The Sun.
London, England, 1831-01-01 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

The partisans of a " repeal of the Union" con-
sider it an affront to be told that their object is not
merely a repeal of the Union, but a total separation
of Ireland from the British Crown. It is possible
that many of Mr. O'Connell's followers may meditate
nothing in the repeal of the Union beyond a proces-
sion of the Lieutenant from his vice-regal mansion
to the Parliament House,—the residence for a few
months of the year in Dublin of 150 Peers and twice
the number of Commoners,—a perfect harmony
on every point of commercial and international
policy between the legislatures of both countries,
—a fresh infusion of severe and spotless virtue
into the votes of Parliament and the adminis-
tration of Government, through a revival of that
venerable and exemplary body the Irish House
of Commons, as it existed before the Union,
—and a more rapid progress on the part of Ireland
in wealth, and knowledge, and civil and religious
liberty, than she has made, or ever could make, by
being incorporated, as she now is, with Great Bri-
tain. We give credit to Mr. O'Connell and his as-
sociates, then, for believing their own intentions
to be such as they describe them—that they really
mean no more than to have one King for the
two islands,—one King, with two Legislatures,
wholly and absolutely independent of each other.
And why do the anti-Unionists desire that the
Imperial Parliament should no longer make laws
for the Irish nation ? Because, as they assure us
every day the Imperial Parliament, being composed
of a majority of English and Scotchmen, does not
understand the interests of Ireland ; or, understand-
ing, is indifferent to their prosperity. Well, then,
here is an admission at the outset that a native Par-
liament, and a Parliament principally British, would
be apt to pursue conflicting systems of policy where
English and Irish interests are concerned. Is it
likely that under such an opposition of sentiment,
those bodies, once made independent of each other,
would long remain friends, or their respective coun-
tries allies ? The business of a mixed and com-
bined Legislature is to consult the average welfare
of the whole empire by enforcing, where requisite,
a policy of reciprocal consideration and concession
between its several members. This can be done by
an authority which contemplates and provides for
all parts of the realm as from a common centre, and
with equal and disinterested solicitude. But no
such source can be long maintained by Powers
established in perfect independence of each other;
and above all, when their separation, after being
once united, originates in a spirit of angry jealousy,
conceived by one of them against the designs of its
neighbour. It will be said that the true policy of
both countries is to cultivate and foster their corn-
mon benefit, by measures of liberality and good-
will. It may be so in fact, and it is so in all
wisdom : but the very groundwork of Mr. O'Con-
nell's effort to disunite them, is his repeated asser-
tion, that they do not both entertain the same sense
of what the interest of Ireland demands, It is to us
extremely probable, that in case of a repeal of the
Union, the British Parliament might begin to cast
about for sources of relief to its own people in the
immediate abolition of some of those taxes on the
productions of Continental Europe, which have
been imposed for the exclusive advantage of the
Irish. Duch butter is now severely taxed, that
the Irish butter may find a freer market in this
country. Black cattle and pigs from Ireland may
be imported free into Great Britain, while those of
other countries are, in effect, prohibited ; conti-
nental cottons are heavily taxed, and the infant ma-
nufacture of Ireland in that article obtains a rapidly
increasing encouragement here. So with the woollens
of other aiates,—and with their spirituous liquors,—
and, beyond every thing else, with their corn, which
is grievously taxed, to the deep injury of our fellow-
citizens,—while Irish corn, the only staple export of
the country, finds in England ifs only snorkel. Now,
when Dublin gentlemen talk largely of the " illibe-
ral" system pursued by the Parliament of Great
Britain towards their country, will they consider for
only a few minutes what would be the condition
of Ireland were that Parliament merely to open the
British market to all species of provisions from
other portions of Europe, or to impose upon Irish
provisions the same restraints by which (those of
Ireland remaining untaxed) the products of the
continent are at present all but absolutely ex-
cluded We should vainly seek for terms des-
criptive of the utter beggary to which Ireland
would then be reduced, of the horrible advent
of plague, pestilence, arid famine,—the result
of a positive extinction of her natural resources,
to a country, whose people can now barely
exist, under a progress of affluence attested beyond
all controversy, but only not rapid enough to keep
pace with the giant strides of her population. We
say, that such, perhaps, might be the result of the
new policy forced on the British Parliament by the
measures of Mr. O'Connell's legislature. But there
would be still the same King !. And how would that
King be compelled, by the very nature of things,
to govern his disunited realms ? Why, through
those to whom he gave his confidence—the Ministers
of the Crown—the Ministers of the Crown of
England ; for to pretend that he could have two sets
of counsellors acting on inconsistent principles of
policy, is too childish to be brought into discussion.
'What would follow ?—the same consequence as at
present : that the same measures, in so far as both
countries were concerned, would be proposed by the
British Cabinet to the legislature of each. The
measures of the Government would either be adopted
in Ireland, as well as here; or, while adopted in
this country, would be there rejected. A commer-
cial treaty with France, or Holland, or North
America, might be popul a in England, and
might displease a certain prevailing interest at some
moment of easy excitement on the other side the
Channel : a Regency question (as once happened)
might be treated i❑ a directly opposite spirit. We
can imagine a question to arise out of circumstances
touching the succession to the Crown, to be viewed
in a very different light by Mr. O'Connell's reli-
gious partisans, from that in which Protestants,
either English or Irish, would regard it ; or a ques-
tion of the most immaient importance, involving
peace or war. There is one thing which we cannot
imagine, viz. the possibility of two Legislatures—
one of them English, the other Irish, of the O'Con-
nell school—acting cordially together for a single
twelvemonth, considering the notions which now
and their gain currency among the crew composing
that learned gentleman's auditors one day, and his
delegates, commissioners, or rent•.collectors the next.
That means might be found to convert the hostile
senators of the thenceforth foreign Parliament, we
do not mean to deny, even the most stubborn of
them. We know of what materials the old Irish
House of Commons was composed, and how ma-
jorities in that house were concocted. Does Mr.
O'Connell mean to insist that any given 300 Irish-
men of the present day would of necessity be less
amenable to ministerial reason than those of the
year 1799 ? Who ,sold their country to the Mi-
nister of that day ?—The Irish Parliament—the in-
dependent Parliament—the Haicyon Parliament of
College-green, Who, again, sold their country ?
The Roman Catholics of _lreland : it is on record;
they, the Catholics, shamefully sold what is now
called the independence of their country to Mr. Pitt
and Lord Cornwallis, for a promise of being suffered
to hold seats in that very foreign Parliamenisnmoug
that very " Saxon" people, with whom, says Mr.
O'Connell, in one of his speeches, it is impossible
for the genuine Irish to have any thing in common.
If all this be denied,—if the British Minister is not
to command a majority in the Irish Parliament,---
why the question to settled in another way, for he
is voted out of office by Ireland, and supported there
by England ; and what is this,s--whut, at least, does
it induce,—but a direct separation of the crowns ?
But what matter, others may demand, what signifies
it whether Ireland swing herself loose or not ? We
[night answer the interrogatory by another. What
[natters it whether Scotland rends herself from Eng-
land or not ? Why should not Wales? nay, York-
attire, if she listetla ? It might not be very easy to

