The Sun.
London, England, 1836-04-02 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY, APRIL 2, 1856.

been done, it is ~ratifying to see that the Lesislatnre
is anxious, though the Government may be passive or
indifferent. A great change has taken place in the
feeling and opinion of Parliament respecting poor laws
for Ireland since Mr. James Grattan first hinted at
such a measure in the House, when he was assailed
with a shout of disapprobation enough to deter a man
of weaker nerve from ever opening his mouth on the
subject again. But facts are stubborn things; and,
though we concur with the Dublin meeting in regard-
n) the suggestions of the Poor Law Co'mmissioners
as timid, unsatisfactory, and ineffective, we are grateful
to them for having collected a mass of evidence—which
more than supplies tile deficiency of their recommen-
dations—which has forced the question on the consi-
deration of the country, and, we doubt not, will carry
it to a successful result, in spite of the theories of. po-
litical economists and starvatioli philosophers. We
look forward to the approaching discussion with
anxiety, and shall watch its pt ogress with all the atten-
tion which its importance deserves.—Morn. Herald.
Two months of the present Session of Parliament
have passed away ; and what are the lessons they have
taught us ? Rather let the Tories ask themselves the
question—what have become of all their confident
predictions—their bold, unqualified assertions respect-
ing their own strength, and the weakness of the friends
of liberal measures ? They were, on the meeting of
Parliament, to exhibit the formidable majority of 70 or
80 against Ministers ; and the Melbourne Adminis-
tration was, as a matter of course, to be ejected from
office in the short space of one little month. Parlia-
ment met, and on the first trial of strength —the amend-
ment to • the Address—the Tories, instead of their
promised majority of 70 or 80, found themselves in a
minority of 41. Yes ; but then " the waters were out."
The Conservative saviours of their country were inter-
cepted in their passage to the House by a heavy fall of
snow. The Tories are an unfortunate class; the very ele-
ments, it seems, are at war with them. The snow, how-
ever, atlength vanished ; it relented in its hostility; it suf-
fered its Conservative victims to proceed to the sphere
of their legislative duties. Of course, then, the majority
on the next trial of strength was in their favor. How
stood the fact ? On Lord Francis Egerton's " instruc-
tion" stratagem to defeat both Ministers and the Mu-
nicipal Corporation Reform Bill for Ireland, the Tories
found, to their unutterable mortification, that instead
of turning the scales in their own favor, and turning
Lord Melbourne out of office, the majority against
them had swelled to sixty-four. On a still more recent
occasion, Sir R. Peel's attempt to throw out the same
Bill on its third reading, the Tories found themselves
in a minority of sixty-one, which, considering the re-
lative numbers present on both occasions was a larger
minority than the previous one of sixty-four. So
much for the truth of Tory predictions, and the de-
gree of faith which ought to be put in Tory asser-
tions. Still we must say that the country has not
yet much on which to congratulate itself. The only
measure of paramount importance—the Irish Muni-
cipal Reform Bill—which has passed the Commons,
has yet before it the dangerous passage of the Upper
House. There, we fear, it is sure to be strangled, as
are all measures of national benefit and political ame-
lioration, so long as that House continues constituted
as at present. The only possible means of securing a
safe transit of the Irish Municipal Reform Bill through
the House of Lords, is the same unequivocal and ge-
neral demonstration of public opinion on the subject.
The hereditary Legislators must be taught, in lan-
guage which can run no risk of being misunderstood,
that neither the people of Ireland, nor the friends of
liberal principles in this country, are any longer to be
trifled with, especially when, in a case like the pre-
sent, their demand for an act of equal justice to the
latter kingdom, is backed by the stern logic of a majo-
rity of sixty-one Members of the House of Commons.
Let the people of the three kingdoms, therefore, be up
and doing. Let petitions to the Lords, urging them
to pass the measure as sent up to them by the Com•
mons, forthwith pour in on them from all quarters. In
that case there is yet hope ; otherwise, there is none.
—Morning Advertiser.
What is the case of Lord Brudenell ? An
officer in command of a regiment brings a brother offi-
cer before a court-martial, and prefers against him
many grave and serious charges. Those charges are
investigated. In the course of the investigation evi-
dence is given, imputing to the prosecutor himself cer-
tain irregularities and improprieties. He is never
called upon to defend himself against the imputation.
The finding of the court-martial acquits the accused of
all blame, and inflicts a severe censure upon the ac-
cuser. His Majesty confirms the finding, and re-
moves the prosecutor from his command to half-pay.
We omit all consideration of the justice or injustice of
the finding of the court-martial, of the fitness or unfit-
ness of the approval of the King. We are anxious to
assume nothing but what is universally conceded. The
officer thus deprived of his command entertains a strong
conviction that he has not merited the blow inflicted
upon him ; that the terms of the finding of the court-
martial convey a wholly erroneous impression of his
conduct ; that the approval of that finding by the King
shows that the erroneous impression has produced an
unhappy effect upon the Royal mind. He presents no
petition to Parliament ; he flings no pamphlet
from the press ; he impugns no man's mo-
tives ;he courts no man's favour. Believing that
an officer ought to seek redress from every wrong
at the hand of him whose commission he bears, he
addresses to his Majesty a manly but temperate memo-
rial, in which he earnestly solicits that the charges
which have brought upon him his Majesty's dis-
pleasure may be made the subject of investigation by
a Court-Martial, before which he may have an oppor-
tunity of urging whatever can be urged in dental or
extenuation of his offences. It is thought right to
refuse him the Court-Martial he prays for. For a
moment suppose this officer a Radical—thus deprived
of his command upon charges not only not proved but
not even formally preferred against him—charges which
Ire has vainly begged permission to meet before a proper
tribunal—what a story would this have been for the
Roebucks and the Wakleys ! How would Sir William
Molesworth have denounced the atrocious tyranny of
the Horse Guards ! But Lord Brudenell is not a
Radical ; and when, after suffering for two years the
penalty of faults which, at the worst, could have pro-
ceeded but from an injudicious zeal in the enforcement
of military discipline, Lord Brudenell is restored to the
career from which it was never intended permanently
to remove him, the malice of half-a-dozen spiteful in-
dividuals is exerted to prevent his Majesty from re-
ceiving into his favour a loyal subject, a gallant officer,
and an honourable man I—Morning Post.

