ness, and prices are rgain lower. The goods mar-
ket has not been quite so flat as that foryarris. The
sale, however, have been altogether on a very restricted
scal,7, and not accomplished without a giving wsy,
in most things, from the rates of last ~eelc. The trans-
actions are mostly for India, China, the Levant, and some
of the American markets. The home-trade houses are
buying exceedingly little. In all departments the
market has been an unsatisfactory one, marked by a
general tendency to lower prices. But touch irregula
rity exists. Some producers (chiefly of cloth) are still
pretty well situated as regards stocks and contracts,
and they manifest considerable independence and
firmness.

RocuroiLE, MARCH 2G.—The flannel market to-
day has been extremely inactive, and one of the
dullest we have had this year. Very few buyers have
attended, and those showed no disposition to purchase.
In the wool market there has been little or nothing do-
ing, but former prices are well maintained.
HUDDERSFIELD, MAOCH 27.—Goods adapt: d for the
spring trade were quickly sold at the opening of the
market. The general complaint is that there is such a
scarcity of goods fit for the spring trade. The orders
from America are very extensive, and the foreign houses
are all of them doing a considerabl! business.
HALIFAX, MARCH 21.—There is no noticeable change
since last week, either in worsted g, ods or in yarns, and
our last report might be repeated this wt.ele without
variation. Wool is also about the same, atel though it
cannot be quoted lower, is, perlisps, the turn in favour
of the buyer.
LEEDS, MARCH 27.—Our market continues very
much in the same satisfactory vs ay which we have
had to report lately; as yet, however, the transactions
for the home trade are only very limited, while the de-
mand for export seems to make up pretty well for the
deficiency in the former. Prices remain without any
material alteration.

REPEAL OF TIIE MALT AND HOP
DUTIES.

