The Sun.
London, England, 1840-11-25 00:00:00

THE QUEEN V. ROSS.

Sir W. FOLLETT applied for a rule calling upon a Mr.
Ross to show cause why a quo warranto should not issue
calling upon him to show by what right he exercised
the office of Alderman of the borough of Bridgwater, he
holding, as it appeared by the affidavits, a lease of lands
under the corporation for fourteen years.—Rule nisi
granted.

DEWRY V. lIOUNCEFIELD, CLERK.
In this case Mr. Newton had obtained a rule calling
upon the plaintiff to show cause why he should not be
compelled to accept the amount of his debt which bad been
tendered to him, and why the defendant should riot be dis-
charged from prison. The defendant, a clergyman, had
been imprisoned for some years in York Castle on a judg-
ment obtained against him by the plaintiff, who had it-
taincd a vesting order unffer the provisions of the statute
for the abolition of imprisonment on mesnc process, and
the defendant had been ordered by the Court to file a
schedule. His wife tendered the amount of the debt and
costs to the plaintiff, who refused to accept the same, and
the defendant was consequently still in prison.
Mr. CRESSWELL showed cause against the rule, and said
that an application ow the subject had been made some
time since to Mr. Baron Parke, who had refused to take
upon himself to discharge the prisoner, as it would enable
him to get out of prison without filing his schedule. The
defendant had then brought an action against the plaintiff
for false imprisonment, in which he had been non-suited,
and a rule for a new trial had been refused. Mr. Cress.
well contended that there was no proof but what the
money tendered was the property of the prisoner, and
that therefore it was vested under the vesting order i the
provisional azsignee, and would be recoverable from him
by the assignee had he received it. He therefore sub-
mitted that the rule should be discharged with costs.
Mr. MARTIN followed on the same side.
Sir W. FOI.LETT in support of the rule, argued that the
plaintiff could be in no worse position by accepting the
tender, even if the provisional assignee should recover it
from him than he was before, inasmuch as he could then
come in for his share with the other creditors, but he had
tl.e remedy in his own hands, for be might apply to the
Insolvent Co: rt to do away with the vesting order, which
be himself had obtained. This tender had been made be-
fore the fourteen days allowed by the Act for the filing
the schedule had elapsed, and, therefore, the defendant
was not in contempt of the Insolvent Court. lie,
moreover, submitted th.t upon the affidavit of the de-
fendant's wife it appeared that she had obtaked the
money with which she had made the tender from a Mr.
Anderson, of York, and that there was no proof that it
was the defendant's money, and therefore recoverable by
the provisional assignee. [lc, therefore, submitted that
the defendant must be discharged out of custody. The
question was a most important one, as to the construction of
the Act for Abolishing Imprisonment for Debt, it being
neither more nor less than whether by a creditor obtaining
a vesting order he could deprive the debtor of that right
which, previous to the passing of this Act, he had pos-
sessed, viz, the being discharged from custody on payment
of the debt and costs for which he was detained, without
being compelled to pass through the Insolvent Court.
Mr. NEWTON followed on the same side.
(The case was proceeding when we went to press.)

COMMON PLEAS.-( fiii S DA

Y.)

This being the last day of term. the Court, at its sitting,
proceeded to give judgment in the special cases.
LITTLE V. NEWTON.
In this ease, in which it will be remembered that the
award (in 4,0001. damages for the plaintiff) was impugned
by the defendant, on the ground of informality in itself,
and also of a breach of faith in the selection of arbitrators,
the Court enlarged the rule to set the award until next
term, to give the plaintiff an opportunity of bringing big

action, if he prefer to do so, or, in the meantime, the de-
fendant choose to abide by the awa-d.

FERGUSON V. SPENCER.
In this:case, which was brought to try whether the assig-
nee under an Irish Commission of Bankruptcy could pro-
ceed against debts and property in England, the judg-
ment of the Court is, that the assignee has the power.
LORD MANSFIELD V. BLACKBURN.
This was an action of covenant on a renewal of lease of
certain salt-works in Cheshire. The verdict was for the
plaintiff, and the Court now held the verdict to be good,
anddischarged the rule nisi, previously obtained, to set it
aside.

EXCHEQUER COURT-THIS DAY.

(Sittings in Banco.)
BROWN V. IkePIIRRSON.