;rator.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

HOME CIRCUIT—IONGsrox, APRIL 1.

The trial of criminal cases was concluded on Thursday
afternoon, and Mr. Baron Vaughan left for London, Lo
Chief Justice Tindall remaining to dispose of the civil
causes. The Court sat for this purpose after the morning
Church service.

by a verdict being taken for the plaintiff—Damages 2001.,
costs 40s.
It was understood that Mr. Pollock was to be the arbi-

WESTERN CIRCUIT.....LAUNCESTON, M4RCH 30.

SEDUCTION--HOCKING V. ANDREW.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff against the
defendant, for the seduction of his daughter. The parties
are both farmers, residing in Kilhampton, in this county.
The defendant is 'twenty-two years of age, the plaintiff's
daughter twenty-nine. Shortly before the unhappy catas-
trophe the young lady was living with her uncle ; the farm-
house contained two bedrooms ; in one of these rooms her
uncle and aunt slept, the other was divided into two parts
by a curtain. In one part slept the defendant, his brother,
and an apprentice, in the other the young lady and three
other females of the family. She confessed, on cross-exa-
mination, that two of the defendant's brothers, had occa-
sionally taken liberties with her.
The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Da-
mages, 40/.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT—LIVICRPOOL' MARCH 31.
The Assizes for the southern division of the county of
Lancaster commenced this day, in the Court-house, Chapel-
street, before Lord DENMAN and Baron PARKE, the former
presiding in the Crown Court, and the latter in the Nisi
Prius. The Grand Jury, of which Lord Viscount Moly-
neux was foreman, was briefly addressed by Lord Denman,
who expressed his satisfaction at seeing, under the new mu-
nicipal management, so large an attendance of Gentlemen
of the county. It reflected great credit to witness so many
Magistrates of the county taking so important a share in the
administration of justice. Neither at Liverpool nor Lan-
caster had he found one Grand Juror summoned who did
not answer to his name.
A man of forbidding appearance, named James Hey-
wood, was indicted for maliciously cutting and wounding
Thomas Yates, with intent to maim him. The indictment
set forth two other counts--viz., " with intent to disable
him," and " with intent to do him some grievous bodily
harm." The case was fully proved, and the motive of the
prisoner for the horrible crime appears to have been a suc-
picion on his mind that the prosecutor was improperly ac-
quainted with Mrs. Heywood.
The Jury found the prisoner guilty, and his Lordship
said that he would defer passing sentence.
Nisi Ratus.—GEE v. WOODWARD.—This was an action
for damages in an assault which took place in August last.
The plaintiff, who lives in Manchester, is a travellr in the
employ of Messrs. Pilkington and Co., spirit-merchants, of
that place. The defendant is an elderly man, living on his
own property, and resided as a lodger, at the time the as-
sault was committed, in the plaintiff's house. In August
last the plaintiff was met on his return from a short absence
from home by his daughter, the offspring of a former mar-
riage, who informed her father that in his absence she had
been ill-treated by the defendant and her stepmother. The
plaintiff immediately demanded from his wife an explana-
tion of the ill-treatment experienced by his daughter, when
he was referred to the defendant, who Ass in an adjoining
room (Mrs. Gee being at that
time in bed). When de-
fendant was applied to in like manner, he rushed out of his
bedroom and struck the plaintiff a heavy blow on the temple
with a blunt cudgel,, by which he was stunned. A scuffle
ensued, in which plaintiff was severely bruised by blows in-
flicted with the cudgel by the defendant, assisted by the
plaintiff's wife. A surgeon having been sent for to dress
the plaintiff's wounds, the defendant, accompanied by the
plaintiff's wife, who, it is stated in evidence, is between fifty
and sixty years of age, decamped, having loaded a porter
with their moveable effects. The defendant and plaintiff's
wife have, since that period, been living together as man
and wife in Stockport.
Verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 4001. 'F