A county meeting, convened by Mr. R. S. Streatfeild,
High Sheriff of Sussex, in pursuance of a requisition
from 286 persons, being respectfully owners and occu-
piers of laud, bankers, merchants, traders, and others,
inhabitants of the county, was held yesterday at Lewes.
The requisition emanated from a meeting held at Battle
about a month since, when Mr. J. Villiers Shelley, the
unsucessful free-trade candidate at the last election for
East Sussex, presided, and resolutions were pass( d urging
on the Government the necessity of repealing the malt
and hop duties, and removing the fiscal and other burdens
which new prey on British agriculture, and praying for
the reduction of the national expenditure as the best
means of carrying out those objects.
The meeting assembled in the Corn Exchange, attached
to the Star Hotel, a room capable of holding between
2,000 and 3,000 persons; but an adjournment took place
to hustings erected in front of the County-hall. The
High-Sheriff presided; and among the influential persons
present were, the Earl of Chichester, the Earl of March,
M.P., Lord A. Gordon Lennox, Sir H. Shiner, Mr. R.
Prime, M.P., Mr. A. E. Fuller, M.P., Colonel Wynd-
ham, Mr. H. Wyndham, Mr. J. V. Shelley, Mr. John
Ellman, Mr. Walter Wyndham Burrell, Mr. W. D.
Lucas Sbadwell, Mr. W. Cuninghatn (late free-trade
candidate for Brighton), Mr. W. Townley Mitford, Mr.
John Borrer, Mr. E. Wyatt, Mr. W. Rigden, Mr. J.
Ide, &c. The requisition calling the meeting having
been read, cries of "Adjourn" were raised by the free-
trade party, and were met by shouts of " No, no," and
" Go on," from the Protectionists, who had takenl earl%
possession of the space surrounding the platform. These
cries alternated for a considerable tie e, till at length an
adjournment took place to the temporary hustings
erected in front of the Couney-hall.
Major CURTEIS said he was well acquainted with the
Rapes of Hastings and Pevensey, and could bear wit-
ness to the extreme distress of the farmers, unexampled
in the county, unequalled in the kingdom. The farmers
could not meet their engagements—their tradesmen's
bills and their taxes were unpaid; wages were being re-
duced, and their labourers turned off; not because the
labour was not wanted, but because the farmers had not
the money to pay for it. Rents were unpaid, or, if paid,
they had been paid out of capital; and good, useful
farms had been thrown on the hands of the landlords,
who were, in many cases, not in a position to occupy
them. He had also been informed by the stewards of
various properties in his neighbourhood, as well as by
the farmers, that unless some relief was given them
immediately they believed that one-third—he hed also
been told one-half—of them must fail at Michaelmas
next. This state of things was caused by the bad
crops of last season—(Cries of "Free-trade!")—and in
his neighbourhood by the heavy duty on malt limiting
the consumption of hops. There was no time, then, fur
delay. Whatever was to be done must be done at once,
or the ruin of the farmers would be completed.— (Lower
the rents.) He agreed that everything ought to he con-
ceded, and that forthwith, or the reliet would come when
ono half of them were done up. He and his family
were owners of considerable estates. As for himself, he
was also a large practical farmer. If the farmers failed,
he failed; if they went, he went. It would be madness,
therefore, in him to advocate anything which he con-
sidered to be injurious to the lauded or farming inter-
ests. Farmers bad no right to abuse Sir R. Peel and his
party.—(Cries of " Oh, oh!") Who forced Sir R. Peel
and his party on the country ? Who gave Peel and his
party a character?—(Bear.) Their present leaders had
counselled them not to depend on leaders, but on them-
selves. In what great question of agricultural politics
had their leaders ever led them on to victory. They
might, perhaps, have won a battle or two, but they
had always lost the campaign, and had bent obliged
to submit to terms ten times worse than those originally
offered to them. Their leadere would again deceive
them. The resolution of Mr. Disraeli, the other night,
was merely a tub thrown to the whale to put the farmers
on a wrong scent.—(Hear, hear; no, no.) Look not
(said the Major) to the hollow cries about protection
and free-trade, but stick to the malt and hop duties—
and they are gone; but, gentlemen, if you allow your--
selves, now that the malt and hop duties are more than
half repealed, to be hallooed a way—to be whipped off
the scent—in order to recover what you possessed fur
years, and were obliged to give up, you deserve, and
richly deserve, the ruin that stares you in the face. The
farmers had to seek one of three things—they must re-
gain protection, obtain a revision of local taxation, or
procure the repeal of the malt and hop duties. If it took as
as many years to get back such a protection as would prove
a relief to the farmers as it took to get free-trade, the
farmers would be done for; and his firm conviction
was that protection was gone for ever.—(Hear, hear,
and cries of " No," and "We will have free-trade.")
He bad heard the same stout speeches when free-trade
in wool was first established. Their leaders told them
they would compel the Government to go back to pro-
tection to wool. Did they?—(Hear, hear.) Protec.
tionist newspapers deceived the farmers when they said
there was a reaction in favour of protection. Why did
not the Protectionists oppose the return of M. Peel, son
of their dearly beloved friend Sir Hubert, for LeominAer ?
Why did Lord Lewisham say in Staffordshire that, al
though if he had been in Parliament he would have
voted against free-trade, ho would now give it a fair
trial?—(" It has had a very ruinous trial.") He said
that free-trade would not have had a fair trial till six
months after the next harvest, and not then, unless there
should be no cause either in England or on the Continent
to disturb the price of wheat. How many farmers would
be able to stand that trial? Judging from his oan
neighbourhood, he should say, net many. The average
price of wheat in the Channel Islands was about 465.;
this would be about the price of wheat in England, anti
any agreements by which the tenant was to give a rent,
based on higher prices, ought to be cancelled. Protec
don at all events could not be regained in a short time—
in time to prevent the ruin now impending over the far-
mer. As for a revision of local taxation, after the deci-
sion which the House of Commons had just come to,
that could not be obtained in the next year. The malt
arid hop duties would afford relief, and there was no
reason why the commencement of that relief should not
be as early as even a month. Major Curteis expressed
an opinion that, beset as the question was with difficul-
ties, the time was not distant when funded property
would be made to share the burdens of the country; but
at present he looked for a relief of the distress of the far-
mer to a repeal of the malt and hop duties. He then
moved—" That the malt-tax is unjust in principle and
oppressive in operation; that it possesses all the ele-
ments of a bad tax; that it is levied on the middling and
industrious classes, who are taxed highly in most other
articles of daily consumption; that, in addition to this
tax being chiefly raised from the industrious classes, the
malt-tax is most injurious to the farmer the demand for
whose produce is greatly limited, not only by the dimi-
nished consumption of beer, but by the restriction im-
posed on the application of malt to the feeding and fist-
tening of cattle."
Mr. IL SELBIES, the great breeder at Romney Marsh,
seconded the resolution in a free-trade speech.
Mr. J. Eeeefeer, after a lengthened speech in favour of
a return to protection, moved, by way of rider to the
resolution—" But that this meeting is of opinion that
if foreign barley be allowed to be imported, as at pre-
sent, at a merely nominal duty of is. a quarter, the bene-
fit which the British farmer would otherwise receive from
a repeal of the malt-tax would be principally enjoyed by
the foreign grower."
Mr. E. W YATT, of Chidham, seconded and
Sir H. SHIFFNER supported the amendment ; as did
likewise the Earl of March, Mr. Prime, and Mr. Fuller.
Mr. SHELLEY opposed the amendment, and desig-
nated protection as a " humbug."
The Earl of CHICHESTER spoke against both motion
and amendment.