This was a rule calling upon the plaintiff to show cause
why the defendant should not be discharged from custody,
hc having been arrested at Liverpocl for 50/. upon a pro-
cep issuing from this Court. It was argued early in
term, and stood over for judgment. The question to be
decided was whether the Judges of the superior Courts
had power to issue writs for the arrest of persons sworn to
be about to leave the country, which have effect in the
county palatine of Lancaster. Upon reading the Act of
Parliament the Court had no doubt of their having such
power. The rule, thercfme, must be di:Tharged, but
without costs.

HARWOOD V. LOW.
Mr. CRESSWELT, upon a former day moved for the
discharge of the defendant, who was in custody upon an
execution issued against him as the public officer of a joint
stock Lank, upon the ground that it did not appear on the
face of the proceedings that he was a member of the
Company at the time the execution issued.
The COURT, in giving judgment, said the state of the
law upon the point was very confused. The first case
which occurred was that of an Alderman of Dublin, who
being in London upon some public business, was taken in
execution upon a judgment which had been obtained against
the St. Patrick's Assurance Company, of which he was
a member. Ap -lication was made to the Court of Queen's
Bench, End the party was discharged, the Judges holding
that there ought to be a suggestion entered upon the Re-
cord. The Courts hal since laid it down that in such
cases a scire facias ought to issue ; but that was for the
purpose of making the judgment and the execution con-
sistent with each e'hcr, for otherwise the judgment might
be against A., and the execution against 8., without any
cause for the inconsistency appearing on the iceord. In
this case the defendant had not made it appear in his affi.
davit that he had ceased to be a member of the Company
at the time that the judgment had been obtained. That
ought to have been made clear; as it was not, the execu-
tion ought to stand against him.
Mr. Baron PA:IKE did not quite agree with the rest of
the Court in their judgment in this case. He had consi-
derable doubt whether the defendant ought not to have
a scire facias, so that it might be fairly tried, by a Jury,
whether he was or was not a member of the Company at
the time the judgment was obtained.
Barons GURNEY and RoI.FE agreed with the Lord Chief
Baron. The rule was therefore discharged.

JOHNSON V. M`DONALD.

Mr. KELLY showed cau_e against a rule for setting aside
the writ of capias ad satisfaciendem which had issued in
this case. The defendant had given a bond to cover the
payment of 2901 , the consideration for the good-will of a
public-house, judgment upon which had been entered up
in 1833. At that time 1051. was paid, and this year the
writ was sued out to recover the balar.ec.. It was sworn
in his affidavits that the 1051. was paid only in part satin•
faction, and was not accepted as in full sat'sfaction of the
bond.

- Sir F. POLLOCK and Mr. PEACOCK, in support of the
rule, contended that justice would not be done, but that
great injustice would, if it was not made absolute. They
had four affidavits, which showed clearly that in 1833 a
son of the defendant came forward to assist his mother in
getting rid of her difficulties ; that he advanced the 103/ ,
which, after a long negotiation, was accepted by the soli.
citor for the plaintifi in full satisfaction of the bond, at
the time showing a letter of authority to settle the action
then pending between the plaintiff and defendant. It was
a fit case for an issue or a reference to the Master, in
order to see on what side the facts were. The defendant
was an old lady, inwards of seventy-two years of age, and
had been now some time in custody, and as th re was so
much difference with respect to the facts, justice could not
be done without a jury.
The COURT did not think there was any irregularity in
the case, nor could they think the sum of 1051. was taken
in full satisfaction of a sum of upwards of 3001. The rule
must therefore be discharged.

CRIMINAL COURT-(THIS DAY.)

OLD COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice I:3SANQUET.)
TRIAL CF MR. PEARSE FOR ATTEMPTING TO MURDER
lIIS WIFF..-Arthur Legcnt Pearse, aged 38, surgeon,
was capitally indicted for shooting at Elizabeth Pearse, his
wife, with intent to murder her.
Mr. PIIILI.IPS and Mr. BALLANTINE conducted the pre-
sceution ; and *Mr. CLARKSON, with Mr. C. Jones, defended
Ihe prisoner.
Mr. Pnit,Lips stated the facts of the case, and called the
following witnesses :
Mr. Joseph Rose deposed that he was a surgeon, and
had been acquainted with the prisoner and his wife, who,
in the month of October last, resided in Bedford-place,
Kensington. On the 16th of that month witness called at
the prisoner's house, and was invited to dinner, and they
dined about two o'clock. Mr. Pearse was present at din-
ner. Witness banded a mutton chop to Mrs. Pearse, and
the prisoner took one and threw it about in his plate for
some time, and then suddenly jumped up and ran to the
window and threw it open, and said it was very
sultry. The prisoner then addressed his wife, and said,
" You have been trying to poison me for several days."