satisfy such inquirers. Perhaps a plausible argument
might be raised in favour of the individual virtue
and happiness to be found in small states, as con-
trasted with those of larger growth. But the pre-
judice runs against breaking up an ancient realm,
and sending its fragments to seek their fortunes
separately. Very confined commonwealths are
found to be weaker, as well against internal
faction as against aggression from without. With
regard to Ireland, the fruits of the repeal of the
Union would be, in our apprehension, a total over-
throw of the Protestant religion : and as Mr.
O'Connell is reported in the Morning Register of
last Tuesday, 28th of December, to have said, no
longer ago than on the Friday preceding, that,
" with an Irish Parliament, there would be no
absentees ; no wan should hare an estate in Ireland,
and an estate any where else," we take for granted
that there would take place a general confiscation of
property, for in no other way can we attach any
meaning to the Learned Gentleman's discourse.
Besides a confiscation of property, lay and ecclesi-
astical, there would be a war of protection to Irish
manufactures against English. In return for which,
we " Saxons" need do no more than treat Ireland
precisely like other Foreign States as to the produc-
tions we thought proper to receive or to prohibit ;
in which ease, Irish produce would be either di-
rectly excluded by an equality of prohibition, or in-
directly by an equality of admission, seeing that
there is not one single article of Irish growth or
manufacture with which England could not be sup-
plied on better terms from many quarters of the
Continent of Europe. We bid farewell for a while
to this ungrateful subject. But the agitators of Ire-
land had better see what they are about. The Pro-
testants of the country, even the wildest or silliest
among them, will not lend themselves to a plot,
which, however disguised or cloaked, aims only at
trampling down the Reformed religion in all its
rights and interests, arid at plundering the property
of all men, Protestant and Catholic, who will not
lay iheir necks under the heel of a false, vulgar, and
vindictive despotism.—Times.
The pious Richard Baxter, towards the close of
his Holy Commonwealth, observes, " Experience
bath taught me to resolve, that I will never put
confidence in my nearest friend, nor the best man
that I know, if once he have a potent carnal inte-
rest, and dwell among great and strong temptations."
A long life, in trying times, during which many a
staunch professor had been found wanting, had im-
pressed this truth on this able man. The prin-
ciple which it involves is at the bottom of every Con-
stitutional Government. It has been amply p.roved
in the constitutional history of England ; for if one
truth has been better proved than another, it is that
with the power there is always the disposition to
promote a man's separate interest at the expellee of
the interests of others. here all attempts at popular
representation, in which the interests of those who
return the representatives are not identical with the
interests of the people, are sure to turn out a de-
cided failure. It is now admitted by the present
call for Reform that the English Constitution
affords no security to the people against the
corruption of Parliament. There cannot be an
adequate security if the possessors of property
have not the returning of the representatives.
Mr. Barber Beaumont is for a more complicated
plan of representation than we think necessary.
"As the annual supplies (he observes) must be
drawn from the annual earnings of the people; and
as these earnings flow from the joint operation of
manual labour and capital; and as these two im-
portant interests, although indispensably necessary
to each other, are continually differing us to the
amount of profit which each should take from their
joint operations, and as to the proportion of public
burthens which each should bear ; it is admitted,
that the principle of voting should give to each of
those great classes an equal weight in the choice
of their representatives." As the protection
of the person is the great business of the House
of Commons, and as the interest of persons of
property and labourers is one arid the same in all
that regards limiting the public expenditure to the
lowest sum necessary for conducting the Government,
we would farther avoid for the present the risk of
the complication proposed by Mr. Beaumont. It
may he as he says, that " If the working people,
and the people of property, have each an equal num-
ber of votes, the self-interest of each will be equally
poised ; but then the votes of the enlightened, just,
and public-spirited of both classes, will turn the
beam, and secure a just decision ;" but the propo-
sition would alarm people of property. The propo-
sition of the ballot is so reasonable, that the oppo-
sition to it is of course interested. Mr. Beaumont
is not far mistaken when he supposes that the ob-
jectors have " a secret sorrow on the subject, which
is too delicate to be named by them; ballot would
cut up rotten boroughs and bribery root and branch.
Who would give another thousand in part payment
fur a seat, when the electors might take money from
half a dozen different candidates, and after all return
a seventh for nothing, without being individually dis-
covered ?" Alluding to the cant used on this sub-
ject, lie observes, this wculd he intelligible enough,
" instead of saying, I like to see the voter come
up to the poll, and in all open, manly, Englishman-
like way, declare for whom he votes;' let it stand,
I should like to see the voter brought to the poll
under the eye of his landlord, employers, customers,
and parish officers, desiring him to tote one way—who
would dare to look them in theface and vote the othei?' "
The key to the system of compelling the electors to
vote under the eye of their superiors is the wish to
increase the power and patronage of the rich over
the poor. But, as Mr. Beaumont says, " the means
have been covert, oblique, and ungenial. We now
find to our costy,-that they have not worked well."
Let property be allowed at once its full weight in
choosing Representatives, and then, as he observes,
men may be allowed "to vote conscientiously."
We have, in fact, tried dishonesty and immorality
too long. We must be honest whether we will or
not.—Morning Chronicle.