The rider and motion were then put to a show of
hands, amidst great confusion; but
The SHERIFF declared the result to be the adoption
of the amendment.

Major CIIRTEIS and Mr. SHELLEY loudly protested
against the unfairness of this decision; and the uproar
became so great the Sheriff dissolved the meeting shortly
after four o'clock.

TEMPERATURE.—Yesterday morning, at an
early how, the temperature was down es low as 3 I degrees
Fahrenheit; on Sunday morning it was even still lower;
falling to 28 degrees. Since Monday, the barometer has
11-en lulling rapidly—yesterday morning it stood tt
29 40; at four in the afternoon, it was 29.30 ; and by
seven P.BI. it had fallen still further ; being then 29.26.
This would seem to indicate a sudden change of weather
—probably a storm.—Manchester Guardian of this day.
LERWICK, MARCH 24.—S1d. Hamilton Ross, Green-
land; William Wald, ditto; Revolution, ditto; Flamingo,
ditto; Mary, ditto; Dublin, ditto; Swallow, ditto; Tra-
veller, ditto; Turk, ditto.

OFF FALMOUTH, MARCH 24.--London, Gunton, Mau-
ritius. 25th; Admiral, New Orleans, for Hamburgh.
26th, Rapide, Bockelman, Batavia, for Hamburgh ;
John Patchett, Capon, Rio Janeiro; Nornpolen, Soder-
berg, Dabi4 for S69Ckla9ka.

STANFIELD-HALL MURDERS.
NORFOLK Att.ilZES—Nonwicß, TULSDAY.
(Before Mr. Baron ROLFE.)
To-day Lir. Baron Rolfe opened the Criminal Court
for these assizes, as the Shire-hall, Caste-hill. The
atrocious murderi at Stanfield hall, the alleged perpe-
trator of which is to be tried at these assizes, has given
them an interest far exceeding an ordinary ass.ze visi•
tution, and the city of Norwich is fast filling wilh visi-
tors from all parts of the surrounding district, anxious
to be present at the trial, although, from the size of the
court, comparatively few can be accommodated, beyond
those who are officially required to be present. To-day
the attendance was not numerous, as it was known that
the proceedings would be merely preliminsry; but there
was a large attendance of magistrates, including the Earl
of Leicester (lord-lieutenant of the county), and other
gentlemen on the roll of the grand jury.
About eleven o'clock Mr. Baron Rolfe entered the
c•itirt, and the grand jury having been sworn, with the
lion. Edward Keppel Wentworth Coke, M.P., as their
foreman, and the usual proclamation against vice and im-
morality made,