At the same instant Witness heard the report
of a pistol, and Mrs. Pearse swooned and fell from her
chair. Witness engaged the attention of the prisoner
while Mrs. Pearse made her escape from the room. The
prisoner was then in a very agitated state, and said he had
been poisoned,:and would be dead in three days. Its a
short time he went to Mrs. Pearse, and found that she had
been wounded, and that her clothes were on fire. The
prisoner being asked to give up the pistol, at first refused,
but he subsequently gave it him, and he ascertained that
it bad been recently discharged. The prisoner was shortly
afterwards taken into custody.
Cross-examined—The prisoner bas three children, and
the youngest is still at the breast of its mother. Believed
the prisoner had been married about four years. The
prisoner's eldest son was in the room when the pistol was
tired, and he was standing near his mother. Never saw
anything in the conduct of Mrs. Pearse but that of a kind.
I:earted, affectionate person, and the prisoner appeared to
act affsctionately towards his wife and family. The pri.
toner never showed me his boots, in consequence of his
supposing them to be saturated with arsenic.
The prisoner then asked the witness some questions, to
which the witness replied that he could nut recollect that
the prisoner's wife told him that he was mad.
Prisoner—Was there not a conversation of a peculiar na-
ture before the act occurred. .
Mr. PHILLIPS here interposed and said he did not think
this could be material.
Prisoner—lt is very material. It was that conversation
which misled me.
The witness then denied that any such conversation took
place.
Amelia Crutchley, the prisoner's cook, proved that she
searched the room after the occurrence took place, and
found a bullet, which she gave to a gentleman named Coley.
Cross-examined—Was not aware that Mr. Pcarse kept
loaded fire-arms about the house, lam not aware of the
slightest impropriety of conduct between Mr. Coley and
Mrs. Pcarse. The prisoner used to say that witness was
one of his bitterest enemies ; but he had no foundation
for such an opinion.
By the prisoner—Witness recollects that, two or three
nights before this took place, the prisoner and his wife
had some altercation about the plate, and the prisoner
accused his wife of an intention to decamp with it on the
following morning. She refused to let him sec the plate
at that hour of the night, and told him that he was a mad-
man. Witness did not hear her call him an " ugly pock-
marked old hound." Never heard the servants say that
Mr. Coley was the mistress's friend and not the master's.
Prisoner—Was not my jealousy of niy wife notorious ?
Witness—Not that lam aware of. The servants did not
talk about it. The prisoner kept his door locked, because
he thought Mrs.-Pearse wanted to poison him.
Mr. Samuel Taylor deposed, that he was a surgeon,
and between two and three o'clock on the 16th October,
lie was called on to see Mrs. Pearse, who was brought to
his house. Upon examining her person, he found a pistol
shot wound under her left arm. He found nothing had
entered the wound. The injury was not of a severe cha-
racter. The prisoner came to witness's house shortly after-
wards in a very agitated state, and asked witness whether
Mrs. Pearse was hurt. Witness told him she was, and he
requested to sec her, but witness refused to allow him to
sec her. The prisoner then said that she had been poison.
ing him, and that they would both be dead in three days.
Witness searched the prisoner's pockets, and found a
pistol in one of them. The pistol had been recently dis-
charged.
Cross-examined Had known the prisoner three or
four years, and had attended his family professionally.
From October, 1839, to January in the present year,
the prisoner was very ill, and laboured under fever and
great excitement, and was evidently in a state of delusion
upon several subjects ; and was attended by Dr. Harrison,
Sir Charles Scudamore, and other professional gentlemen.
The prisoner had delusions with respect to his malady.
Ile told hint upon one occasion, that he, unfortunately,
did not agree with his wife, but he did not make
any particular complaint in reference to her con-
duct. In witness's opinion, Mrs Pearse's conduct was most
unexceptionable, and there was not the slightest
foundation for the suspicion entertertained respecting her
by Bthyetphreisoln3reir. Prisoner.—You had a servant in attendance
''
eversee Mrs Pears
i
iless
bedroom
upopnri
saw her be
her there
once.duringys Prisoner
—Did
lreiDi
hlgsdscya?yoroudurN
that' V t eAs
Mrs
I p cc ea rT ts
ea i r
has
I acys in a
n independent
ot complained of Mrs. Pearse dip.r.
mssy—
Ichibldavieenh
ciarirdeoylodu
fortuneprisotn)fe Tiniav-cy ela
‘sc'aotmerplat the winter time?
of it. I do not
know the fact really occurred.
PNVinigtne

