The Sun.
London, England, 1847-07-15 00:00:00

LIVERPO

L RACES.

Lord BROUGHAM objected to the Bill being further
proceeded with this session, as, without itsaiadn,dthdeurig
lawn
could be administered until next session;
the recess and next session they would have more time
to consider the new powers which this Bill
proposed. It was said that the salary of
the Poor-law Commissioner, who was to sit in Par
liament, was to "be 2,0001. a year, but it ought
either to be increased, or reduced at the option of the
Government. Now such an officer ought to be placed
in a more independent position ; he certainly would
have no easy task to perform. He should, therefore,
propose that the Bill be read a third time this day six
months. He hoped that Mr. Chadwick and Captain
Nichols, who were in fact the authors of the system,
would still be employed in the administration of the
law. They would be removed as a matter of
course, if this Bill were passed without compensation.
This would be unfair to them and to others connected
with the poor law Conimipion, as they had borne the
brunt of all the labours and odium of the offices which
they had held. No term that could be culled from tee
English dictionary was spared upon them—they were
called "dictators," " hard-hearted," and "cruel." Com-
mon charity was not even exercised towards them ; and
had the other commissioners stood as firm in the
administration of the law, and as heedless of
public clamour, as Mr. Chadwick and Captain Nicholls,
the law would have been better administered. He thought
it right to say this in their behalf, as he had induced
Captain Nicholls to give up an office worth 2,5001. a
year to take his present office ; and was he and Mr.
Chadwick, who had collected the materials out of
which they had framed all the Poor-law Bills, to be left
penniless ?
The BISHOP of LONDON said the merit of the
poor-law was mainly due to Mr. Chadwick, who pos-
sessed the facility of making himself master of every
subject into which he entered. No doubt the differences
between the Conimissioners and Mr. Chadwick arose
from his desire to carry out the law in 111,11 its integrity.
He had read the correspondence on both sides, and he be-
lieved this was the extent of his fault, and he thought that
he should not go unrewarded. It was understood that
Mr. Chadwick should take an active part in the admi-
nistration of the Poor-law, and it was but natural that
he should feel some dissatisfaction if, after a time, he
found that his influence was not that which he expected.
He would be an useail man to the public in particular
departments—in connection with sanatory retorm, for
instance. He htd known Mr. Chadwick since the com-
mencement of the inquiry with respect to the Poor-law,
d he considered that he should not go unrewarded.
The EArl of ELLENBOROUGH said, as a member
of a board of guardians, and as one anxious to carry out
the law, he wished to bear testimony to the high cha-
r pater of Mr. Chadwick. He considered that the whole-
-I..ee dismissal of the Commissioners would be grossly
o.oJust. _ _ - - .

- LIVERPOOL, WEDNESDAY NIGHT, 12 o'CLOCX
LATEST CUP BETTING.
3 to 1 agst Pic Nic 20 to I agst Pantasa
6 to 1 aget Conjuror 20 to 1 agst Queen Mary
7 to 1 agst Quadruped 20 to 1 apt Conspiracy (t.:
9to 1 agst Camera Obscura 100 to 6 agst Gwalior
10 to 1 agst Plaudit 20 to 1 agst Chanticleer
12t° v aim Inheritress 25 to 1 agst Inglewood.
1400,,,iimr_the above, the following are expected to run :-
, Romance, Miss Castling, and Sheraton.
IM

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said the poor law
was passed as a temporary measure, and the parties
e mployed under it could not but look forward to some
n aterial alterations in it at a future period ; in fact, that
it might undergo an entire change; and yet the commis-
sioners and others touk their respective offices on these
c o nditions.

(LEFT SPEAKING.)

SOUSE OF COMMONS.

The SPEAKER took the chair at Three o'Clock.
CONSIDERATION OF REPOR

The reports on the following Bills were considered
and agreed to:—Salisbury and Yeovil Railway; South-
ampton and Dorchester Railway (Blandlord Branch).

SECOND RADING.

The Dean and Chapter of Westminster's Estate Bil
was read a second time, and ordered to be committed.

THIRD READING.
The St. Abuyn's Estate Bill was read a third time.
LORDS' AMENDMENTS.

The Lords' amendments to the following Bills were
considered and agreed to:—
&stern Counties Railway (Wrisbeach to Spalding).
Eastern Union Railway (Branch from Manningtree to

Harwich).
Glasgow, Paisley, Kilmarnock, and Ayr Railway, and
Ayrshire and Bridge of Weir Railway (No. 3).
Great Northern Railway (Deviations between London

had felt called upon to withdraw so great a public work
as the Argyle Canal, as he believed it would have been
of the utmost advantage to that portion of Scotland
which it would traverse.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER thought
the work advisable, but as the Government considered
that the Bill could not be carried this session. They
had felt called upon to withdraw it.
Mr. E. DENISON said, 2,000,0001. had been voted
for the purpose of enabling proprietors of land to meet
the difficulties that might arise from an alteration in the
corn-laws, by improving their land for the purpose of
producing corn; but out of this largo sum Scotland had
received 1,600,0001., whilst but 400,0001. had been devoted
to this purpose in England. He wished the House to
bear this in mind before they consented to any addi-
tional grants.
TREATY BETWEEN GREAT BRITAIN AND

and Grantham).
Kingston-upon-Hull Dock Company.
Leominster Canal Navigation Sale.
London and North-Western Railway (Ormskirk and
Rainford Branch, &c.) -
Manchester and Birmingham, and North Staffordshire
Junction Railway.
Oldham Alliance Railway.
Swansea Harbour.
Taw Vale Railway and Dock (Deviations and Bideford
and South Molton Branches).
York and North Midland Railway (East Riding Canals
Purchase).

