The Sun.
London, England, 1847-04-22 00:00:00

I'llE SUI___S:t_LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING-_ APRIL 22, 1847.

few minutes' consultation, the Committee deeded that the
preamble to the Bill was proved.
The remainder of the day was occupied in going through
the clauses.

GROUP XVI.
GREAT NORTHERN (BRANCHES FROM

HERTFORD TO ST. AMMAN'S).
The Committee re-assembled this morning at the usual
hour; Mr. Kenible in the chair.
At the sitting of the Committee the Chairman intimated
that the business was proceeding slowly; betore they called
any more witnesses to show the necessity of the branch, he
thought it right to inform counsel that the Committee were
agreed that a line of railway was required between Hertford
and St. Alban's.
Mr. HILDYAR.D admitted, on the part of the Eastern Coun-
ties, that such a line was required.
Mr. Sergeant WRANGIIAM said, if the Committee were sa-
tisfied of that, it would be unnecessary to call any more wit-
nesses with respect to the local advantages of the line, but
simply to adduce engineering evidence, and evidence as to
the advantages which it would confer upon other parts of
the country ; he would, however, with the permission of the
Committee, call Mr. Repton, M.P. for the borough of Saint
Alban's.

Mr. Repton, M.P., was then called and examined by Mr.
Sergeant WRANGITAM. His evidence went to corroborate
that already adduced in favour of the line—that it would 5e
of the greatest advantage to his constituents, and to Hatfield
and Hertford, and would open up communication east and
west, and, by the existing lines and those to be made, north
and south, which the district did not possess at present.
Mr. West said he had been employed to ascertain the popu-
lation in Hertfordshire immediately contiguous to each of
the lines which traversed it, and the following were the
results :—On the London and North Western, 47,020 ; the
Eastern Counties, 44,095 ; and on the Great Northern, 65,597.
The Hitchin population was included in the number allotted
to the Great Northern.
Mr. Wrigley, a mining engineer, said he was well ac-
quainted with the coal mines of Yorkshire, Derby, and Lei-
cester, and that he had visited the district traversed by the
proposed line, in connexion with the coal trade. The price
of coals, owing to the circuitous and expensive route, was very
high in the district. In Hertford the price of the same kind
of coal had varied from 18s. 6d. to 325. The Silkston
coal had not yet found its way into the district.
The consumption of coal in the district was at the rate of
one ton per head of the population. By the aid of the Direct
Northern and the proposed branches, coals could be brought
into the district at 12s. 6d. per ton less than at present,
particularly the Silkston coal (Silkston is near Barnsley).
Cross-examined—Knew that Parliament had granted a
line from Lynn to Ely, thus giving a continuous line of rail-
way between that port and Hertford ; but coals would not
be brought by sea to Lynn and transmitted to Hertford by
railway, as the price at Lynn would be the same as that at
which they could be delivered by railway in the district.
Mr. Webb, a corn-factor at Hackney, gave evidence in
favour of the line.
Mr. Cubitt, jun., the engineer, was then examined at con-
siderable length with respect to the line. It would be
miles long; would cost between 300,0001. and 400,0001., and
presented no engineering difficulties of any kind.
By the COMMiTTEE—It was advisable to carry on the line
from Hertford to Ware, parallel with the line of the Eastern
Counties, in order to avoid any interference with the traffic
of that line, which was considerable between Hertford to
Ware ; and because it would be well to have an independent
terminus.

The witness was also examined with respect to the pro-
perties or' the petitioning landowners—Baron Dimsdale, Mr.
Smith, and Mrs. Chambers; but he denied that in either
case residential injury would be done, as the properties were
crossed in the most objectionable parts.
Adjourned until to-morrow (this day).