The "Leareeil JUDGE proceeded to charge the grand
fury. Ile said—Gentlemen of the granu jury, I am
happy to be able say, c-n this, the first occasion that I
have had the honour to address you, that the present
calendar is not a very r.umerous one, nor, with one re-
markable exception, Goes it present any cases of vary
great atrocity. But there are two or three to which I
think it necessary to call your attention, w ith a view to
guide you iu the due discharge of your duty. (His
Lordship then commented upon the c!rcemstauces con-
nected with some of the other cases in the calendar, and
then proceeded.) I have now addre:sed to you all
the observations which I think it necessary to
make of this character with the single excep-
tion of that atrocious case which I hinted at
in opening my address ; and you may possibly
expect that upon this case I shall make many
observations. But having read over the depositions in
the case, on the most mature reflection I think I shall
best discharge my duty by saying little or nothing ; and
for this reason—the party is charged, as you know—for
I need not pretend to doubt that—with the commission
of one and even of two murders, and of two other acts
which are very analogous to murder. Now, it is tine
that cases of a charge of murder often present questions
of great nicety and difficulty. It is often difficult to
ascertain whether death was cccasioned by the particular
act charged, as in a charge of poisoning ; and we are
often obliged to grope in the dark to ascertain whether
death was occasioned by the wicked act charged against
the party, or by the visitation of God. There are other
cases in which it is matter of great difficulty and nicety
to distinguish between acts of murder and those of
manslaughter ; and no doubt other difficulties will
easily suggest themselves to your minds. And
when cases of this kind occur, it is the
duty of the judge to point out to the jury what the
lines of demarcation and distinction are, with a
view to help them to arrive at a reasonable conclusion.
But in this case there is no sort of difficulty. Here it is
clear to demonstration that a barbarous murder has
been committed by somebody. There is no question
here as to what caused death—there is no question as
to the character of the offence—the single question is,
whose was the hand that did it? I have, therefore, no
observations to make on this case which are not common
to all cases that come under the cogoizance of the courts
of law. You will have the depositions before you, first
of the parties who were more or less present at the
commission of the crime, and who will speak, or who
are represented as speaking with more or less certainty
of the prisoner as the party by whom the act was per-
petrated. That is a sort of evidence which the human
mind eagerly grasps at; and yet it is necessary to look
upon ev.dence of that kind with more suspi-
cion than upon other evidence, which, at the
first blush, may not appear to be so direct to the point;
and for this reason, which all experience goes to
confirm, that no one is so apt to be mistaken as when
speaking of a person who has been concerned in a sun-
den outrage when they have had little time to observe
his appearance. That is a general observation, but un-
doubtedly its effect may be weakened; where more than
one speak to the identity of the party, or where the
parties have been known before the doubts which attach
LO this kind of evidence may be removed. You will
have before you some evidence'of that sort. You will
also have other evidence tending to fix;the guilt upon the
prisoner in consequence of his conduct about the time.
It will be for you to consider that conduct, and to
judge whether it is consistent with guilt or with in-
nocence. Farther, you will have evidence tending to
show that there were great and important motives in-
ducing him to commit the act charged against
him. Now, the absence of motives in any case
proves nothing, if the act itself be otherwise cleat'
established; for who can dive into the human heatrio
say what a man's motives are? But when the question is
who committed the crime, it is a satisfaction to the mind
to know that attaching to a particular party there are
circumstances which might have induced the party to set
about the commission of this particular offence. You
have, therefore, what may be called evidence ti priori—
evidence at the time, and evidence of his conduct after-
wards. It is for you to view this evidence, carefully
divesting your minds, as lam sure you will, of all that
you may have heard beforehand, and. to consider, does
the evidence satisfy you- that the prisoner is the guilty
party. If so, you will find the bill against the prisoner;
if not, your duty to the prisoner, and I may add, your
duty to the country, will induce you to throw out the
bill. Gentlemen, I have no other observations to ad-
