The Sun.
London, England, 1841-11-30 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON. TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 30. 1841.

SIR ROBERT PEEL AND THE

CORN-LAWS.-PROGRESS OF INQUIRY.

We learn that Sir Robert Peel has sent agents to the
Continent for the purpose of collecting detailed informa-
tion relative to the average rates of wages, the prices of
food, and other circumstances bearing on the condition
Of the humbler classes. Judging from the characters of
the gentlemen to whom this mission has been entrusted,
there would appear to be every disposition on the part
of the Right Hon. Baronet to obtain accurate and un-
biassed information. To what use he may hereafter
an alliance of the monopolists with all who have, or
be disposed to turn that information, time only can show.
He has been raised to his present exalted position by
who believe they haVe, an interest in the maintenance of
corruption. Such alliances have occurred in earlier
periods of the Right Hon. Baronet's history, and the
world need scarcely be reminded of the fact, that, after
using Such alliances as means towards the attainment of
power, the Right Hon. Baronet has abandoned the im-
practicable policy of a party held together by such ties,
and has, with the assistance of his political opponents,
carried out measures to which he had throughout his
whole previous career, declared the most irreconcileable
hostility.
The fact, that agents have been sent abroad to collect
the information to which we have alluded, indicates a
wish on the part of Sir Robert Peel to be prepared to
choose his own course in the storm which he sees gather-
ing. We do not give him credit for any broad statesman-
like views on the great question of the Corn-laws ; we
do not suspect him of a wish to break up a party, bound
by no sympathy but the love of corruption ; but when_
we contemplate his previous career, and find him in the
most important acts of his public life, avowedly ready
to sacrifice principle to expediency, and party predilec-
tions to political convenience, we are naturally led to at-
tach some signification to the private missions of which
the knowledge has reached us within the last few days.
Of one thing Sir R. Peel may rest assured. The same
disinterested support from the Liberal party, by which he
and the Duke of 'Wellington were enabled to convert
the abolition of the Test and Corporation Acts into a
Government measure—the same cordial co-opera-
tion without which it would have been impossible for
them to carry Catholic Emancipation—will be given to
them, should they come forward in the ensuing Session,
and call upon Parliament to unshackle the trade of the
country, and remove those barbarous restrictions which
create famine when abundance is within reach, by con-
demning thousands and tens of thousands to idleness
and hunger, while food and employment are courting
their acceptance, and are placed beyond their reach
only by the selfish grasping conduct of a tyrannical oli-
garchy.
In the meantime, we may, perhaps, anticipate some of
the information which Sir R. Peel looks to obtain through
the medium of' his agents. The statements we have
published for some time past relative to the prices of food
abroad and at home, have been extremely distasteful
to those who advocate the continuance of our present
famine laws. For that we were prepared. Our facts
have been occasionally carped at, but having been cau-
tious in our assertions, our opponents, with the best will
in the world, have not been able to convict us of one
material inaccuracy. The only resource which remained
for them, was a vague assertion, that if food was dearer
in England than elsewhere, wages at least were higher.
We denied this from the first, but we were not prepared
with details ; we felt the necessity, however, of demolish-
ing the last hold in which the advocates of dear food had
entrenched themselves, and lost no time in setting inqui-
ries on foot in different parts of the Continent, as to the
current rates of wages, and the prices of those articles of
food usually consumed by the working classes. To some
of these inquiries we have obtained replies, and though
we hope, before long, to collect more complete materials,
we think we are already in possession of sufficient infor-
mation to justify our laying a portion of it before our
readers. In the statements we are about to make we
shall confine ourselves to Germany.
From all parts, then, of Germany to which we have
addressed our inquiries, we have been assured, in the
first place, that employment is readily to be had by
those wish to obtain it Nowhere do we hear of large
bodies of well-disposed workmen being out of work.
This we were prepared for. There are no Corn-laws in
Germany, and on that very a:f.count there are fewer fluc-
tuations in trade. Their foreign commerce is less ex-
tensive than ours, but more re7ular, their merchants not
being obliged every now and then, like our merchants,
by the capricious operation of a sliding scale, to with-
draw their capital from its customary employment. This
subject, however, would lead us too far for our present
purpose. We have facts and figures to deal with, and
will abstain for a while from more general questions.
Let us see, then, what the wages are in Germany. In
Harnburgh we find the current wages of able-bodied
workmen from 96/. to 14s. a week. These are not the
wages of skilful mochanics, nor of men employed at
piecework or for a few weeks now and then, hut men
employed all the year ro:ind at fixed wages. In sugar
refineries in Hamburgh, all workmen receive their board
and lodging, and about 6s. a wesdc in addition. In Ham-
burgh, let it be remembered, we .iiave stated, more than
once, that meat costs about half what it costs in London.
Our correspondent assures us we have rather overstated
the Hambugh price. The rye breaO, which German
labourers eat in preference to wheateD bread, costs in
Hamburgh 1-34 d per lb. The wheaten bread is for the
most part very nearly as dear in Germany as in England.
This is because the people at large consume but little of
it, and what is consumed there is mostly sold in the
form of what in this country would be called fancy bread.
In the interior of Germany we find provisions cheaper
and wages lower. At Berlin, rye bread is sold at id. a
pound ; the best wheaten bread at 2-Id. a pound ; beef
at 4d. ; mutton at 31d. ; and the wages of able-bodied
men range from 7s. 6d.' to 9s. a week.
At Leipsic 7s. 6d. are the average wages of able-bodied
labourers, and the prices of food are nearly the same as
at Berlin. .