GROUP XVIII.
The Committee, the Earl of Lincoln in the chair, met
this morning at twelve o'clock, when several witnesses were
called to show the facility which this branch would give to
the trade of Gloucester.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
ROUSE OF COMMONS, Apeil 21.
FACTORIES BILL.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
Sir DE LACY EVANS—The only argument that had
been used against this Bill was that it had a tendency to
restrict the labour of the poor, but those who took up that
position had totally failed in proving it. He considered
the arguments of the Noble Lord at the head of her Ma-
e,ty's tiovernment quite satisfactory, and therefore he felt
bound to give the measure his support. He was very much
astonished to see the party who was so earnest in denouncing
the Protectionists fur intolerance, on the subject of the corn-
Laws, now evincing the same feelings on this question. He
thought it absurd to say that the glory and greatness of this
country were depeneent upon the diminution of the hours of
labour of the infest's who were engaged in factories.
Lord J. RUSSELL did not expect that any discussion
would arise to-day on the Bill at this stage, but as it had
arisen no one had a right to complain of the course
adopted. With regard to the working of the eleven hours
they had some experience. and were able to form
a judgment of the propriety of adopting it; but with
regard to the ten hours they had no such proof, and there-
fore he had not such confidence in its operation. He very
much regretted that that clause should have become part
of the Bill, but considering the majority with which it was
affirmed, he considered he would not be justified in with-
holding his support from the Bill at this stage in con-
sequence of his opinion being overborne. He wished, how-
ever, to observe that he was not quite sure but the House
would have to be called upon in a future session to revise the
course which they now adopted.
Mr. ROEBUCK was surprised at the course the Noble
Lord adopted on this occasion, and was still more at the
speech which he had just made. The Noble Lord said he
would support the Bill, because the labouring classes did not
petition against it ; but this was a very strange assertion
after the admission of the Noble Lord, that the ten loam'
clause would have the effect of diminishing the wages of
labour.
The House then divided when the numbers were—
For the amendment... 46
Against it lO4
Majority
Mr. BROWN then moved the following clause :—" And
be it enacted, that in all cases where, by reason of the
restictions by this Act respectively imposed, as regards
the working of persons under the age of eighteen
years, and of females above the age of eighteen years,
the lessee or occupier, lessees or occupiers, of any
such mill or factory as is in this Act referred
to, or any part thereof, or any rooms therein, shall not be
entitled to or be by law able to enjoy the full and beneficial
use of the steam or water power contracted to be supplied
by the lessor or landlord for the full length of time for which
the lessee or occupier, lessees or occupiers, would, but for this
Act, have been entitled to, a proportionate abatement of the
rent payable by such lessee or occupier, lessees or occu-
piers, shall be made and allowed by the lessor or landlord,
such proportionate abatement to be fixed and settled by any
two of her Majesty's Justices of the Peace, who shall have
full power to hear the parties and their respective witnesses,
and to summon them before them, the said justices, for that
purpose, and finally to adjudicate and determine in the pre-
mises if the parties differ about the same.
Mr. BROTHER TON was in favour of the clause.
Mr. ROEBUCK said that it followed from this the Bill did
not arise from a feeling of humanity, but from a desire to
put a thorn in the side of the manufacturers.
Mr. NEWDEGATE opposed the clause, and thought
there was no grounds whatever for the imputation of the
Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Roebuck) against the Protectionist
party.
Mr. AGLIONBY said there were two legal objections to
the clause, and he thought if it was acceded to, it would give
rise to endless difficulties.
Mr. FERRAND said that when the corn-law measure was
before the House no such clause was proposed, and he saw
no reason why it should be proposed now.
Sir GEORGE GREY thought the object of the clause
misunderstood. He hoped, however, the Hon. Member would
withdraw the clause, as he did not consider that it would
effect the object intended.
Mr. M. PHILIPS said the change had been recom-
mended by the manufacturers themselves, and he thought
their wishes should be attended to. It was not for the
public advantage to have relays of workers, and the opera-
tion of the clause would be to prevent this.
Sir R. PEEL hoped that the clause would be withdrawn.
Though he had given his opposition to the Bill, he could not
consent to this clause, as it would be introducing a
most unusual rule, and ome that might operate most inju-
riously. This was not the first time that the hours of labour
had been interfered with, and it never had yet occurred to
the House to provide such an arrangement respecting the
moving power as suggf sted. He could not see how it waa
possible to ascertain the amount of loss that this Bill
would occasion under any suck contracts; and, therefore,
he could not consent to it. lie believed that all such con-
tracts were entered into with a calculation of their being
operated on by causes, such as the Bill now undergoing
discussion. Ile was sure the clause would occasion much
heartburning and ill-feeling were it agreed to.
Mr. BROWS then withdrew his clause.
Viscount EBRINGTON said, as this Bill had already been
much discussed, he would not occupy the House with a
speech, but move the clauses of which he had given notice,
and on which he intended to take the sense of the House.
He concluded by moving the first clause :—" Be it enacted,
that none of the provisions of this Act, respecting the restric-
tion of their hours of labour, shall apply to adult women."
After a few words from Mr. FERRAND, this clause was
negatived without a division.
Viscount EBRINGTON then proposed the following
clauses :—" And be it further enacted, that no person
shall, after the passing of this Act, be appointed as
an inspector or superintendent of factories who is not
a duly licensed medical practitioner. And be it fur-
ther enacted, that the inspectors and superintendents so
appointed shall be empowered and required to report
from time to time on the state of health of the
persons employed in factories, or any defect in
the construction, or arrangement, or management of
the places of work which may effect the health