dress to you, and I now request that you will proceed in
your duty.
The grand jury then retired, and several bills were
laid before them, which they returned, and the trials
proceeded. We understand that the bills in the case of
Rush will not be laid before them till to-morrow.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
HoME CIRCUI F.—Kingston, March 27.
CIVIL SIDE.—(BeI ore Mr. Baron PARKE and a Com-
mon Jury.)
LOUT/ V. DRUMMOND, ESQ., M.P.
This was an action to recover a sum of money upon a
contract alleged to have bsen entered into by the de-
fendant to engage the plaintiff as bailiff for a year, and
to give him 1004 salary and other emoluments.
The defendant pleaded that he had never made such a
contract, and paid 14/. into court as satisfaction of the
plaintiff's claim.
Sergeant Shee and Mr. Brown were for the plaintiff,
and Mr. M. Chambers and Mr. Peacock for the de-
fendant.
It appeared that the plaintiff in this action had for-
merly been a farmer, and extensively engaged in agri-
cultural pursuits, and for four years he had been farm
bailiff and steward to Sir William Geary upon his estate
at Oxenheath, near Tunbridge.. In September, 1847,
Sir William having declined farming, the services of the
plaintiff were no longer required, and ho then put an
advertisement in a daily paper offering himself in a
similar capacity to any other gentleman who might bo
in want of a bailiff. The defendant, who is the
Member fur West Surrey, and who has an estate
at Albury, near Guildford, answered the advertise-
ment, and in due course the parties met, and it would
appear that Mr. Drummond was referred to Sir W.
Geary with regard to the plaintiff's ability, and that he
was satisfied with the answer; and on the 20th of Octo-
ber the plaintiff was engaged by him for a year as a
principal bailiff or steward, at a salary of 1001. a year;
and he was, in addition, to be allowed a house to live is,
and vegetables, and milk and butter for his family, and
also keep for his horse. In pursuance of this agreement
the plaintiff removed from Sir W. Geary's with his wife
and all his furniture, and took up his residence in the
house provided for him upon the estate of the de-
fendant, and entered upon his duties; and it did not
appear that the defendant made any complaint respect-
ing him. After he had been a few days at Albury he
was desirous of returning to Oxenheath, tie attend the
sale of some stock for Lady Geary, and he applied to
Mr. Drummond for permission to do so, which he
granted; and the plaintiff, accordingly, had only been
away a very few days, when, to his surprise, he
received a le&r from Mr. Drummond informing
him that he must have perceived before that time that
the place did not suit him; that he (Mr. Drummond) did
not want a bailiff merely to give orders, which he could
do himself; but that he wanted some one to see that
they were attended to, which, as he (plaintiff) was al-
ways in the house, he could not do, and it concluded by
advising him to vet Lady Geary to recomm.-nd him to
some other situation. The plaintiff at this time had
not been more than a fortnight in Mr. Drummond's
service, and there bad never been any complaint made
against him, and he was, therefore, quite astonished at
receiving such an instruction. He immediately returned
to Albary, and at his request a gentleman named
Ramsay called upon the defendant in order to endeavour
to elf, ct some arrangement; but it appeared that, al-
though Mr. Drummond did not allege any ground of
complaint against the plaintiff, he insisted upon
his leaving the premises, and asserted his right to dis-
charge him at a month's notice, as though he had been
an ordinary menial servant. It would appear that a
few days after this the plaintiff received a letter from
Mr. Drummond, informing him that he had instructed
his attorney to take the necessary steps to turn him out
of the house which he occupied it he did not remove, as
he wanted the house himself, and on the 27th of De-
cember the plaintiff was forcibly expelled, and all his
furniture Was removed from the house by several men
acting under the authority of the defendant. The pre-
sent action was brought to recover the sum of 1951., 1004
being for the year's salary, and the remainder for the
house rent and additional allowances that were agreed
upon to be given by the defendant.
A number of witnesses, farmers and others, were exa-
mined for the purpose of showing the competency of the
plaintiff to fulfil the duties of tho situation be bad un-
dertaken, and it appeared from their testimony that he
had manage d a farm of 1,700 acres for Sir W. Geary, and
that he had materially improved the estate. It was also
stated that he %las a capital judge of stock, and that
his stock was very much admired, and it appeared that
while in Sir William's service he had given entire satis-
faction.