We told the present Government, a short time
ago, that they would find in the conduct of their
predecessors in office half the instruction necessary
for rightly administering the affairs of the country
.-namely, examples of the policy which it would
be requisite to avoid. An example of this sort was
afforded by the late Ministry with regard to Ireland
just before the downfall of the Administration. It
was then justly reprobated by the Whigs ; and it is
now not avoided, but imitated, under a Whig Admi-
nistrat:on. We allude to the proclamation issued
under the Lord Lieutenancy of the Duke of Nor-
thumberland, and bearing the signature of Sir Henry
Ilardinge, for the suppression of a society founded by
\lr. O'Connell, calling itself " The Friends of the
People of all Religious Denominations," or some
such name. This proclamation was founded upon an
Act only applicable to Ireland, and which passed
nearly at the same time with the Roman Catholic
Relief Bill. The Act is the 10th George IV., and
it arms the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland with powers
unknown to the Constitution of England. The
King of Great Britain cannot, by his proclamation,
prevent or prohibit any society from meeting which
is not of an illegal or dangerous nature, under the
provisions and according to the definition of some
existing law ; but the Lord Lieutenant of Ire-
land can do that which the King of Great
Britain cannot do—namely, prohibit and put
down any society or association which he deems in
his own mind to be dangerous, although it is per-
fectly legal in the eye of the law. One of the
charges against King James 11., and for which he
forfeited the throne, was that he gave his proclama-
tions the force of law. The same thing is done by
the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland ; but the latter has
an Act of Parliament to sanction the proceeding,
which the former had not, though he certainly could
plead in his defence the practice of many of his ar-
bitrary predecessors. Thus the proceeding is legal,
in Ireland, though the principle is certainly uncon-
stitutional ;—at ell events it is opposed to the spirit
of the Constitution, as explairiod by the framers of
the Bill of Rights, whose doctrines the Whigs pro-
fess to follow. Do they act consistently, then, in