of persons employed there, and on the means of' im-
provement or prevention. ' Whereas, by the Act 42
Geo. 111. c. 73, justices were directed to appoint two
persons to visit mills, and besides other duties to direct the
adoption of such sanatory regulations as on advice they may
think proper; and whereas the Act 3 and 4 William IV.,
c 103, states that the provisions of the said Act with relation
to these appointments were not duly carried into effect,
and therefore provides for the appointment of inspectors
and sub-inspectors ; and whereas the Act 7 and 8 Vic.,
c. 14, declares, that no inspector of factories shall
have power, in that capacity, to make rules, regu-
lations, and orders, as authorised by the said Act 3 and
4 Will. IV., c. 103, except as thereinafter mentioned; and
whereas in the subsequent clauses no such sanatory provi-
sions as were authorised by the Act 42 Geo. 111., c. 73, are
mentioned.' Be it therefore further enacted, that inspectors
•
and sub inspectors shall have the same powers, with• respect.
to defective ventilation or drainage, which they shall dean
likely to cause bodily ill health to any person employed in
such factory, as they now have with respect to unguarded ma-
chinery which they may deem likely to cause bodily injury."
The Noble Lord then proceeded to state the reasons why the
clauses were necessary. Their object was to ensure a healthy
atmosphere for the operatives in the factories, and to have
such inspectors appointed as would efficiently attend to these
points. At present such matters were very imperfectly at-
tended to.
The clauses not being seconded, were negatived.
Mr. LEADER then moved the following clause :—" And be
it enacted, that if any accident happen to the steam-
engine, water-wheel, or mill-gearing in any factory,
whereby any part of the manufacturing machinery
shall be stopped during the usual hours of work allowed
by this Act, it shall be lawful to recover the time so
lost, in the following manner, that is to say :—Any child or
young person, or any woman, may be employed one hour in
each day more than the time to which the ordinary daily
labour of children and young persons and women respec •
tively is restricted by law, until such lost time be recovered."
Mr. BRIGHT seconded the clause.
Mr. HINDLEY believed that such a clause would be
extremely injurious; it would lead to fraud, for when the
inspector came round the master would say that they
had had some great break down.
Mr. FERRAND supported the clause. If a slight accident
happened, if the mill stopped fur an hour, there was no op-
portunity to get up the loss. At the present time, if such an
accident happened the mill-owner stopped his mill for three
hours, because when he did so he was allowed by law
to make up the time at the rate of one hour a day. It
would be no advantage one way or the other.
Mr. HUME said that it had been represented to him that
there was great inconvenience suffered by the present
an angement ; he would therefore support the clause.
Mr. MUNTZ said that the men were kept lounging about
the mill for the three hours; now that was a very serious
consideration, for if they were so kept they might as well be
allowed to work.
Mr. FIELDEN said the working people were quite satisfied
with the le.v as it stood, without any introduction of a clause
of the kind proposed.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL objected to the clause, as it
would open a door to fraud.
Mr. LEADER said that it was his intention to divide the
House unon the question. He could not understand the oppo-
sition which the clause met; it would not introduce any-
thingnovel into the Bill; it would benefit the manufacturers,
but it would also benefit the workpeople in a greater degree.
It was really too bad, when any proposition emanated from
the manufacturers that it was received with suspicion. The
clause was a most just one, and had the benefit of the work-
ing classes in view, and not that of the manufacturers.
The House then divided, when there appeared
--
For the clause 3l
Against it
M
(Forded the
Members ..etEf
RtShCleGOdlitTe
decision
s suggestedicnonnnefi
vttetde Majoritytithiheaant tst
eit
mhneenr
ought
uhs
ghe
hoctuultedoe
tbbt
eeenaa. pOlt3pon
Members who were unavoidably absent to express their
opinion on this question.
Mr. HUME thought the earliest day that could be named
was the best, but at all events a day should be fixed.
Mr. FERRAND—There was a rumour that Parliament
would be prorogued early in June. If that were the case,
and if there were any lengthened delay, there would be little
chance of the measure being carried this session.
Sir GEORGE GREY thought that Friday next would,
perhaps, meet the views of all parties to have the question
further considered.
Mr. AGLIONBY thought that a day should be fixed. He
should be very unwilling to impede the Government, but he
thought there was nothing that could be decided on next
Friday that they were not competent then to determine upon.
He hoped that when the present question came on it would
not interfere with the measures of Government.
Sir A. LEITH HAY said that one thing appeared to him
important, which was, that if the Bill be fixed for Friday it
should not come on on that day.—( Laughter.)
The third reading was then fixed for Friday, with the
understanding that a day should then be fixed when the
third reading should take place.
NAVAL PRISON'S BILL.
On the motion that the House do go into Committee on
this Bill,
Mr. WILLIAMS objected to the Bill, as it placed the
sailor in a worse condition than he was before. The
sailor of this country was subjected to cruelty such as
no nation under the sun ever endured. To show this he
would only state a case which occurred the other day at
Portsmouth, when a marine was tried, under Sir William
Parker, for striking his sergeant, and the man was sentenced
to be hung at the yard-arm. A similar crime was com-
mitted by a soldier in the Guards a short time since,
and the sentence was twelve months' imprisonment. The
sentence f the marine was afterwards commuted to seven
years' transportation, but these and other cases of a similar
nature showed the inconsistency of the law in both services.
would permit a eailorv'
He thought that the powers given to the captains were too
in
no
thebe entrustedwn r
ld, an
dto
commandingt ehand s o fmyeonu young
dme (ni
y court-martial, b th • e their fathers, and • • He called u
te wall versed in all their duties as
aa;lsol,s,ualviginlhieet xrhtsoi.
upon the House not to sanction any Act which
a senttilai tofe
r theprison fsolirg
slightest out even a trial. b
offence.
Mr. WARD s 'd th •
al at this Bill
the Admiralty, and • was kindly brought in by
possible
with the sanction of every gentleman in