andPrtiren'erh—ildirleri°l?y(3uWittinlicsiiLEtiteanm.
dance upon Mrs. Pearsc
Prisoner—Are they all well? Witness—They are.
The children unusually se.
George I)-)naldson, a police constable, proved, that he
took the prisoner into custod and, upon searching him,
he found a pistol which hady'been recently discharged.
He afterwards searched the prisoner's bed•room, and in a
drawer he found another pistol loaded with ball, which
he now produced.
Robert Horne deposed that be vas a police:sergeant,
and on October 16 he was on duty at the station-house,
about eleven o'clock in the morning, and the prisoner
came to him and told him he wished to speak to him in

EVENING EDITION.

11

private, and they went into an inner room together. The
prisoner then told him that his wife had been endeavouring
to poison him by putting poison into his coffee and into his
pudding, and he wished witness to go to his house sad
search lizr boxes. The prisoner also told him that his
sheets were sprinkled with water during the day to damp
then, in order that he might catch cold. Witness told
him that he could not interfere in the matter, and he must
apply to his solicitor; and the prisoner then went away.
On the afternoon of the same day he received informs-
tion of the occurrence that had taken place, and he sent
Dunbar to take the prisoner into custody, and he was
soon afterwards brought to the station-house, and
witness put some questions to him, and when the pistol
that had been found in one of his drawers was laid upon
the table, and he was asked what he intended to have done
with it, he replied that if be had killed his wife, he
should have shot himself with i:. Witness afterwards
went to the prisoner'B house, and upon examining the room
%she' e the shot was fired, he found marks upon the wall,
which were evidently made bs shot.
This was the case for tho prosecution.
Mr. CLA RK SO N then addressed the Jury, and in a powerful
speech submitted to the Jury that they could come to no
other
rcothnociaucstio‘nvatshaniitotlirnathtilsieripgrhistosneenrsacts.the time he com-
mitted
Jury had not returned their verdict when we went
to press.

ACCIDENT ON 'THE LONDON
AND BIRMINGHAM RAILWAY.
adjourned
JiffiußesNt INQUEST.oEnDtiiebo..,,i,„of
The the two unfor-
tunate men, Joseph Simpson sod William Darrsan, who
were killed on the evening. of the I2th instant, was re-
sumed this morning at the Queen's Head Tavern, Harrow.
At a few minutes past ten o'clock the G,roner, Mr.
Wakley, having arrived, the Jury were called over, and
the usual proclamation made.
Mr. ROTCII, the Foreman of the Jury, said he had since
their last meeting received a very .improper anonymous
letter; its bin; anonymous showed that the party was
ashamed of his conduct. He was glad to say that the let-
ter abused the Coroner and himself (the Foreman), at

which he was very much plezved —(A laugh.) It shovre,d
that their proceedings were right. He should add that
he would not communicate the contents of the letter till

their verdict was delivered, because it might otherwise ap-
pear that they couli h~ influenced in any way by such a
letter. lie would say that from t!ie tenour and sty le of
the letter, and its diction, no one connected with the

railway can'd have had anything whatever to do with it.
The CORONER said it was evident the letter was not very
complimentary; he was in the habit of receiving numbers
of such letters, but he never paid the slightest attention to
them. When they mct on the first occasion, towards the
conclusion of the inquiry lie had considered it his duty to
suggest the propriety of calling some engineer before them
of competent skill and ab.lity to give his opinion as to the
cause of the fatal occurrence. It was afterwards venal.

dered most desirable to have Sir Frederick Smith, he
having been employed by the Government to investigate
catasti ophes of this kind. lie had in consequence ad-
dressed a letter to the Ilaard of Trade, and had received
an answer from Mr. Labouchere, in which be stated that
Sir Frederick Smith would attend the next meeting of the
Jury and give any information in his power.
Sir F. Smith here entered the room, and was accommo-
dated with a seat near the Coroner.