governing Ireland by the agency of such an Act
We think not. But we have hopes that the Mar-
quis of Anglesea has issued the proclamation with-
out applying for instructions to the Government
that appointed him. We shall be glad if this turns
out to be the case, although we confess we have no
information as to the fact one way or the
other. We would rather see Lord Anglesea do a
foolish thing upon his own responsibility than that
the whole Administration, from whom the coun-
try expected better things, should adopt a course
which they justly condemned when it was pursued
by their predecessors. But if the measure were ever
so unobjectionable in principle, it ought to have been
avoided on account of its impolicy. We have been
told, ever since the question of the repeal of the
Union began to be agitated, that the support which
it received was contemptible—that all influential
and respectable classes of society were opposed to
the repeal—that the agitators were only followed by
a " ragged rabble"—and that, whatever noise was
kept up for a time by the " factious few," the pro-
ject must soon perish of its own folly. In the midst
of such representations of the weakness and insig-
nificance of the party by whom the question of re-
peal was said to be supported, the Executive thinks
fit to avail itself of those extraordinary powers which,
if used at all, should only be used upon occasions of
the highest importance, and launches its thunder-
bolts to crush a faction which it affected to despise.
The proclamation of the Duke of Northumberland had
the effect of first blowing a mere spark into some-
thing like a flame, and we shall be surprised if
the equally wise and efficacious proclamation of the
Marquis of Anglesea does not blow that flame into
something like a conflagration. It argues _but
small stock of political judgment to make extraor-
dinary powers common-place by frequently calling
them into action upon trivial occasions. Did the
present occasion justify the assumption by the Lord
Lieutenant of Ireland of the character of Jupiter
tonans? He should beware of brandishing his
lightnings upon every slight provocation, lest the
people should cease to behold them with awe. Was
it not better to have allowed the trades of Dublin
to have gone up with their address to Mr. 0 Con-
nell, while they committed no breach of the peace,
than, by preventing them, to cause those feelings to
rankle within their own breasts which would then
have evaporated in a harmless ebullition ? But
they have had a procession—a smaller one, indeed,
than that originally intended—in spite of the pro-
clamation. Now Government ought to have sup-
pressed the thing altogether, or not have inter-
fered with it at all. Absurd excitements, whether
in political or religious matters, always die away
of themselves, unless fed by judicious opposi-
tion. When such excitements carry men to vio-
late the laws, then it is time to take notice of them ;
but not till then. Besides, this proclamation has
afforded Mr. O'Connell an opportunity of showing
his almost unbounded power over the popular mind
in a more unequivocal manner than he could have
done under any other circumstances. He has pub-
lished his own proclamation, in which, while he
advises the people to obey the law, he flings all man-
ner of contempt upon the proclamation of the Lord
Lieutenant and his Government. Are the Govern-
ment prepared to prosecute Mr. O'Connell ? If
they are not, they should not have placed themselves
in a position which enables him to insult, denounce,
and defy them. The Administration in this coun-
try, though they may not be responsible for this par-
ticular act of Lord Anglesea, are answerable for
sending him to Ireland. He has always been, us a
Senator and Statesman, intemperate and unreflect-
ing, whether he acted against the people, or courted
the popularity of the day. He was on both sides of
the " Catholic question," and violent on both.
His motives are, no doubt, good, but his judgment
is sadly deficient.—Morning Herald.