the House had progressed through two stages without any
discussion. He thought that, although it was understood that
the discussion of the Bill would be taken to-day, yet
that his Honourable Friend had taken this opportunity,
most unfairly, to make a general attack upon the service at
the moment when the Admiralty were taking means to
remedy the very evils which he had so glowingly
described. His Honourable Friend had taken a wrong
view of the whole object of the Bill, for, instead of being in-
tended to oppress the sailor, it was meant to benefit him, by
substituting in some cases a period of imprisonment instead
of a corporal punishment. Some stringent measures were
absolutely necessary to keep up the discipline which was es-
sential on board her Majesty's vessels, and yet it was the de-
sire of the Admiralty to save the sailors themselves from un-
necessary and too severe punishment. There were quarterly
returns made of all the punishments inflicted in the navy,
and these returns were jealously scrutinised by the Admi-
ralty, and in cases were that punishment appeared to be too
severe, an immediate reprimand followed. By this Bill he
only wished to substitute imprisonment, without court-
martial for corpral punishment, without at all increasing
the means of severity now placed in the hands of captains.
With these observations he might safely leave the Bill in the
hands of the House, confident that it would receive its
sanction. _ _ _

After a few words from Colonel Thomas Wood, Admiral
Dundas, and Captain Plumridge,
Captain PECH ELL said that these punishments properly
carried out would in some time entirely cease. It was
really impossible to carry out discipline on board
ship without the power which the Government placed
in the hands of the authorities. He was serving
off Toulon at' the very time which was referred to, and when
he considered how badly fed and clothed the sailors were, he
was not surprised that there should be mutiny ; he only
wondered how patiently the men bore their privations.
But the time was now very different ; the sailors were bet-
ter taken care of, and, by a proper exertion on the part of
the officers, no such circumstances as those alluded to would
again occur.
Captain FITZROY wished to bear his testimony to the
zeal shown by the Admiralty to raise the condition of the
willing to assist in
perfectly febcet
Iliyeved it was framed
as much as possible to do away with corporal punishment.
cmaernryiinngtheeutsetrbveichle.
He only begged that those in authority would take due pre-
ealisuere,waass
caution lest the discipline of the navy should be destroyed.
They had only- to go slowly in order to go securely.
Captain BERKELEY said that desertion had become very
common, and the Admiralty, in order to put it down, had
in two instances ordered court martials, the sentences of
which were more severe than usually would have been in-'
flicted by the captain of the vessel.
Mr. HOWARD said that the frequency of desertion arose
from the circumstance of the pay in the American service
being much higher than in the English, and he hoped that
no false delicacy would prevent the Government from
taking the question of pay into consideration.
Mr. NVILLIA3IS bad no objection to the Bill if they
would strike out the first part of the preamble.
Mr. WARD said it was not possible for him to strike out
the paragraph inserted. No one could doubt but that, as
declared by the preamble, the authorities of the Admiralty
had had hitherto the power to inflict corporal punishments.
Sir CHARLES NAPIER agreed with the Hon Member
for Gloucester (Captain Berkeley) as to the superior treat-
ment of the American seamen. The sailors in the Ame-
rican navy were much better paid than those in the
British service ; the consequence of which was,
from 40,000 to 50,000 British sailors were in the
American service. If they could not increase the pay of the
sailors at present, they ought at least to increase the pay of
the petty officers, beginning with those officers of the first
class. Ile thanked the Hon. Gentleman the Secretary of the
Admiralty for the present Bill, as it would be a substitute
for corporal punishment, which he had long seen the evil
of. It was a measure which was much required. He quite
agreed with the preamble and the first clause. With regard
to the 9th clause, he called the attention of the
Admiralty to it, in order that better measures
might be taken to prevent desertion. He could
not agree that the power of punishing a deserter should be
left to the captain of the ship; but the deserter should be
left to be tried by a court-martial.