The CORONER said he had just communicated the con-
tents of Mr. Labouchere's letter to the Jury., and he was
ving- to add, that he now consiJered it useless to examine
Sir F. Smith. At the outset it appeared that they were
to hay? no witnesses but persons in the employ of the
Railway Company ; and it seemed to him that they had
not that clear view of the accident which would be satis-
factory to the Jury, or give that satisfaction to the public
which was required. He felt that they were in a difficulty,
if not an extremity, from that circumstance. The
only witnesses they had were persons who might be
deemed by the public interested pames--that was, parties
who in some respects might be deemed culpable or negli-
gent, and consequently there ryas not that candid and im-
partial evidence which it was so desirable to possess in an
investigation of that kind. But at the conclusion of the
second day's proceedings, the .veil which hung over the
cause of the accident had been completely lifted up and re-
moved, and he thought it impossible for any gentleman of
the Jury to have any doubt now as to the source of the
calamity. Consequently they were relieved, in a great
measure, from the necessity of seeking that kind of evi-
dence, which in the absence of any other it was so de-
sirable to obtain. The witnesses connected with the rail_
way had certainly given their evidence without any pre-
varication or concealment, and that in the presence of
their officers—their evidence was distinct and clear as to
the cause of the accident, and under these circumstances,
considering the pcsition occupied by Sir F. Smith, and the
report he might have made to the Government, which
might place him in a situation of some difficulty, he did not
think there was any necessity for examining him. He
should, however, be governed entirely by the decision of
the Jury.
. . .

The Jury having intimated that they did not think there
was any necessity to examine Sir F. Smith,

Sir P. Smith begged to be allowed to say one word ; he
had of course read with great interest the proceedings at
the Inquest, and he thought it lead been carried out in so
searching and satisfactory a manner as regarded the safety
of the public and the Company, that it was almost impos-
sible for any person to add anything to it. lie certainly
considered himself rather a new man in the Railway :de-
partment, although he had been twelve months employed
by the Government. But he believed if they had got the
most experienced man in England, be could not add any-
thing to the information they had already obtained.
Sir F. Smith then retired.

Mr. Horace Jago here addressed the Coroner. He
said he attended as the agent of Lord Nortbwick, the lord
of the manor. Lord Northwick held tho manor by charters
coming down to him from the earliest of the Norman kings.
Thu CORONER—I cannot hear you on that subject. Li
may be all true; but has Lord N athwick held any in.
quests here within the last 50 or 60 years?
Mr. hgo—l cannot say; but the whole of tae goods
and chattels of a murderer «•ere given up to him in 1812.
The CORONER—If there be a d7odand, you may apply
to the Court of Exchequer.

Mr. Jago said no court of any kind could legally take
place without Lord Northwick's content.
The CORONER—If he does not give his consent, he
cannot get tho deodand.—C A laugh.)
Mr. Jago merely felt it his duty to put is his claim
on behalf of the Lord of the Manor.
The CORONER—I think you had better nait till the in-

quest is over
John Jones was then called, and examined as follows :
I live in Newton-street, New North-road. I am employed
by Pickford and Co., the carriers. lam guard to the
luggage-train. I was wi',ll the luggage-train on the
evening of Thursday, the 12th inst , the night the acci-
dent happened. 13rown and Simpson were the drivers of
the luggage-train. Simpson was the 'engine-driver, and
had the management of the train. There wire two engines.
Simpson's was No 82 engine. I was at the back of the
last waggon. George Adams, one of the Conmany's
brcaksnien, was vita me. I don't recollect the time we
left Wolverton or Leighton. We stopped at Boxmoor,
but nut at Watford. I heard nothing at any of the sta-
tions of an accident having occurred at Woodcock-hill. I
did not hear of it tiil some time after the accident had
happened at Harrow to the train I was with. We were
near the carriage-shed at Harrow before we heard them
shouting " Hold on." The night was rather foggy, and
we did not see the red light till afterwards. Adams put
down the break as soon as he heard them shout out.
Mr. WAK Y —Adams's statement was that he saw a
red light 500 yards before he came to the policeman, who
was about 300 yards from the station.
Witness--When a ted light is seen by one, he gene-
rally communicates it to the others. I have been two
years employed on the line. I lave never known a driver
disobey the red signal, which is an order to stop. I can't
tell whether the steam was shut off from the engines or
not. The whistle is the noise we can best hear on the
railway in case of warning. I never knew the noise of
the train on the road to prevent me hearing it. I think
the luggage train makes more noise than the passenger
train. When the steam is shut off, the waggons bump
laghaaivnestoretaecnti
boet
eh
ne b
withu ts
mfelt very
.rl little ofght htiha t
mbping.
sometimes
rather a random driver. I never made any complaint of
him, as it was not my business. I saw Simpson's body
under the carriage. I don't know the number of that
waggon.
James Unsworth—l live at Wt;,l.verton. lam an engine-
driver on the Birmingham Railroad. I was employed in
driving an engine on the night the accident happened. It
was a passenger train. We started from Woivcrlon eight
or ten minutes past four o'clock. We stripped at Tring
and Watford. We stopped at Watford because there ergs
a train before us, lut we do not usually stop there, it