We have returns likewise from Kid, Breslau, Konigs-
berg, and Hanover, at which places the average wages
are a trifle lower than at Leipsic, but food of every de-
scription considerably cheaper.
It is not only bread and meat that are cheaper, but all
the little luxuries of the poor, such as tea, coffee, sugar,
tobacco, &c., are incomparably cheaper. The prices of
these articles sent us from Hamburgh arc the wholesale
prices at which they are bought by the shopkeepers, so
that some addition mast•be made for the retailer's profit.
Brazil coffee sells at from 3d. to 54c1. a pound ; Havan-
nah, 41d. to 64d. ; white Brazil sugar at from 41d. to
6d. a pound ; brown at 3d. to 4;34d. Bohea tea at ls. 7/d.
a pound, Congou at 2s. to 2s. Vid., Hyson at 2s. 31d. to
3s. 7:121-d. a pound. American leaf tobacco at 2d. to 51d.
a pound, St. Domingo at sd. to 112 d. a pound.
Yet Hamburgh, take it all in all, is not a lightly taxed
State ; but the taxes are not thrown almost exclusively
upon the food and comforts of the poor. Herrings and
sprats, if caught by foreign fishermen, are not rigorously
excluded from the provision market, while lobsters and
turbots are admitted duty free. The Hamburgh mer-
chant is allowed to buy his wheat and rye wherever he
can buy it on the best terms, and the cheapest oxen and
sheep are those which the Hamburgh butcher purchases,
let them come from his own neighbourhood, from Prussia,
or from Hanover.—Morning Chronicle.

BERNARD CAVANAGH, THE
FASTING MAN.
(From the Berkshire Chronicle.)
The expose of this man's pretensions to perpetual
abstinence from food, and his committal to Reading
Goal, have produced a great sensation, both here and
in the metropolis.
We should here state that some portion of his food
was missing, in the early part of the week, but he de-
clared that he gave it to his companion, Tiernan,
which the latter admitted, but his testimony is not
free from the suspicion of collusion. Up to yesterday
(Friday) he had eaten nothing discoverable, but a small
quantity of water had been taken out of the allowance
left by the turnkey.
It must be very obvious to persons at all acquainted
with the process of digestion and secretion that the real
mystery of Cavanagh's case was not in the extraordi-
nary length of time he could abstain from food, but in
the alleged fact that neither of the ordinary human
evacuations was to be discovered, although the
frame appeared in a healthy condition. There is also
the startling circumstance that, while abstinence may be
a voluntary act, the other processes are involuntary, aad,
for any length of time, uncontrollable. Yesterday, how-
ever, dispelled this part of the mystery. Cavanagh
was observed, after chapel, engaged in washing
his hands near the water-butt, and with great adroitness
took that opportunity of disguising a fact to which we
need not more particularly allude, but which has de-
stroyed any further chance of reviving his imposture.
The deputy governor and assistant surgeon were in-
formed of the suspicions entertained, and, causing his
dress to be examined, were satisfied there could be no
further doubt on the subject. Cavanagh still refused
to take food, but we have good reasons for believing
that he will not continue to refuse over a certain num-
ber of days, when his powers of abstinence become
exhausted.
We are firmly persuaded that this man has really a
great power of endurance, that be can abstain from food
without inconvenience, for a much longer period than
usual, and that he has a strongly-retentive power. But
we are equally convinced that, not satisfied with being
a physiological curiosity, he or his managers have
grafted a scandalous imposture on his physical capabi-
lities, and that he is himself, though a shallow
dupe, perfectly aware of the deception, and anxious,
both from vanity and avarice, to keep it up to the utmost.
We hear much welt-meaning, but morbid, sympathy, fbr
this man ; but when we read his pretended miraculous
cures in Manchester, his alleged intercourse with
spiritual beings, and the disgusting profanation of sa-
cred things, intermingled with his fasting performances,
and all subservient to the collection of money, we
think the strong and stern arm of the law judiciously
exercised in terminating so nauseous an imposture.
'There can now remain but Effie of interest in the
further development of this fellow's proceedings. We
should 'lava advocated leniency to him 9.3 the crazy
dupe of his own imagination, or of the sordid gang
who made a profit of his exhibition ; but when we
recollect the consciousness of imposition ho manifested,
in disguising his
the last circumstance, which we cannot so conveniently
person while purchasing food, and in
demonstrate, we think his sentence deserved, and his
treatment quite good enough for a convicted pretender.