Admiral DlJ.STlsA§thOTgl;iibe clause ought to stand as
it was, as it was more practicable than any other
arrangement.

6irsCHARLES NAPIER could not agree in that conclusion.
Mr. lIUME believed that one of the greatest defects in
the system was that there was not an equality between the
army and the navy with respect to rewards. By an order
of the Ordnance Council it appeared that 48 lashes could
still be inflicted ; but should the question come to be raised
it would be shown that this punishment was against law.
He thought the system that had for its object encouragement,
rather than punishment, would be found the more efficient.
Such a system prevailed in the army; for instance, sergeants
received rewards for good conduct and for activity in the dis-
charge of their duty ; but he would wish to yknow what
encouragement was given to officers of the same rank in the
navy 1 He did think that some reward ought to be
held out to them ; and he would wish to see an increase
in the pay of the petty officers, which might act as
an inducement to those who were placed beneath them.
He trusted that the House would well consider a measure in
the execution of which there was no law except the will of
the captain, who might, perhaps, be rather too warm upon
some trifling offence.

Mr. WARD wished to remind his Hon. Friend, in bring-
inglorward this question, that a :plan for the proper pro-
vision and rewa-ds to:petty dicers in the marine service was
at present under consideration, by which these officers would
be most materially benefited, so as entirely to disarm the ob-
jections of his Hon.-Friend.
Captain HARRIS wished to know whether the empenQP
attendant upon the operation of the Bill by increasing the
pav of the petty officers would be about 40,0004 or 50,0001.?
Mr. WARD—Not so much.
Captain HARRIS said that if the Bill would only cause
an addition of so small a sum, he could not see any ob-
jection to its introduction. He thought that the law
regulating the punishments mentioned in this Bill
ought to be read to these officers at least once a month.
Ile thought that the officers in her Majesty's service would
receive this Bill with pleasure, as they were as anxious as
any other persons in the country for the reduction of punish-
ment.

Captain PECHELL said that the time was getting very
short, and he hoped that there would be an opportunity
!Itlorded to the promoters of the Bill of giving an
explanation on the first clause. lie wished to know
whether, after the commander bad made an order
for imprisonment, that order was subject to the ap-
proval of the Admiralty, and if it were so, what was to be
done with the man until the decision of the Admiralty was
known?

Mr. WARD said, that the punishment of imprisonment
was intended to be inflicted under precisely the same
regulations as those under which corporal punishment
was at present inflicted. As twenty-four hours must elapse
before the man could be brought up to the gratings,
so must twenty-four hours elapse before the man was con-
signed to imprisonment.
Mr. WILLIAMS said, that in the case of these punish.
ments the captain was the witness and the judge, and he
sealed and ordered the sentence. He thought that such a
power ought never to be entrusted into the hands of one man.
Clauses 1,2, 3,4, and 5 were then agreed to.
Clause 6, after a few words from Captain PECIIELL, was
agreed to.
Clause 7 was also agreed to.
After some conversation, clause 8 was agreed to, as were
also clauses 9, 10, and 11.
The remaining clauses of the Bill were then agreed to, and
the report ordered to be brought up oa Friday.
The House then resumed.
Lord GEORGE BENTINCK then withdrew the following
motions :—" An Address for copies of any correspondence or
communications which may have taken place at
any time, between the Foreign-office and the Go-
vernment of Spain, upon the subject of the ar-
rears of pay due from the Government of Spain to
the British Legion formerly serving in Spain." Also, "An
Address for copies of any correspondence or communications
which may have passed between the Foreign-office and the
Government of Portugal, upon the subject of the military
pensions at any time due from Portugal to the Duke of
Wellington and Viscount Beresford, or either of them,"
as Lord Palmerston had promised to give him private memo-
randums, which would enable the Spanish bondholders to
prosecute their claims.
The House adjourned at Six o'clock.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF CHANCERY, April 21.