might be twenty-five minutes past five when we stopped at
Watfurd. I heard of the accident at Woodcock Hill when
we got to Harrow. I was told by one of the policemen.
He said the luggage train was off the line akeut a mile rr a
mile and a half from the station. He desired me to cress
to the other line. I was stopped by a red light at Harrow.
I saw three red lights there. The first was about quarter
of a mile from the station—that was the policeman's light.
The other two were one opi:osite the station, and the
-
other on the near side. I %as hai;• a mile off when I sear
the first light. I was going- about tlii,:.v miles an hour
when I saw the first light. When I (40 near thee
policeman I saw the other lights. I ga'.P 1
alarm with the whistle when I saw the first red light.
the
told the fireman to hold on the break, awd
steam off. We stopped at the bridge. "
rbe enegisntapperl
just the other side of the bridge. We could hav
us. '"
sooner, but the Aylesbury train was behind
The A;lesburf
on to allow it to stop at the station. The
but sca did
train stopped always at the Harrow shuet
wa
train at the first sigma.
not. 1 could have stopped the.
Id put on the break,
guard saw the red light first
th I
told the policeman to
and we should soon feel
thhae'r down the line, till I bad
where the policeman was statroenewilellif_ I pleased. If the
stop the Aylesbury train further
was as soon as ho told me the
crossed at the p
about a hundred yards from the
Aylesbury tram stopped
beard there had been any accident at Bar-
row, If I
he
If I saw
luggage train
come on very quietly.
sLloaffmtbe line. The policeman did so, and the
row, I should
my train was to stop
station, whether
nearest
not, and give notice of it. The instructions
an accident onav the line, I should stop at the
there °r •
he
of gently
accident—to notice and attend to all signals.
had received from Mr. But were to go
iiinecabled been two years and a-half an engine driver. Before
that he had worked with his father, 4 blacksmith. I was
before that an extra fireman on the Manchester line. I
had been out only three or four times. I had no other
experience in the management of railways before I came
on the Birmingham line. \Vas for seven or eight months
acting as fireman on the Birmingham line. As fireman I
bad twenty-five shillings a week. I have 21. 2i. as driver,
and paid for Sundays extra. I can see the red signal •_
mile_and a quarter from the station if there be no fog.
The printed instructions now banded me were shown yr
me twelve months ago. There is another for
signals,
which I had also.
(The Jury had not returned a verdict when we went to press)

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.