NORFOLK ClRCUlT.—Nonwmff, MARcri 31.

THE YARMOUTH BRIBERY CASES.-REX. V. PRESTON AND

GREEN.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL appeared for the prosecu-
cution ; and Sir W. FOLLETT for the defence.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL stated the case to the jury,
and detailed the facts as afterwards stated by the witnesses.
T. Brown said—l live at Yarmouth, and am a caulker
by trade ; I have been a freeman for forty-five years. I
reside at North Quay. I remember the last election of
1834 and 1835. Messrs. Praed and Baring were candi-
dates on one side, and Messrs. Anson and Rumbold on
the other. The former were the Red candidates, the
latter the latter the Blues. I know defendant Preston, a
deal and ship merchant, and hemp merchant, in a large
,way of business. Defendant Green keeps the King's
Head.- Messrs. Praed and Baring canvassed me and
many more. Preston, the defendant, also was with me the
first time I was spoken to by the Red party, it was at the
south end of the town. I did not promise then. The
third time I was canvassed was on my own premises. My
wife was present in the yard. Messrs. Praed and Baring
were there, and Mr. Preston was with them. They so-
licited my vote for Praed and Baring. I said I had not
promized my vote for any candidate. I said I was employed
for the opposite party, and I considered them my friends
in respect of labour, and as such I had thoughts.to vote in
that line ; and while I was speaking the yard, Preston went
into my house, and talked to my wife. Do not recollect,
that my wife was in the yard. Preston went into the house
and the gentlemen again entreated me to vote, and left the
yard. After that 1 went into the house, and saw Preston
there. He then went out, and I do not remember his
saying anything. He came alone about three days after-
wards, about eight or nine in the morning. He asked if my
wife was in. She was up stairs at the time. Preston asked my
brother if I had made up m) mind to vote for their party, and
he said my employment was with the Blue party, and with the
Reds I had little or nothing. Preston said," If you promise
11l do all I possibly can for you." He said, I expect to be
mayor next year, and if so, I will do something for you,
and find you employment." I said I would not promise. I
want into the yard, and Preston remained in the house
alone. My wife came down just as we had done talking,
and I left her and Preston talking together. When I re-
turned, Preston was gone. In consequence of what passed
with her, I promised my voice that day in favour of Praed
and Baring, in the committee room opposite the Shak-
speare's Head (the Red committee room). I saw Green
about a quarter past ten. I was going to poll, and on going
out or the door Green said, " Thomas Brown, here are the
two guineas Preston promised your wife."
Sir W. FOLLETT made an objection, that what one per-
son said in the absence of another was not evidence.

His Lonositir would receive the evidence.