SPECIAL COMMISSION.

BERKSHIRE-READING, DFC. 31.

George Williams, Edward Harris, Thomas
Hicks, Luke Brown, John Cook, and James Fuller,
were put on their trial, being indicted for having
d.stroyed a threshing machine, the property of
Gabriel Lamb.

The Jury Eund Hicks Guilty, and acquitted the
rest.

Robert Page and William Carter were convicted
of having, on the 23d of November, destroyed a
threshing machine, the property of Joseph Stan-
brook.

The same prisoners, Robert Page and William
Carter, were then put on their trial, being indicted
for having, on the 23d of November, feloniously
assaulted Joseph Stanbrook, and taking from his
person, against his will, two sovereigns.
Mr. GURNEY should offer no evidence against the
prisoners on this charge.
The prisoners were accordingly acquitted.
The same prisoners were again arraigned for
having robbed James Franklin of two sovereigns.
Mr. GURNEY should offer no evidence in support
of this charge. He would take this opportunity of
observing, that he and his Learned coadjutors had
carefully considered every case before them, and
that, in the exercise of the discretion with which
they were invested, they had forborne, and should
continue to forbear, to press a vast number of cases,
which, if they were brought to trial, would, he had
no doubt, end in the conviction of the parties, whose
lives would be forfeited. As a general rule, they
had always taken the case of breaking a machine in
preference to that of robbery, an offence which but
too frequently accompanied that of the destruction
of property. The case of the prisoners at the bar
was an instance of the lenient course which he and
his Learned coadjutors had generally adopted. He
said generally, for they had, much to their sorrow
and regret, found it necessary to proceed sometimes
on the charge of robbery.—Acquitted.
William Gale was put to the bar, being indicted
for having, on the 24th of November, destroyed a
threshing-machine, the property of John Sykes
Sawbridge, clerk.
One witness only wits called for the prosecution,
who swore that G,tle was one of the party who de-
stroyed the machine.
The Jury, under the direction of the Court, ac-
quitted the prisoner.

Joseph Aicholas, Winterborne, Edmund
Steel, Alfred Darling, William Carter, Wi!Liam
Westall, and Thomas Radbzun, were put to the bar,
being indicted for having, on the 22d of November,
feloniously assaulted and robbed Joseph Randall of
one sovereign. Another count charged them with
having robbed Elizabeth Randall of a sovereign, the
property of Joseph Randall.
Elizabeth Randall examined by Mr. CAmmtlit.t.—
I live with my brother, Joseph Randall, in the parish
of Ilampstead-marshall. I recollect the night be-
tween the 22d and 23d November. At about five
o'clock, or a quarter before, on the morning of the
22d November, we were in bed. I heard a great
noise, and the sounding of a horn. I was alarmed.
I got up and went to my brother's room. My
brother was looking out of the winiow. I was in my
night clothe!. I procured a light, and put on part
of my clothes. 1 then went down stairs with my
brother. My brother went out to the mob. I fol-
lowed, locked the door, and stood with my back
against it outside the house. I could hear what the
mob said. The mob were then in the farm yard.
I should say they were from 200 to 300 in number.
They demanded the key of the barn to break the
machine, and 2/. in money. My brother said," if I
give you the 21., shall you then break the machine
The answer was, " yes." My brother said he
would neither give money nor the key. part of
the mob then went in the direction of the
barn, and part remained where they were. I
heard a great noise at the barn, a great knocking;
such as would be made by breaking the machine.
Those who had been to the barn returned, and
joined the rest, after ten minutes or a quarter of an
' hour. When they returned, one of the mob said,
" have you done your work ?" I was still outside
the door, with my back against it. The mob said,
"now we want the 2/.; it is hard work breaking