- -
A fine female otter was shot by Mr. James
Ginn on the 15th inst. in a meadow adjo'ining the river
in Sudbury. Mr. Ginn, accompanied by a retriever dog,
was snipe-shooting on the meadow, when the otter sud-
denly issued from its covert of thick bushes, and attacked
the dog. The skin is intended as a present to the Mu-
seum of the Mechanics' institution.—Chelmsford Citron.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
VICE-CHANCELLORS' COURT, Nov. 29
(Before the Vice-Chancellor of England.)
SALISBURY V. MORRIS.

His Honour the Vice-Chancellor of England sat in the
Court in Lincoln's Inn to-day, for the purpose of hearing
the remaining argumetts in this part-heard case.
Mr. RICHARDS repliej at great length, and
His HONOUR stated, that he must consider the case
before he gave judgment.
In the course of the morning', his Honour intimated
that he would sit in his private roam on Wednesday, to
hear the case of a ward.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Nov. 29.
,ROSS V. CLIFTON.
John Elliot (who was under examination when
we went to press yesterday), gave the following
evidence : I purchased the land in which the
cottages were built from Pocock, and sold it in
1830 to the plaintiff. I built the eight cottages which
plaintiff now holds. I applied to Liyeock, the owner of
the wall, to use it, and I got his consent by paying for
half of it. He stipulated that I should not drain into
the ditch, but into Pocock's land. I built the cottages
two at a time. • I drained from the roof down upon the
washhouse, and thence into a cesspool upon the premises.
I cut holes through the wall into the ditch as a ter.:.po-
rary measure, but I did not obtain Laycock's consent to
do so, nor was he aware of it. I never represented to
plaintiff that I bought the wall. It was Laycock's wall.
Thomas Stein, a surveyor, examined the wall at the
back of plaintiff's cottages, and was of opinion that it was
a party wall. His opinion was founded upon the manner
in which the wall was used in building the cottages. The
wall was fourteen inches. thick, and the houses had been
built upon nine inches of it.
The Foreman of the Jury here intimated that they
were satisfied that the wall was a party wall, and that it
was unnecessary to call further witnesses.
Mr. Sergeant SHEA then replied, and
Lord PENMAN having summed up, the Jury found a
verdict for the defendant.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Nov. 29.

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. WiRLD.

The defendant in this case was formerly a supervisor
in the Excise. The Crown sought by this information
to recover &on him four penalties of 5001. each, for that
(as was alleged) he dishonestly colluded with the de-
fendant in the former case, in order to keep certain glass
made on the premises of the latter from charge, and
thereby defrauded the revenue.
From the evidence which was adduced it appeared that
in 1837 and 1838 the defendant was supervisor in Liver-
pool, and his duty as such led him to attend the Old
Swan Glassworks. He ought to have gone at unknown
periods in order to have checked the books of the officer,
but in place of that, it was given in proof that he was
daily on the premises, and superintended the weighing
himself ; in fact, that he performed the duty of
the officer. The weighing was not performed ho-
nestly, and the defendant was content to take
the weights from a man in the employment
of the Company. It was further proved that the whole of
the glass made was not put into the scale. In November,
of the latter year, the officer under the defendant gave
information, and on one day in that month the Collector
of Custom; went to the premises, just after the defendant
had weighed the glass for that day. He was making up
his books. The Collector asked to see the glass, but was
told it had gone to the cutting-room, and was mixed
with the others. He went to the cutting-room and found
such was not the case. He insisted upon its being pro-
duced, which was then done, and on being put into the
scale was found to weigh 40111 m. more than it appeared to
do by the defendant's books. It was also proved that
both he and the officer often went to public-houses with
servants of the Company, and that the bills for what
was supplied were paid by the Company.
The Jury found a verdict for the Crown.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he would be content to
enter the verdict on one count only.—Verdict taken ac-
cordingly for 500/.
The Attorney-General, Sir Thomas Wilde, and Mr.
Jervis, were Counsel for the Crown ; Mr. Humfrey and
Mr. C. Jones appeared for the defendant.

