The Sun.
London, England, 1847-12-03 00:00:00

least interfere with the obligation to fulfil the terms of
such engagements.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER ex-
plained that the clause would only apply to prospective
cases of compensation, and not to parties who had
already entered into agreements with railway companies

Mr.AGLIONBY thought they ought to have the
opinion of the law officers of the Crown upon these
two clauses, for he confessed he did not agree
with the explanation of the Right Hon. Gentleman the
Chancellor of the Exchequer. In his opinion, all who
were entitled to compensation, no matter whether they
had made agreements or not, would be entitled to make a
claim under this Bill, and he thought it was nothing but
right and proper that it should be so. At one period of his
Parliamentary life he thought the views of railway di-
rectors with regard to the public good were really sin-
cere, but now he did not think so, for he could
mention instances without end where railway companies
had curtailed the trains for the accommodation of third
class passengers, and broken up stations which were
established for the purpose of inducing parties to pur-
tame the land in the neighbourhood.—(Hear, hear.)
He wished to know from the Learned Gentleman, the
Attorney-General, what was to entitle the landholders
to compensation ?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL replied that it would
be advisable for the Committee to put its construction
upon the clause. There were three classes of land-
owners—those who had received compensation for
their land, and who were to give it up when re-
quired ; he did not consider that they were enti-
tled to compensation. The other classes where
those who had given up their land, and in which the
works had been commenced, and those which had been
scheduled. but who had not yet received compensation,
the House should determine which of them was or was
not entitled to compensation.
Sir G. CLERK thought it the duty of the Govern-
ment to frame their clauses in such a manner as not to
leave them open to doubt. They should determine
whether all the classes mentioned were included in the
Bill or not.

Mr. HAYTER thought that the Bill as it originally
stood would authorize compensation to be given in every
possible case that might arise, and he did not think that
it would be worth while for the representatives of rail-
way companies to accept the Bill with such provisions.
After a few words from A. STAFFORD,
Mr. STRUTT said that the clause proposed to
be substituted was prepared before the Government
were aware of the opinions of the Hon. Member for
Sunderland (Mr. Hudson) on the subject.
Mr. HENLEY believed that the parties who had
sold the land to railway companies, and received
payment for the same would be entitled to compensation,
on the ground; of the increased length of time which
their property would lie open during the completion of
the works. The Railway Commissioners were striving
to throw dust in the eyes of the public by a clause to give
compensation to parties who would sustain no interest
and claim no compensation. He hoped the Government
would accede to the principle, and bring up a clause on
the report of the Bill, embodying the principle.
Mr. OSWALD supported the original clause.
Mr. BAINES thought that the landowner was en-
titled to the fullest protection which the Go•
vernment could afford. He thought, however, that
there was some ambiguity in the original clauses
and suggested that the Government should bring up a
clause on the report, affording adequate protection and
full provision for compensation in all eases that might
arise under the operation of this Bill.
After a few words from the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer, Mr. Scott, Mr. Wood, and Mr. Henley,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEYUERconsented
to withdraw the clauses, and bring up an amended clause
on the report.
The remaining clauses were then proceeded with.
(LEFT SITTING.)

