The Sun.
London, England, 1841-07-03 00:00:00

Having been led thus far, I will just observe, that

have be;i'n all along referring to a fair rent, but your
agricultural readers need not be reminded that rents are
not always fairly calculated. One of the many objec-
tions that I entertain to the Corn-law is, that it supplies
landowners, but more particularly land valuers, with a
pretext for fixing rents too high. sixty-two, sixty-
three, or even sixty-four, has generally been considered
the price, which was to be secured to the farmer by the
present Corn-law, and consequently this price has been
taken as the basis for the fixing of rents. Nevertheless,
the average of the last twenty years has been about 585.,
and (excluding the two dear years, 1839 and 1840) only
565. Bd. But though the average has been thus low,
too low to enable the tenant to pay a rent based upon
635. or 645., the consumer has frequently had his table
furnished at a much dearer rate—far dearer than if the
Corn trade had been left free with a moderate fixed duty.
This has been occasioned by the capricious character of
the law. When in the winter 1838-9, the average, de-
pressed by the bad quality of the wheat, fluctuated be-
tween 755. and 80s., the price of such wheat as was fit
for human food was 90s. or upwards, and flour was at
3s. or even 3s. 2d, a stone. This arose from the follow-
ing circumstance:—Vast quantities of the wheat of 1838
were unfit for the use of man, but nevertheless theypassed
through the markets, and thereby contributed to pull
down the averages, to retard the admission of foreign
corn, and actually to raise the price of bread. This
is the most
.painful part of the whole question.
The average being kept clown, the duty kept up, and the
foreign supply was excluded because the averages were
depressed by the bad corn, while good eatable corn rose
to an enormous height. I am, therefore, very far from
saying generally (as Mr. Wortley supposes I did), that
" a repeal of the present Corn-laws would not reduce
the price lower than it had been for the last eighteen
years." On the contrary, I believe that it would lower
it materially at those times when it is desirable to lower
it, or rather, that it would have a material effect in pre-
venting an exorbitant rise in the price of bread, corn, or
flour, when, from the character of the season, such might
be the natural result. At the same time, I believe that
would not lower the average of any long period so as
to affect, in any perceptible degree, those rents which
have been fairly set with reference to the average of the
last twenty years. These two opinions are perfectly
consistent, though I have no doubt it will be said that
they are otherwise.
I remain, Sir, your very faithful servant,
Wentworth, June 28, 1841.. FITZWILLIAM.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

WORSHIP-STREET.

Sarah Clarke; who stood charged with having com-
mitted numerous robberies at dwelling-houses in which
she had lodged, was re-examined before Mr. Bingham.
Between twenty and thirty persons, who had been
robbed of plate and other valuable property, attended-in
Court, and the -majority of them identified the prisoner
as the thie£ • ~ . • •

Evidence in the following eases, in addition to those
which have already appeared, was now adduced, -.
Mrs. Smith, the widow of a Captain in the East In..
dia Company's service; and who: resided in Barnes's-.
place, Mile-end, stated that in the month of :June last
the prisoner took apartments in her house, ..representing
that she was a widow in affluent circumstances, and that
her name was Williams. On the third day after she had
been in the house witness received a letter by post, pur-,
porting to have been written by Mr. Loch, of the East
India House, and requesting her to proceed thither im-
mediately on business connected witu the affairs of her
late husband. On arriving at the India House she was
informed that the letter was a fabrication, and she im-
mediately returned home, when she was told by her ser-
vant that the prisoner had gone out to purchase a duck
and green peas, which she had fancied for dinner. The
prisoner, however, failed to return, and witness soon af-
terwards discovered that a quantity of plate, a gold
watch, any other property, had been carried off. She
heard nothing more of the prisoner until she perceived
an account of her former examination at this Court.

The gold watch and a musical snuff-box, belonging to
the last witness, were produced by two pawnbrokers,
who identified the prisoner as having pledged them.
Mrs. Jones, a widow lady, residing at 26, Bidborough-
street, Burton-crescent, stated that the prisoner lodged
with her in November last, and she had only slept one
night in the house when she dispatched witness to the
East India House with a letter, which she said contained
an order on Mr. Loch for 201. The pretended letter, on
being opened, was found to be nothing more than a
blank sheet of paper, upon which witness hastened
back to her residence; but she was too late, • the
prisoner having absconded after braking open several
boxes, whence she abstracted a 201., two 101., and three
5/. Bank of Eng4n4.notes, with a quantity of other pro-
perty., rgwo pokers, with, which the boxes had evidently
been forec4, .oren, and the points of which were much
bent, were found lying on. the floor. The prisoner gave
the name of -Williams, and represented herself to be
highly connected. •
Several silver spoons' and other property, which Mrs.
Jones identified, were produced by a pawnbroker.
The Magistrate heard evidence in nine other cases, in
which the prisoner had ,committed robberies in a similar
manner.
Police-constable Kershaw, of the G division, stated
that the prisoner had been pursuing her ingenious system
of robbery for several years past. In the year 1839, she
tenanted a house in Isabella-street, Blackfriars, the
front of which she ,let to a lady named Rowley, but
whilst the latter was confined to bed by a dangerous ill-
ness, the prisoner robbed her of a quantity of jewellery
and
.wearinw..apparel, and vacated the premises; She
was .appreantledi and tried for the offence at the Old
Bailey, but owing to some informality in the indictment,
she escaped conviction. Since that time she had been

carrying on her-nefaricius career with the most extraor-
dinary success in all parts of the.metropolis.
The depositions in several cases having been taken
against her, the prisoner was again remanded until
Tuesday next.

GIBSON AND CAMPBELL v. JAMES
BRAND, OF THE FIRM OF HARVEY, BRAND,
AND COMPANY.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.

Sin,—Our attention has just been called to the short
report of this case in your Paper of the 24th inst. That
report contains several inaccuracies. The first is, the
statement that the defendants' witnesses spoke to a series
of experiments made by different persons, but that it did
not turn out that what they did was carried to a successful
result. The witnesses here referred to are Mr. Pattison,
the late Member for the City of London, and many
others of the highest respectability, who proved that the
process in question had been extensively used for more
than twenty years. The second and more serious error
is in the statement of the verdict. The Jury did nut
find that the plaintiffs were the first who successfully ap-
plied the invention ; nor did they find a verdict for the
plaintiff as stated. Of the five issues left to the Jury
they found for the plaintiffs the first, viz., that if the
patent was good the defendants had infringed it ; the
fourth, viz., that the process was useful ; and the fifth,
viz. that the specification was sufficient to enable opera.
tives to work from it. The most material issues were
the second and third, viz., whether the invention was
new, and whether the plaintiffs were the inventors ? On
these the Jury found a special verdict in the words fol-
lowing, as taken down by the Lord Chief Justice :
" The Jury are of opinion, on the second and third issues,
that the invention is not new, but an improved process,
not a mere combination." Whether this amounts to a
verdict for the plaintiffs or for the defendant, the Court
of Common Pleas will have to decide. We are advised
that it is a verdict for the defendant.
We are, Sir, your's obediently,
WALMSLEY, KEIGHTLEY, and PAKKIN,
Attorneys for the Defendant.
43, Chaneery-lane, June 30, 1841.

[We have published this letter in order to give the
defeated party a hearing, though we cannot see what
service it can do. The verdict published in The Sun,
we have every reason to believe, is perfectly correct.]