MOSELEY V. ALSTON.-THE NARROW V. THE BROAD GAUGE,

Mr. BETHELL commenced and concluded his arguments in
support of the decision of the Vice-Chancellor of England
overruling the demurrer put in by the defendants to the
plaintiff's bill.
Mr. J. PARKER followed on the same side. In the course
of the Learned Counsel's address,
Sir F. KELLY, on the part of the defendants, applied
to his Lordship for leave to give a notice of motion
for Friday next, if it should turn out to be necessiry to dis-
solve the injunction which the Vice-Chancellor of-England
had just then intimated to the parties it was his intention to
grant.
The Loan CHANCELLOR gave the leave asked.
This application was made and granted during the time
the Vice-Chancellor of England was giving his judgment.
Mr. JAMES PARKER then resumed his arguments, follow-
ing Mr. BETSIELL.

At the conclusion of the Learned Counsel's address,
Mr. Wrl.cox followed on the same side, and had not
finished when the Court rose, at four o'clock.

The arguments will be resumed the first thing on Friday
morning.

VICG,CHANCELLOR'S COURT, A1)74121.
(Before the VICE-etta.NcEt.t.oa of ENGLAND.)
MOSELEY V. ALSTON—THE NARROW r. THE IDWAD GAUGE.
Mr. Itour commenced and concluded his address, following
Sir F. Kelly and Mr. Stuart, on behalf of the defendants,
against the motion for an injunction made by the plaintiffs.
Mr. G. RUSSELL followed on the same side. -
His HoNoun, at the conclusion of the arguments, gave
judgment, granting the injunction.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BEIVCH, April 21.
(Sittings in Banco before Lord Chief Justice DENMAN and a
full Court.)
THE QUEEN V. DCNN.

At the sitting of the Court this morning, Mr. Dunn, the
barrister, was brought up upon a writ of habeas corpus from
the Queen's Bench prison, for the purpose of moving an
arrest of judgment, and for a rule to show cause why a
former trial, in which he stood charged with perjury; and in
which a verdict of guilty was returned against him, should
not be set aside, and a new one granted, on the
ground that the evidence which could have established a
clear case in his favour had been rejected.
The defendant entered into a long and rambling statement
of facts, with all of which the public are well acquainted from
the proceedings upon the trial. The principal fact upon
which the application was grounded, was the non-admission
in evidence of certain letters written by Miss Coutts
to Lord James Stewart, by comparing which with
certain letters in his own possession, and alleged to have
been written by Miss Coutts to him, he would have been
able to prove that the letters he had received were in the
handwriting of the prosecutrix. He also submitted that as
Miss Coutts had declined, when on the trial, to give him
certain information, for which he asked, she, as
a principal witness declining to give all the
information in her power upon the case before
the jury, was not entitled to any credit, and
that the case ought to have been stopped. The question sub-
mitted to the jury was not a question as to the amount
mentioned in the affidavit—it might have been 1,000 pence
or 1,000 pounds. The affidavit was perhaps false in fact,
and false in law; yet the question for them to decide was
whether, at the time he (Mr. Dunn) swore it, he be-
lieved it to be true. He called upon their Lordships to in-
vestigate the case, and he was sure that if justice had
not been done already, their Lordships would, without hesi-
tation, remedy the evil at once. With regard to the affidavit
which tie had sworn, it was not an affidavit under the Act
sth and 6th Victoria. The Act was silent as to the form in
which the instrument should be drawn up, and it mentioned
distinctly the parties before whom only such an affidavit
ought to be made, and, as the document had been sworn in
the Court of Bankruptcy, a place not mentioned in the
Act, it was certainly not a valid one under the
Act, which regulated the making of such affidavits,
and ordered them to be made before authorities entirely
distinct from that Court. Anything relating to bankruptcy
was not of necessity committed to the Court of Bankruptcy.
The matter when brought before the Court of Bankruptcy,
under this particular form of affidavit, was coram non
judice.—The applicant concluded his remarks (which occu-
pied four hours) by lengthened references to the different
Acts relating to bankruptcy, in support of the view which he
took of the informality of the affidavit.
After a short consultation among the Learned Judges,
The Loup CHIEF JUSTICE said—l think it right to read
my notes of the trial, in order that if there is any ground of
doubt whatever we may take into our consideration. There
may be probably some point upon the affidavit upon which,
at all events, we may grant a rule. Ido not see any other
matter which requires the decision of the Court. (His Lord-
ship then read his notes of the evidence adduced upon the
trial.) _

At the conclusion, some further deliberation took place
upon the bench.
The LORD CIIIEF JUSTICE said that there certainly was
some difficulty about the construction of the Act of Parlia-
ment, and upon which the decision of the Court would be
given at some future time.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.