machines." My brother refused to give it them.
They then said, " we will have some victuals and
drink." My brother said he would not give any-
thing. They then all rushed into the court-yard; my
brother drew back and placed himself beside me.—
The mob came close up to us. One of them had a
sledge-hammer ; another had a large stick ; Alfred
Darling was the man who had the sledge-hammer.
The mob said they would have money, or victuals
and drink, or they would break the house down.—
Alfred Darling held up the sledge-hammer, as if to
strike the door between my brother and myself.
Another person of the mob had two pieces of iron
in his hand, and began beating the bricks at the side
of the door. In doing that, he gave me a slight
blow on the shoulder. The prisoner, Nicholas, then
got over a low wall opposite the kitchen window,
and began breaking the window, and knocked
the whole of it, sash, glass, shutters, frame,
and every thing, into the room. I said to
my brother, " now they have broken the
house we had better give them some money,
or we shall have them all in." My brother
and I then got inside the house and fastened the
door. I said to my brother, " must I give them
21. ?" He said, "no ; try one." I fetched a se-
vereign and presented it at the opening they had
made at the window. Some one of the mob re-
ceived it in his hand, and immediately dashed it on
the table under the window, exclaiming, "we
won't have that ; that's half price—our price is 2/.;
it is hard work breaking machines. Another per-
son then took the sovereign ()lithe table. I believe
that other person was Nicholas, who said, " that
won't do ;" and then he called for Captain Winter-
borne. The prisoner, Winterboroe, then appeared
at the opening. Nicholas handed the sovereign to
\Vinterborne, who, looking at it, said that will do;
we will take half price, because he (meaning my
brother) has stood like a man." Then, raising his
head up to the opening, he said, "besides we have
done some mischief, and that must be paid for."
Then they went away. I could see the faces of
some of the mob; Darling, Nicholas, and Winter-
borne, lam sure I saw. My brother had a lantern
in his hand, which enabled me to see their faces.

The rest of the evidence being gone through,
The Jury, without hesitation, returned a verdict
of Guilty against all the prisoners, but recommended
them to mercy.
William Sims, Francis Norris, William Page,
Alfred Darling, James Annals, and Charles Bates,
were placed at the bar, charged with robbing Wm.
Clarkson of 405., on the 23d November, at Kint-
bury. Prisoners were charged in other counts
with robbing Herbert Hogsflesh of the said money,
which was laid as the property of Clarkson, also as
the property of Hogsfiesh.
Herbert Hogsflesh identified Sims, Norris, and
Darling, as being present on the occasion; and de-
posed to have given 405., which he received from
the prosecutor, to Norris, who came forward as the
acknowledged ringleader of the party.
In their defence, Darling, Annetta, and Bates,
declare that they were not near the prosecutor's house.
Several respectable persons spoke to the good
character of Bates, who was distinguished from many
of the prisoners tried at this commission by a decent
and orderly appearance.
Mr.:Baron BOLLAND having briefly summed up the
evidence, the Jury acquitted Annetts, and found
the other prisoners Guilty, recommending Bates to
mercy on account of his previous good character.
William IVinterborne, William Oakley, Edmund
Steel, Thomas Darling, and James Randall, were in-
dicted for robbing Frederick Webb, at Kintbury, on
the 22d November, of one sovereign.
A verdict of acquittal was recorded i►► favour of
Darling and Randall.
Winterborne said nothing in his defence.

Oakley said he had been very ill-used. He lived
with his grandmother, at Kintbury, where they had
a foundry, and when the riots first broke out, the
mob destroyed all he had, and forced him to go
with them. All his witnesses had gone home,
but several respectable persons had signed a
petition in his favour, he thinking it would answer
as well as if they attended on his behalf. He had
nothing to say about Mr. Webb's business.—The
petition was handed up to the Bench.
Steel said he was not at the prosecutor's.
Mrs. Freebody was called on behalf of the pri-
soners, but did not answer.