CONSISTORY COURT, Nov. 29.

VAItTY AND MOPSEY V. NUNN.

Dr. LUSHINGTON, at the sitting of the Court this
morning gave judgment in the hackney Church-rate
case, which has excited so much public attention. The
Learned Judge said, before he proceeded •to deliver his
opinions as to the admissibility of the allegation in this
case, he wished to inquire of the Counsel whether he had
rightly comprehended the objections taken to the libel,
and whether they had included all the objections in their
arguments ; for he had upon the narrow examination
which the facts, as put together, allowed him to make,
found it a matter of extreme difficulty to ascertain the
objections intended to be raised against the Church-rate
in question. According to his conception of the case,
the first objection was, that the rate had been made by
the churchwardens, whereas it ought to have been made
by the trustees ; secondly, that the rate was invalid, be-
cause it ought to have been made over the whole parish,
• and not upon a part only as divided ; thirdly, that no no-
tice had been given ; and fourthly, that the rate was in-
valid, because the churchwardens had, or might have
had, funds in hand. Were those all the objections ?
Dr. BAYFORD believed that they were.
Dr. LUSBINGTON then said he was about to consi,Rer
whether the allegationWhieh had been offered in this case
on behalf of the party cited was sufficient answer, or any
answer at all, to the libel given in. The suit was brought
by persons representing themselves as the churchwar-
dens of St. John's, Hackney, and the libel was in the
common form in such cases. Assuming the facts to be
true, the rate was legal, and the defendant was bound to
pay the same when assessed. But defendant had offered
this allegation in .defence of his refusal to do so. The
plea was two-fold—one part denying the averments in
the libel, and the other part avoiding them. He must,
according to the well known rule, first assume the facts
to be true, and then determine whether, if true,
they wou!d form a good defence to the suit. The
first objection was, that by virtue of the local act
of George the Third, the rate ought to have been
made upon the Whole- of the ancient parish. Now to
dispose of this part of the question, it was necessary
to look at the law prior to 1790. 'The whole of Hack-
ney then formed one parish, in which was situated the
ancient parish church, which the inhabitants were
bound to repair by the common law of England. It
was not the Ecclesiastical law which imposed such bur-
thong. The principle was_ recognised by all the com-
mon law authorities, by Lord Coke, and before his
time in the reports. But by Lord Coke's and all the
authorities which ever had existed down to the time of
Chief Justice Tyndal, the Judges of the Ecclesiastical
Courts and the Judges of the Exchequer Chamber, all
were agreed upon this point. The principle was fur-
ther recognised by various statutes from the time of
Edward the First down to the present day. It was.
indeed recognised by every Act of Parliament touch-
ing the collection of Church-rates. The legal obligation
to repair the church was then approved. This then was
the common law of the land, which could only be altered
by Act of Parliament. The question was, whether the
local Act altered the common law of the land, which he
was of opinion it did not, although there was a great
want of clearness and specific enactment upon the sub-
ject in all the local enactments which had been passed.
He was also of opinion that it did not lie with the trus-
tees to repair the church ; indeed it was impossible that
that burthen could be placed upon the trustees. It did
not come within the principle intended to be applied.
He then went through all the points of the case, and
concluded by rejecting the allegation—thus deciding
upon the validity of the rate.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS COURT, Nov. 29.
RE DAVID 11. TARBOTTOM.

The insolvent in thi3 case was a miller and corn-
dealer near Leeds, and his application to be discharged
was opposed by Mr. Woodruffe, on behalf of Mr. Thos.
Freeman, an extensive corn-dealer and farmer, and
several other creditors.

It appeared by the examination of the insolvent, that
he had in the mouth of March executed a bill of sale in
favour of a relation named Saunderson, giving him com-
plete power over all his stock in trade, furniture, &c.
Some short time afterwards he got wheat from the op,
posing creditor to the amount of 119/., and from several
other persons to the amount of 5001. or 600/. ; immedi-
ately after which Saunderson put his bill of sale in
force, and swept away all the property, amongst which
was the property he got from the opposing and other
creditors. lie then left Leeds to avoid being arrested at
the suit of a creditor for 41. lOs., who had offered to take
a composition of 10s. in the pound. At the time he left
Leeds he had 81. to take him to London, where he was
soon afterwards arrested.
Mr. WooDauFFE addressed the Court in aggravation
of judgment. and contended that the insolvent was ar-
rested by a friend, for the purpose of enabling him to
pass through the Court. He must have been dishonest,
for he left Leeds with more than three times the amount
of the sum for which he was sued.
The Learned COMMISSIONER said, in the present state
of the case he would not pass judgment on the insolvent,
but enough had been elicited to induce him to state that
when be did, the judgment of the Court should be a very
strong one. He should adjourn it to the 17th of January,
and, in the meantime let the attorney prepare a new
special balance sheet.