Brown continued—Green gave me two sovereigns, one
shilling, and two sixpences. I took the money home to my
wife. I told her from whom I had got it., and what it was
for. 1 voted for Praed and Baring about half an hour after
I had got the money. I should have voted for the Red
party if I had not received the two guineas, having pro-
mised them.
Cross-examined by Sir W. FOLLETT.—It has always
been the practice for every voter to receive two guineas for
whichever side he voted, and whether the party won or lost.
Everybody knew when the money was to be paid, and
where. This has been the practice for a long time in Yar-
mc.uth. Have voted for the Blues about forty years ago,
since which I have always voted for the Red party, wear-
ing their colours, and going with their voters to the poll.
I went on purpose to Green to vote, and had no expecta-
tion of receiving the two guineas that morning. The two
guineas had nothing whatever to do with inducing me to
vote for the Reds at the last election. My wife told me
that Preston had promised me two guineas. Won't swear
that before the committee. I had stated that I had no ex-
pectation to receive the two guineas. I won't swear that I
did not say that my wife expected the money. I had money
for going to London. I had one part, and my wife the
other. I may say my share was about 41. I received it
in the House of Commons. Don't know who paid my fare.
I paid for my living on the road. I got Soma money before
going, in Yarmouth, to cover my expenses.
Mrs. Ann Brown, wife of the last witness—l remember
Messrs. Praed and Baring coming to our house. Mr.
Preston was with them. In two or three mornings Preston
returned, about half-past eight, and after that I came down,
and heard Preston say, " Won't you promise, Mr. Brown ?"
My husband said " No," and then walked out into the
yard. Mr. Preston said, " Your husband won't promise ;"
and I said " He works for the Blues, and would be turned
out of employment." He said, " I'll find him employment
if you'll persuade him, and I'll bring you down two guineas
to-night at seven o'clock." I said I did not mind that so
much as I did the employment. He said, " Don't make
yourself uneasy, Mrs. Brown ; I will find you employment ;
I shall be mayor next year, I expect, and then
'l'll get him
a place." I said, " Well, I will persuade him. Ile said,
" Do you think you can ?" I said, " Oh, yes ; I'll persuade
him."
Cross-examined by Sir W. FOLLETT—When Mr. Pres-
ton called it was in December. There Mr. Preston sits,
and he knows he never came after he came about the
money. 1 thought a good deal about his being mayor.
I don't remember the last election. Have been married
twenty-one years. I remember my husband voting, in
1832, for Mr. Colville. If my husband received two
guineas he did not give it to me. Preston said something
about taking the children's freedom and the voting money
away. Before the Committee of the House of Commons I
told them that I said, " My dear, you must go to the Com-
mittee-room," and he said, " Not just yet," and I after-
wards persuaded him to go. I told the Committee that
I had told my husband about the two guineas. I first
stated that Mr. Preston had promised me two guineas
when the barristers came down to our house. It was
about ten days before we went to London, and I had not
named it at Yarmouth before that. The house had been
searched before then. A young woman had left a rug for
a debt. As soon as I heard it was stolen from Mrs. Lin-
der I took it to the owner, and she said I was an honest

woman. I don't know that the house was searched by the
order of Preston for property alleged to have been lost by
Mrs. Preston. Mrs. Walters told me that Mt s. Preston
had lost a great quantity of things, and Mr. Preston might
have caused the house to be searched. I had got Mr.
Preston a servant. I was certainly put into a gaol on sus-
picion of stealing Mrs. Linder's things. The girl *as tried,
'and I gave evidence before the Jury.
Re-examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL—Morley said
the house was searched by order of Mrs. Linder. It was
searched only'once, and Morley then found the stockings
and handkerchiefs. I took the ring off the young woman
on the Wednesday, and about four or five days after it was
said to have been stolen. Nothing was found of Mr. Pres-
ton's, or any one elses, excepting our own property. I
was taken into custody after the search, and was bailed in
about ten minutes. I was a witness on Harriet Cox's trial.
The girl said that I knew she had stolen it. Never de-
manded any voting money said to be due in 1832. I gave
true answers in the House of Commons. I told the Com-
mittee that 1 told my husband I expected the money at
seven at night.
By the JUDGE--A gentleman came from London and
gave us 30s. a piece to pay expenses on the road. We
were about five days gone. We received money in Lon-
don ; about 31. or hardly so much. My husband received
all but 10s., which I had. Some gentlemen that sat in
London paid my husband. I paid the coach-hire back out
of the 3/.

The Jury here stopped the case, and the Learned
Judge said a more wicked woman he had never seen in his
life ;he thanked God she was not his wife. His Lordship
exhorted the witness to go home and fall on her knees, and
pray to God to forgive her for the perjury she had that day
been guilty of.—Verdict of acquittal.