FROM THE DAILY PAPERS OF YESTERDAY.
(From the Globe.)
Qualls ab incepto may be the motto of the Newspaper
Ministry, the loss of which is no loss to the honour of
France, whatever a portion of the press may say, but
'he existence of which was certainly a continued danger,
and az actual detriment, to that honour, so far as it de-
,•endtlEl on consistent language and conduct in the official
sepresentatives of France towards the rest of the world.
M. Thiers evidently laboured under the frequent de-
lusion of clever men, who imagine they can be all
to all men, and that they can make all men take
their counters for coin. M. Thirsts thought be could
p7ey up on all the Powers of Europe and gain time, while
_
they remained passive under his pretence of negoti-
ation. Out of that policy came the Treaty of the
15th July. M. Thiers appears to have remained con-
sistent with that policy to the last, if we may attach
c-edit (as, we believe, we may) to the accounts
which we give in another part of e:tr paper, of the part
ish:ch M. Walewsky has been instructed to play with
Mehemet Ali. This consistency is, however, the consist-
ency. of inconsistency—the effect of the inveterate
f playing fast and loose with all parties. It did not
tae on the Powers of Europe, who saw its duplicity.
A cannot well have imposed on Mehemet Ala who must
ive felt how completely M. niers made a cats.paw of
tem, and left him to burn his wen fingers. It imposed
r a while on the French eress, and the restleis portion
of the French public; but it has now ceased to impose
them—the bubble has burst.
(From the Standard.)
The Morning _Herald (ti hick has been extremely well
• iterated, throughout, of the negotiations upon the Eastern
aestion, and has generally given the earliest information,
teough with a little bias, of which we do not altogether
approve), this morning gives an abstract of the note corn-
reemicared by Lord Granville to M. Guizot. The
Vine of the paper thus described, and the terms which
it proposes, appear, from the Herald's abstract, to be
perfectly proper. Lord Palmerston explains—what it
must have been hardly necessary to exp'ain, except
from considerations of courtesy—that his Lordship's note
of November 2, which had excited so much uneasiness in
France, was addressed to the former, not to the present,
French Cabinet—and that its language and arguments
were directed against the style assumed by M. Thiers,
not against what might be expected from the ad-
ministration of Marshal Soult and M. Guizot. It
is well that the French people, at least as many
of them as desire the continuance of peace, should
reflect upon this, all inconsiderable as it may
seem to shallow observers. An insolent manner
will often, we may say always, go farther to inter-
rupt friendly relations, or to impede reconciliation,
than the most serious difference in opinions or in wishes.
France clearly owes the preservation of peace, and the
maintenance of her position in Europe as the effect of the
preservation of peace, to the late change. Of course the
cla3s of Frenchmen who love war better than they love
their country will not be pleased at this result of the
King's policy, but their number is, we hope, incon-
siderable. While thus obviating all difficulties that could
arise from the manner of the negotiations hitherto,
Lord Palmerston firmly adheres to the terms of the
treaty of July, as affording a rule from which he
cannot deviate; intimating farther that Mehemet Ali will
hazard his possession of Egypt by persevering in rebellion.
This is right : the old rebel must not be allowed to play
the safe game that he would if Egypt were guaranteed to
him, and those possessions only put in peril to which he
never had any pretence of title.
(From the Courier.)
This morning we have received three days' supplies of
Paris papers—.viz., those of Friday, Saturday, and Sun-
d ty. They communicate a few facts, the political ten-
dency of which is of aR important character, but their
contents for the most part deserve no particular atten-
tion. There is a good deal of mystification in these
journals on the subject of a fresh note addressed by
Lord Palmerston to M. Guizot upon the affairs of the
East. According to the Moniteur, this note is of a
mare conciliatory 'character" than that of the last
-bich emanated from his Lordship. The information
given by the French Papers upon the subject is so vague
that we are not astonished they should have formed an
imperfect idea of the quality of this document. The
Morning Herald, however, has enabled the Brit'sh pub-
lic to form a much cle.rer conception of its true charac-
ter; for, as will be seen by the article from that paper,
copied into another column, the French must have em-
ployed even more than the full extent of the sagacity to
which they lay claim if they really found in it anything of
a peculiarly amicable complexion. The fact is, that the
one adopted towards Mehemet Ali is as dictatorial and
.cremptory as it well could be. A considerable
ortion of the contents of these papers is devoted to corn-
earieons between M. ,Guizot and M. Thiers, particu-
-1 sly those of Friday, the speech of M. Guizot in the
Chamber of Peers having afforded an excellent opportu-
e;ty for reviving exciting topics. We select a brief com-
e ,ntary made upon this document by three of these
,eurnals. The Constitutionnel observes, that "if France
admits his doctrines on the subject of alliances, it is out
f the question that she can preserve a single ally,
(according to it) the obligation to assist a friendly
ration ceases the moment that the assistance promised
l,eeemes efficacious." "M. Guizot's principle is to
interfere up to the moment of danger only." The
Commerce, on the other hand, observes, that if M.
Guizot confined himself to abandon our allies, it
might be supposed that the maxim Every one for him-
self' constituted the foundation of his doctrine ; but,"
adds that journal, " it is not only the cause of our ally he
now deserts, but our own interests and our own cause. M.
Guizot has added a corollary to the maxim—' Every one
for himself,'—' and the foreigners in our country.' "
The Univers contends, that " England, being desirous
to annihilate the Pacha of Egypt, in order to destroy the
influence of France in the East, M. Guizot was not jus-
tified in asserting that the Treaty of London was not a co-
alition against France." Although the remarks just
quoted do not exhibit anything like a tone of congratu-
lation upon the speech of M. Guizot, yet, we find, upon
the whole it had a very good effect in Paris, and the con.
fidence in the continuance of peace was stronger than ever.