The Jury returned a verdict of Guilty against
Winterborne, Oakley, and Steel, recommending the
tr{•o latter prisoners to mercy.
William Winterborne, Alfred Darling, William
Oakley, George nolmes, and William !Vestal!, were
charged with breaking a threshing-machine, the
property of Captain Thomas Dunn, on the 22d of
November, at Kinthury.
The evidence for• the prosecution having been
heard,

Witnesses were called, who gave a good charac-
ter to Holmes, who was said to be 17 years of age,
and by trade a blacksmith.

The Jury found all the prisoners Guilty, with the
exception of \Vestall, whom they acquitted. The
Jury also recommended Holmes to mercy, on ac-
count of the good character he had received.
Thomas Goodfellow and Cornelius Bennett were
indicted for destroying a threshing-machine, the pro
perty of Matthew Batten.
The prisoners, like nearly all the others, were
part of a mob who went about the country breaking
machines, and then demanding money for doing so.
Goodfellow was a blacksmith. Bennett was the
captain of the gang.
Matthew Batten proved the commission of the
offence; but on his cross-examination it turned out
that the machine was not in complete repair.
Mr. CooPER took an objection that this machine,
being out of repair, was net within the Statute.
The COURT overruled the objection.
The July returned a verdict of Guilty against
both prisoners, but recommended them to mercy.

WINTER ASIZES.

SURREY-KINGSTON, DEC. 31.

James Bravery, aged 15, was indicted for having,
unlawfully, maliciously, and feloniously, set fire to a
hay-rick, the property of Thomas Wenham, a farmer
residing at Ockley, in this county.—Not Guilty.
Richard Stagg, labourer, was indicted for having,
in company with two other men, entered the pre-
serves of his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury,
at Addington, in the night time, armed with guns
for the purpose of taking and destroying game.
Another count in the indictment charged the pri-
soner with having assaulted John Frost and another
of the gamekeepers of his Grace, and another count
charged the prisoner with the intent to destroy
rabbits.

Mr. BACON, having detailed the circumstances of
the case, would say one word with respect to ele
motives of the Archbishop of Canterbury in p:o-
-moting this prosecution. His Grace was totally in-
different as to whether his preserves were well or ill
stocked, but he deemed it his duty to enforce the
provisions of an Act of Parliament, which made it a
misdemeanour for persons who were found a►med
o ith guns in the night time, as such weapons might
easily Le converted into engines for comnaitt'ng u
breach of the peace by midnight mauraders.
The Jury found the prisoner Guilty, and be was
sentenced to be imprisoned and kept to hard labour
for six months.

Sarah Bird, a decently-dressed woman, was in-
dicted for having wilfully sent to Messrs. Young, at
Epsom, a letter, with a fictitious signature, threaten-
ing to destroy certain out-houses the:: property.
This case excited very great interest.
Mr. CLARKSON stated the case for the prosecution,
and called,

Mr. Peter Young—l am a nursery-man at Epsom,
and am in partnership with Charles and James
Young. We have several greenhouses and out-
houses on our premises. On the 12th of Novem-
ber last, two persons were in our emlloy named
Hammond and Yaldon. They lodged ht the house
of the prisoner. Early on the morning question I

found a b'own paper parcel near our premises ; it
contained a letter.

The letter was here read, and was as follows :
" Nov. llth.

" Messrs. Young,—Unless you tin the pay of the /nen
and boys in your Imployment, in lets than 5 days your
green houses shall be blown up into 10 thousand peaces
So mind wat your At.

Addressed, " H. Y. N."
" Messrs. Young, nurserymen, Epsom, Surrey."
After further evidence had been detailed, the
Jury found the prisoner Not Guilty.
James Ritchie, 18 years old, was indicted for
haring feloniously and maliciously set fire to a hay-
stack, the property of Wiliiam Pyle Taunton, Esq.
of Carshalton, in this county.
After some witnesses had been examined,

The Learned JUDGE stopped the case, observing,
that there was not sufficient evidence to make out
the indictment.

The Jury, under his Lordship's direction, re-
turned a verdict of Not Guilty.