Mr. Ramsay, the gentleman referrtd to in the above
statement, proved that he had known thel plaintiff for
twenty years, and at his request he ca? led upon Mr.
Drummond to see if any arrangement could bo made,
and he handed him over the park keys, and al,o a
balance that was due, and then gave him a statement of
the accounts. After this had been done he gave Mr.
Drummond a statement of the plaintiff's demand upon
him, which was 1951. 155.; and lie lookud at it, and said
he did not think ic was so touch. Witness then told him
that he had understood the plaintiff was hired as steward
for a year, and in that case he was entitled to six months'
warning, the same as for a farm. The defendant ad-
mitted he had hired him for a year, but seemed to think
he had the power of discharging him by a month's notice.
Witness then inquired if he had anything to complain
of respecting the plaintiff that he wished to get rid of
him so quickly; and he replied that he had no com-
plaint to make, but it did not suit him to keep him,

Witness then said that he could not go away inazi3o-
- and reminded the defendant that he bad incurred
a considerable expense in bringing his things to Albury;
to which the defendant replied, " .1 can't help that." Be-
fore he left, the defendant slid he had received a good
character of the plaintiff from Lady Geary, and he should
give him he same.

- Evidence w;+s then givca to show the forcible removal
of the plaintiff from his cuttl.,,,e by persons acting under
the authority of the defendant. The horse was turned
loose out of the stable ' • his goods were put into the
street, and he was obliged to take up his abode for the
night in ti:e village public-house.
Mr. CHAMBERS, for the defendant, relied upon three
points—first, that the contract had not been established;
secondly, that the plaintiff, by giving up the keys, and
rendering up his account, had himself cancelled the con-
tract, if one really existed; and, thirdly, that supposing
no contract existed, all that was required was a month's
notice, and that there was no difference between the po-
sition of the plaintiff, as bailiff, in this respect, and that
of any other farm servant.

Mr. Baron PALKE, in summing up, left it to the jury
to say whether the contract rt-lied upon by the plaintiff
had been proved, and said, if they thought it had the
plaintiff was mid& dto a verdict. He also left to them
the question whether it was their opinion that, according
to the custom of farming, a person in the position of
bailiff' or a steward might be discharged, under ordinary
circumstances, by merely receiving a month's notice.
Tie jury alruoi t immediately returntd a verdict for
the plaintiff for the full amount claimed, less the sum paid
iot.coort.

His LORDSHIP then askid thorn their opinion with
regard to the power to discharge a bailiff by giving $
month's warning; and
The jury repli,, d that such was not the custom.
HASPER V. REECE.
In this case, is hich was said to be one of breach of
promise of marriage, Mr. Sergeant Shee informed the
Court that the defendant had consented to a verdict pas-
sing against him, with 1001. damages.