RE FREDERICK ROGERS.
The insolvent was a wholesale straw-plait and bonnet-
manufacturer, residing in Brighton. He applied on his
petition to be discharged, and was opposed by Mr.
Cooke for Messrs. Barford and Meakham, for Tuscan
straw, and other articles connected with his trade, sup-
plied to the insolvent. The ground of the Learned
Counsel's opposition was- the suppression of the books.
containing his trade entries.
Several witnesses having been called, who deposed to
the fact of having seen more books with the insolvent
than those he handed into Court,
Mr. Commissioner LAw said he considered the fact of
the insolvent'A wilfully suppressing his books to be fully
made out. The longest term •or remand which the law
allowed for this serious offence was for three years. lie
should, however, only remand him for twelve calendar
months from the date of his vesting order.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
NEW COURT.
Moses Hunt was indicted for stealing, and John Row-
land for receiving, with a guilty knowledge, two nose-
bags, containing a quantity of oats, the property of Tho-
mas Johnson. The prisoner Rowland pleaded guilty.
The property was missed by the prosecutor, and he,
suspecting. the prisoners, had their houses searched, and
the bags and corn were found upon the premises.
The Jury at once found the prisoners Guilty.
The two prisoners were then severally sentenced to
five months' imprisonment and hard labour.
_ _ ,

_ -
Sir James Graham left town on Sunday by the
nine o'clock London and Birmingham train for Netherby
Irall, Cumberland.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION HOUSE.

John Farrell, a young man of respectable appearance
and connexions, was brought up in the custody of Daniel
Forrester, the officer, before Alderman Copeland, charged
with having stolen two 301. Bank of England notes.
Mr. Walton, the solicitor to the London and West-
minster Bank, appeared for the prosecution, and Mr.
Hobler, jun., appeared for the prisoner.
Mr. Charles Beamish, cashier in the London and
Westminster Joint-Stock Company, stated that the pri-
soner presented a check at the counter for the sum of
of 481. 15s. 6d., drawn by Douglas and Co., between four
and five o'clock on Saturday, and wished it to be paid in
four notes for 101. each, and the rest in money. Witness
paid the check. Shortly afterwards a person presented
a check drawn by Mr. Rokosky for 601., and asked for
two notes of 301. each. 'Witness went to another clerk
in the office to ask a question, and then took from his
drawer two 301. notes, and gave them to the man he
supposed they belonged to.
Alderman COPELAND—Do you recollect whether you
gave the notes into the hand of the person they belonged
to, or placed them upon the counter ? Witness could
n')t say. He afterwards paid another check. He saw a
person standing at the counter, and asked him what he
was waiting for, to which the person replied, tliat he was
waiting for his two 301. notes. Witness told that person
that he had paid him the notes, and was told that he had
not done so. Witness immediately got the numbers of
the notes, and went ovar to the Bank of England to make
the necessary inquiry, and found the prisoner there re-
ceivingmoney. _

Mr William Wybard (a clerk in the Bank of Eng-
land), stated, that he paid the prisoner sixty sovereigns
for two 3d. notes on Saturday evening between four and
five o'clock. (Here the bank notes were produced.)
Witness had not seen the prisoner before to his recol-
lection. The name of John Smith was on the back of
the notes at the time, and witness told the prisoner to
write his name and address (a customary thing) on the
top of the face of the notes, and the prisoner then wrote
the name " John Smith, No. 7, Aldgate."
Mr. Thomas Phillips (a clerk in the Bank) produced
the two bank notes, which were identified as those paid
by the cashier of the London and Westminster Bank to
the individual he believed them to belong to.
Alderman COPELAND lamented that he was obliged to
commit a person who had held a respectable station in
society. The check paid in the first instance was the
property of the prisoner. He (Alderman Copeland)
could not see that any reason could be given why a re-
mand should take place. There appeared to him to be
quite sufficient grounds for committal. He had no idea
of sitting in the Chair to hear a trial of the case—a
practice he considered too prevalent in Police Courts.
The evidence was quite enough for him without the
cross-examination and arguments of Counsel and soli-
citors.—The prisoner was then committed for trial. •