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.
William Smith, servant to the Rev. Richard Ridley,
of Darrington, near Pomfret, Yorkshire, was brought
before the Lord Mayor upon the charge of having
robbed his master of a quantity of plate.
The ahopman of Mr. Barker, pawnbroker of Hounds-
ditch, stated that some days ago the prisoner, who was
unknown to the house, called and asked what they
would give per ounce for silver. Witness replied that
the price would be according to the quality, and next
morning the prisoner called with some spoons and a
sugar lifter, and was detained upon suspicion of having
stolen them. The prisoner was in the dress of a gen-
tleman's servant.
The Rev. Mr. Ridley said ho had hired the prisoner
with whom he had received an excellent character, about
the 9th or 10th of November, five days after which the
man complained of illness, and was told the sooner he
went away the better. He went off on the 15th of No•
vember, and before he was gone a number of silver forks,
spoons, and other articles of plate were missed. The
property produced as having been pledged at Mr. Bar-
ker's house was part of that which had been missed.
Ou the 11th of November, about five o'clock in the
morning, the prisoner raised an alarm that the house
had been entered by thieves, and it was found that the
plunder of the plate had taken place. The particulars
were placarded, and the apprehension of the prisoner
soon followed the announcement.
Tho prisoner said he had been pressed by a young
man with whom he was acquainted to rob his master.
For some time he resisted the temptation, but at last it
became too strong for him. His accomplice had assisted
him, and was to have met him at Brentford, but after-
wards left him in the hobble to get out of it as well as
he could.
The prosecutor said he believed the prisoner had com-
mitted the offence on tho spur of the moment, and that
he had been induced by some evil adviser.
The prisoner was at once sent to Pomfret for trial for
the burglary.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.
Carl Esmann and Abraham Poracy were brought up
for re-examination on various charges of swindling.
To prove the false pretence—namely, that Esmann
had never held any appointment in the British Museum
—Mr Panizzi, one of the librarians, was called.
Mr. Panizzi stated that the two prisoners were total
strangers to him. The prisoner Esmann was never ap-
pointed to any situation in the British Museum, nor was
there a situation as foreign librarian vacant.
Mr. Ballantine (in addition to Mr. Lewis) appeared
for the prisoner Poncy.
Mr. Ballantine applied to have the evidence at the
previous examination read over.
This having been done,
Mr. Ballantine said, before going on with the next
case, he proposed to sift the first case a little, as he
should be able to prove that Poncy bad been deceived by
the representations of Esmann.
Mr. Smith examined—Had been acquainted with
Esmann since July last. First saw Poncy a few days
after this. Could not recollect whether Esmann had
told him that he had a situation as librarian in the
British Museum before he became acquainted with
Poncy. Would not swear that he had not told some
persons before he became acquainted with Poncy, that
Esmann held a situation in the British Museum. Had
lent Esmann money; there had been one bill trans-
action for 351. with Esmann. That bill witness
had drawn on Esmann, but it was dishonoured.
There had also been a bill transaction for 101.,
which witness had accepted, but had not got
paid. Had never denied his signature to this bill.
Had heard that bills were afloat bearing his signature,
and had said that these bills were not accepted by him.
At first witness thought that the signature to the 10/.
bill was not in his handwriting, and had stated as much.
Had obtained a horse from allr.Davis. Therewaa no charge
made against witness on account of this horse, but there
was a demand made by Mr. Davison account of the horse.
Esmann had no part in this affair, The horse, and the
chaise to which it was harnessed, were detained by Mr.
Davis. The chaise belonged to Esmann, and witness
allowed the horse in question to be put to it. It was
about two months ago that this transaction took place.
Had told a person named Carr that Esmann held a situ-
ation in the British Museum. Could not swear that he
had told this to Carr in the presence of Esmann. Be-
lieved that Carr and Esmann met for the first Limo at
witness's house.
Mr. Smith said Esmann had been introduced to him
by Mr. Mailers, a broker, in Drury lane, who said
Esmann was a perfect gentleman. He should not have
introduced Mr. Carr to Mr. Esmann at his house, unless
he had believed in the perfect respectability of Esmann.
The next case was then gone into.
Mr. Carr, furniture dealer, Nos. 14 and 15, Aston•
place, Holloway, examined—Towards the latter end of
July Smith introduced Esmann to him as a respectable
man, having the command of plenty of money. Some
time after this Esmann applied to him for goods to fur-
nish apartments with. Esmann said he had an appoint-
ment in the British Museum ; he had a suite of apart-
ments there, and the furniture must be of a good de-
scription. Esmann selected goods to the amount of 101.,
but witness was reluctant to send the goods. The pri-
soner, however, called, and took part away in a cab,
and witness delivered himself a looking-glass for Esmann
at No. 47, Russell-street, the house kept by Poncy.
Witness agreed to take a bill for the goods. This bill
had not been paid. Before witness left the house he
saw Poncy, and put some questions to him in relation
to the order for furniture given by Esmann. Poncy
said he knew nothing at all about Esmana's furniture
transactions. Poncy incidentally told witness that
Esmann had got an appointment at the British Museum,
and was to enter on his duties in January next. Poncy
also said Esmann was going to live in the building.
This " did " for witness, his suspicions vanished, and ho
sent in all the goods ordered by Esmann.
Cross-examined by Mr. Ballantine—Mr. Smith had
previously told him that Esinann said he held a situation
in the British Museum. Smith introduced Esmann to
witness as a highly respectable man, having an account
at Smith, Payne, and Co.'s.
Police-constable Johncock, C division, produced an
inventory found in Poncy's possession.
Mr. Horsley said that inventory related to Carr's fur.
niture, and would prove an arrangement between Poncy
and Esmann as to the disposal of the goods.
The constable also produced a number of letters, di-
rected to Esmann, found in Poncy's possession. The
goods obtained from Mr. Carr were still in Great Rus•
sell-street, at Poncy's house.
Mr. BINGHAM said, he could not discharge Poncy on
his own declaration that he had been taken in by Es-
mann. If the Learned Counsel could show that Poncy
had been deceived, then such a circumstance would ope-
rate on the decision he should come to.
Mr. Ballantine proceeded to argue that Esmann by
his plausible appearance and representations succeeded
in imposing on Mr. Poncy, who was a respectable
tradesman, carrying on business in Great Russell-street
for many years. Now, with respect to the transaction
between Esmann and Smith, that would have to be in-
vestigated elsewhere, and ho should not enter upon that
matter now. As to the case of Carr, it was clear, from
the evidence, that the goods obtained by Esmann were