OXFORD CIRC 111 I:—Monmouth, March 26.
CROWN COURT.—(Before Mr. Justice COLTMAN
Frederick Williams, 22, pleaded Guilty to an indict-
ment charging him with stealing a pig's cheek, value 25-•
at Langstone, the property 01 James Bowen.
He was then tried on another indictment, which
charged him with cutting and wounding John Morgan,
constable, in the execution of his duty, with intent to
kill and murder him. To this indictment he pleaded not
guilty.
The prisoner was committed by the magistrate on the
charge of stealing the cheek, and given into the custody
of the prosecutor, a constable, to take him to the Uslc
gaol. He was handcuffed to Morgan, and went quietly until
they came to the turnpike-gate leading into the town
of Usk, when he observed that it was a hilly and /noun'
tainous country, and immediately struck the officer
violent blow on the head. A scuffle ensued, when both
fell; but the prisoner being the strongest man, mastered
the prosecutor, who, it would seem, was nut deficient
in courage, but the odds were much against him; he vale
thrown to the ground, the prisoner knelt on him, took a
knife, and tried to cut Morgan's throat, after which he
put his finger in his right eye, and endeavoured to forte
it from the socket; the poor fellow managed to turn over
on his face to protect himself, when Williams cut him
with the knife severely on the throat, forehead, and ear-
He tried to get the key of the handcuffs from Morgan
pockets, but did not succeed. A Mr. Churchill passed by
on horseback, and gave an alarm, on which the prisoner
attempted to cut his own throat, but Morgan prevented
him, and in doing so had two of his fingers and the back o
his hand badly cut. The prisoner was eventually secured
and lodged in gaol, the unfortunate constable was almost
smothered in blood, and in such a state that his relit'
tivcs could not recognise him. On surgical examination
of the prosecutor, Mr. Greatwood found a wound on the
right side of the face which partially divided the ear;
it was five inches in length, and divided the integumEntg
completely, extending to the cheek bone. On the 000
were two wounds, one over the carotid artery, which
was greatly protected by the neckerchief Morgan wore.
The prisoner was found Guilty on the fourth count,
charging him with assaulting an officer, with intent t°
escape from legal custody.
Mr. Justice CoLT3IAN sentenced him to betransported
for 15 years, and ordered three guineas to be given W
the prosecutor.

N o less than eight prisoners were transported in the
course of the day for sheep stealing and horse stealing•

THE REV. JAMES SHORE.
" We have received (says a morning contemporarPt
the following letter from Mr. Bouverie, accounting to
the discrepancy between our statements and his 0",
with reference to the case of Mr. Shore. The esl3l;
nation afforded, whilst it admits the statement whic,
Mr. Bouverie impugned to be substantially coffee"
amply exonerates him from the blame of wilful or Pre.
alp; tate misrepresentation":—

Sir,—l am very unwilling to obtrude on you, or, tc:
occupy your valuable space with a personal matter; but
I owe it justly to you, still more than to myself,' T."
refer to your article of this morning, in which mean,
is made of my name in connexion with the proceedieF
against Mr. Shore in the Arches' Court.
In it you reiterate, and confirm, by reference r
proper sources of authority, the statement of an article
which appeared in your columns some days ago, an,„
the accuracy of which I thought it right to question,
the House of Commons, on Wednesday last. The state:
merit was this—that the Bishop of Exeter had proceeded
against Mr. Shore to depose him; and I owe it to you
to acknowledge that I find, by reference to " Robertson'
Reports" (vol. i., p. 390), that, though the articles against
Mr. Shore certainly did not pray his deposition, yet °cll..
ieunsel against him did, in the course of the proceed
ings in the case, submit that ho ought to be depose'
from the ministry.
I find too, in the report of Sir 11. J. Fust's judgment,
the following passage, as correctly extracted by you' he
" When the case came originally before the court, the
prayer at the conclusion of the articles was, that
should be admonished to abstain from performing ev'"
siastical duties or divine offices in the chapel in questio4
be canonically punished according to the exigency of To
law, and be condemned in the costs. As I understand, 11;
prayer now made to the court is not to the same effe!ch
Id I confess I am not prepared to go beyond that Whi
is a canonical punishment."
I am bound to admit that I think this sufficiently If
rants the statement which I contradicted.
I owe it to myself, while apologising to you falai o
given the contradiction, to satisfy you that I bad Or
grounds to justify my doing so.
I enclose to you a copy of the printed es Case 00
half of the respondent," in Shore v. Barnes. laid, on 10,
part of the Bishop, before the Privy Council, fr
which (with the other documents laid before that et).
embracing the proceedings in the Arches' Court below)'
I drew my knowledge of the case in the ecclesiastle
Courts.
A copy of Sir H. J. Fust's judgment in the ArOle°
Court, authenticated by Mr. Robertson, is given ifirtrivi
the Bishop's ca.e, submitted on his behalf to th° „0.,4
Council, from which I extracted the following pans"ed
which, after referring to the articles of the charge, I re
without comment in the House, as the ground for DV
contradiction of your statement.
" When the case came originally before the COur4,
the prayer at the conclusion of the articles was, that h
should be admonished to abstain from performing ear'
•
siastical duties or divine offices in the chapel in question;
be canonically punished according to the exigency of Old
law, and be condemned in the costs. As I understa
the prayer now made to the court is to the same ,
and I confess I am not prepared to go beyond that whit'
is a canonical punishment."