Hawkins, the master of the Citizen steam-boat, letter
J., was summoned before Alderman Farncomb, for
having, in violation of the new bye-laws for the regula-
tion of steam-vessels, acted on board without being
licensed. _ _ _

Mr. Pelham appeared for the prosecution.
A free Waterman, named Godfrey, stated that he
went, accompanied by a friend, on board the Citizen at
London-bridge, and was conveyed in her to Chelsea ;
that he paid for the passage for both, and that the de-
fendant stood on the paddle-box during the voyage and
gave the necessary directions to the people under his
authority. The witness knew the defendant well, and
had been provoked to the course of complaint by the
reckless conduct of the man, who did not seem to care
about anybody in passing through the river.
This evidence was confirmed by that of another person.
Upon the part of the defendant, who did not deny one
of the facts stated against him, it was said, that he was
upon the point of taking out a license, but lie could not
do so until the mea.urement of his vessel should be
effected; and that the company to which the vessel be-
longed was remarkable for the observance of all the
bye-laws.

Alderma❑ FARNCOMB said, it was quite clear that a
violation of an essential part of the Act had in this ease
taken place, and that the defendant must pay the penalty
of 40s. and costs.

Mr. Goodman (the chief clerk) said, he hoped the
captains and crews of the various steam-vessels on the
Thames would, now that the season was commencing,
pay a more particular attention than usual to the various
regulations for their government. The Lard Mayor was
determined to inflict penalties in all cases which should
be proved before him.
BOW-STREET.

John Denby, a young man employed as a letter-
carrier in the Post-office, was charged with stealing
some country notes and securities to the value of
1101. 19s. 2d., which had been transmitted from Ly-
mington. His wife, Sarah Denby, was charged with
negotiating them.
The notes, &c., had been enclosed in a letter, which it
was the prisoner's duty to have delivered. It was proved
that he and his wife went together to a pawnbroker's in
Whitechapel-road, and there tendered one of the 51.
Lymington notes in payment for a ring, selected by the
latter, and some other articles. The husband endorsed
the note, •" William Willis."

Mrs. Freshwte er, landlady of the Telegraph public-
house, in Oxford-street, Mile-end, proved that the pri-
soner paid her another of the 51. notes for certain chances
in a " Derby sweep" coming off at her house.
The prisoners were taken at their lodgings in Oxford-
street, Mile-end, the wife having the ring purchased at
the pawnbroker's then upon her finger. From her
demeanour, however, it appeared evident that she had
no concern in the robbery. Her husband at once
admitted his guilt and avowed the innocence of his wife,
who went into a hysterical fit on hearing the constable's
mission.

The wife was discharged by the direction of Mr.
HENRY, who remanded the other prisoner for further
examination.

WORSHIP-STREET.
A man of respectable appearance, named James
Knowles, described as a commercial traveller, was
charged with having, by wanton and furious driving,
run over and seriously injured a child eleven years of
age, named James Bland, the son of a labourer at Mile-
end.

A witness named Locke stated, that while standing at
his door at nine o'clock on the pri ceding evening, he
saw a horse and kind of gig. cart, driven by the prisoner,
advancing towards him at a furious rate; and, appre-
hensive that some children playing in the road, of whom
little Bland was one, would be killed, he called out
loudly upon him to stop. Witness thought he might
have done so had he chosen, but the prisoner took no
notice of the caution, went on at the same pace as
before, and the next instant the child was struck down
and the off wheel of the cart passed over its body.
Several persons who had witnessed the occurrence en-
deavoured to step the horse, but the prisoner thrashed it
violently, and it was not until a considerable time after-
wards that he was at length secured by a young man
named Newell, who had perseveringly pursued him, and
gave him into custody.
A boy named Page, wllo was playing with little Bland
at the time, saw the cart coming upon them at an ex-
tremely rapid pace, and called out to the prisoner, after
he had passed them, that he had run over his brother;
upon which the prisoner looked back, exclaimed, " Pooh,
pooh! nonsense!' lashed his horse, and drove on as
before.
Anne Martin also deposed to calling upon the pri-
soner to stop, and that he merely looked aside towards
her, drove on, and the wheel instantly passed over the
child.

James Bland, the boy's father, deposed to picking up
the child in great agony, and carrying him to the London
Hospital, and Sarah Bland, his mother, proved that upon
visiting him that morning in the hospital, she found
him so injured he could scarcely recognise her, and that
the nurse who attended him had but slight hopes of his
recovery.
A certificate from Mr. Nash, the hospital surgeon,
was also put in, describing the nature of the injuries
the boy had sustained, and stating him to be in con•
siderable danger.

When called upon for his defence, the prisoner ex-
pressed excessive regret at the unfortunate occurrence,
which he declared to have been purely accidental, and
said that he had no idea whatever that he had driven
over anybody, and was greatly surprised and hurt when
he was informed that he had in reality done so.
Mr. BROUGHTON regarded the transaction in a very
serious light, and ordered the prisoner, who was stated
to be respectably connected, to be brought up again next
week, to afford time for ascertaining the result of the in-
juries the child had sustained.
CLERKEN WELL.
William Birt, a respectable-looking middle-aged man,
was finally examined, charged with having committed
numerous robberies.

It appears that the prisoner for some time past has
been committing his depredations on boarding-school
keepers, upon whom he called under pretence of inquir-
ing as to the terms for the board and education of two
young ladies ; and invariably, after leaving the establish-
ments, gold watches and other valuable articles were

missed. On Wednesday last
1-0
paid a visit to Mn.
Lydell, of Tyndal's-place,
4slington, and stole a pair of
gold spectacles, and au article of silver plate. He was
stopped pledging then,. two hours subsequently at a
pawnbroker's n "'fang ton, when he was given into
cus.tody. In pockets was found a variety of valuable articles, the "produce of other robberies. Mrs. Elizabeth
Watkins. of Seymour-place, Chelsea, and Miss Margaret
Johnsen, of Canonbury-place, Islington, identified the
prisoner as having called at their houses under similar
circumstances, and stolen a gold watch and seal, &e
The prisoner said nothing in his defence, and he was
fully committed for trial on the above three charges.
The court was crowded by parties who had been
similarly plundered by the prisoner, and they were re-
commended to indict him at the sessions.

WESTMINSTER.
William Frazer and William Wilson were charged
with insulting Lieut. F. A. Tracey, R.N., Governor of
Tothill-fields House of Correction, and setting on a dog
to attack his horse.
Lieutenant Tracey said, he was proceeding along the
Horseferry-road, Westminster, on horseback, at about
half past three that afternoon, where he found a crowd
of persons, which had been occasioned by a vicious dog,
which he had since understood belonged to the defen-
dants, and which flew at several children and other per-
sons who were passing. As he was proceeding along,
Frazer made the sort of noise used by persons to set a
clog on, and the lattee immediately attacked his horse
and seized its legs. The horse, which was very fresh,
became exceedingly restive, and it was with the utmost
difficulty that he could prevent its going over some
children who were running away in terror from the dog.
Wilson at that moment made use of a most disgusting
epithet to complainant, and then the defendants, who
were in a cart, drove off at a furious rite; but a constable
(White, 100 B,) came up, and at great risk succeeded in
stopping them.

Mr.
BRODERIP inquired whether the defendants had
ever been in his custody? Lieutenant Tracey replied,
that Frazer had been in his custody, he believed, both
for felony and assaults. He had no doubt that Wilson
had also been confined in the prison.
In answer to further inquiries, Lieutenant Tracey
said, that the dog repeatedly flew at persons in the
street and at his horse. The dog, which was unmuzzled,
was a very ferocious animal, and unfit to be at large.
He considered the constable entitled to much praise for
his conduct.

White proved that the defendants were driving very
furiously, that a great number of persons had assembled,
and that be saw the dog attack the horse repeatedly, en-
couraged by the defendants to do so.
Fraser declared that he was now endeavouring to get an
honest living, and both defendants, in general terms, de-
nied the charge; but neither attempted to contradict the
statement of their having been confined in Tothill-fielda
prison.

Mr. BRODERIP said he should impose such a penalty
as would deter persons from putting the public in jeopardy
by such ruffianly- conduct:
De endants wore fined 40s. each, and, in default, com-
mitted for twenty-one days.