You will observe that there was a "not" absent here;
which is to be found iu the other report, quoted by 311,111;
self, and that " and in this report appears as "butve
the other; conEequently the fair inference from the °
is exac4 the reverse of that from the other.
The contest inclines me to the opinion, that the J- 4,0
ment as given in the " Reports" is correct, and that givi;
in Mr. Barnes's " case for the respondent," is voir°l3,o.
but I had every reason to induce me to rely on the oc-de
racy of the latter, or I should certainly not have '1)10
the statemeht I did, nor have thus given you the trou
to read or insert this.—j am, your most obedient servant,
March 26, 1849. EDWARD P. Bout/-VIO•

A FLESHLY GHOST.—After several drovers 13114
finished their labours at the market here, on the evening
of Tuesday last, and bad partaken of supper, one of thei"
—an old tar who had seen service in foreign lands-'
determim d to play a practical joke upon one of his Collici
rades. accordingly slipped out, and having d0.",,e.,4
a white sheet, he waited at a part of the road which
',—
companion, a sturdy son of the mountain, had to Pats.
The Llighlandman, when he approached the spot, °Li'
served the apparition, which came lorward muttering
strange unearthly sounds. The Highlandman, nothing
daunted, exclaimed, "Be ye deevil or be ye dragon, I'll
try what ye're made o'!" and suiting the action to the
v, ords, he dealt the "ghost"
the face with a stout oaken staff.
a m e mTehned oguLt blowme
measured
its its length on the road and roared out, "It's me, John."
" Shust be Join' ,what ye've gotten
would-be ghost now repents him of the manghleedn.' Thetis -
ronpiece which his fully was the means of procuring him!
Arbroath Guide.
f'

BIRTHS,
On
the at Averham Rectory, Notts, the wife o f
the Rev. l2t
. -
of a daughter.
On the
na
24th inst., at Lower Seymour-street, Portnitt
square,
Mrs. Llewellyn Mostyn, of a daughter.
On the 25th inst., at. Compton Castle, Somerset, the 101 l
4t h
Sutton,inst ~
of J. M. H. Tourin, Esq., of a son.
On the 25th inst., Mrs. Charles Rivington, Queen-square'
(,f a son.
On the 25th inst., in Mecklenburgh-square, the lady of
G. Abbott, Esq., of a daughter.
On the 25th inst., at Lausanne-house, Margate, the ladY of
Lieutenant- Colonel Stott, of a son.
On the 26th inst., at Tunbridge-wells, the wife of the gel'.
B. F. Smith, of a daughter.
_......-

heobala. T
On the 21st inst., atMARRIED
St. Mary's, Cheltenham, --mar
Theobald, Esq., of Drayton-lodge, Aunts, to Elizabeth of
garet, second daughter of the late John 'l'. Justice, lA'
Parliament-street, L ndon.

I DIED. ,
On the 21st inst., the Rev. W. S. Chalk, rector of Wilder'
Beds, aged 56. lf 1111
At Ryhall, Rutlandsbire, on the 22d inst., the Rev- ----e
Chaplin, aged 59. pcl•
On the 23d inst.,.at Louth, Lincolnshire, J. Jackson,
io
!Esq.,
On the 23d inst., aged 76, W. Jautardi late of 1
Audit-office.
At Brighton, on the 23d inst , Miss Edith Musgrave', th ir
a+,
daughter of the late Sir Christopher Musgrave, Bar'
Eden-hall, Cumberland, aged 18.
On the Atli inst., at Eaton-terrace, Eaton -square, - Elio
beth, the wife of Reading Littler, Esq., aged 70.
___a.

--7,6 of
London: Printed and Published by MURDO YOI:Th
No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sun Office, N 0 a
Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the COIW,'
AlidalViaN7 wednesaah.march 28,1899.