PERI A-1, PA RLIA3IENT.
(Tins EVENING.)
HOljg-E-0.---
. Their Lordships assemb7sed-Ent LORDS.
Five o'clock.
MUSCLE v
Lord BROUGHAM presented FISHERIES BILL.
Bill from a place in Scotlanwhicha tition against this
he characterised as
one of the most incredible piecesof legislation ever
sought to be perpetrated. The petition,,av/bheich theedNtohbelier
Lord said was most respectably
signe
Lordships not to pass the Bill. The NobsleeecP
he felt very much disposed to move that the
Bil'ird be read
a second time this day three months, during whicha
period the muscles might remain undisturbed-, but he
should refrain from doing so.—(Laughter.)
JUVENILE OFFENDERS BILL.
On the motion of Lord DEVON, their Lordships pro-
ceeded to consider the reasons of the House of Commons
for disagreeing to certain of the Lords amendments with
reApect to this Bill.
The Marquis of WESTMINSTER considered that
their Lordships.had adopted a very unwise course in ex-
'lunging the clause which left it to a person brought be-
le:ea magistrate to elect whether he should be sum-
marily committed or tried by a jury.
Lord BEAUMONT agreed with his Noble Friend,
and regretted that the alterations complained of had
been made.
The subject then dropped.
A motion was put from the chair and carried, as we
understood, but its nature, or, in fact, what became of the
matter, we were utterly at a loss to divine, from the low
tone in which Noble Lords spoke. It would seem that
many;Noble Lords are determined that their proceed-
ings, no matter how much they may affect the public,
should not reach the public.
NEW SOUTH WALES.
Earl GREY presented a petition from New South
Wales, praying fur an independent form of Govern-
ment. The Noble Earl said the subject was one which
would re(Tive the serious attention of the Government
before the 34x; session.
POOR' SUPERVISION BILL.
This 'Jill was read 4 third time gad pa-_.ea with some
ornondm,ir ts.
POOR-LAW ADMINISTRATION BILL.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE moved the third
reading of this Bill.

-T8 SAN, LONDON, TITURSDAY EVENIN'Gr, JITLY 15, 184/:

been taken by an association in that borough, formed
for the purpose of obtaining a better and more equable
distribution of the property already possessed by the
Church. He thought that the better course would be to
withdraw the Bill.

when he got to the Four Wants he could not find Clarke,
and he rode on to another man's beat; and that ho after-
wards went over part of Clarke's beat, and kept the
horse out until nearly daylight. The witness stated that
be also heard the defendant say that the evidence had
been given before the coroner in order to exonerate
Parsons. Some more policemen had been sent down to
Dagk nham in order to strengthen their force; and it
was agreed that they should endeavour to prevent the
young hands from knowing that the evidence which had
been given before the coroner was false.
Cross-examined—Witneks was now living at Bethnal-
green, where he worked at his trade of a broad silk
weaver. _ .

Lord J. RUSSELL said that, considering the great
majority in favour of the second reading of the Bill. the
House need not be surprised at his intention of not
acceeding to the proposition of the Hon. Member for
Montrose to withdraw the Bill ; on the contrary
that he intended to proceed with the measure.
He thought that the real argument to use upon this
question was, whether there were, or were not, a suffi-
cient number of Bishops for the governmeut of the
Church. If there were not, as in the case, for instance,
of the diocese of Chester, where the duties to per-
form were too heavy for one Bishop, the only proper
course teemed to be to divide the diocese in two, and
create an additional bishop, especially as it was proposed
to pay the salary of the new bishop out of the funds
derived from a reduction of the revenues of the sees of
Durham, Ely, and other bishoprics.
Sir J. GRAHAM said that as the Hon. Member for
Mancliester had made a confeszsion of his opinions to
the House, he would trouble the House by informing
them that he was a sincere member of the Church of
England. With respect to the Bill, he thought that
the great amount of the property of the Church
formed the only fund upon which future
reliance could be placed for the instruction of the
people of this country in the principles of the Church of
England, and he thought that it would be idle to sup-
pose that any future aseistance for the purposes of the
Church of England could be obtained from the taxes
levied upon the people of England. The duty of
this House and the Government was now to deal with
the distribution of the Church property in such a manner
as might be considered best adapted for the purpose of
improving the moral and religious condition of
the people of England. He certainly did think
that if the Episcopal Fund were to be kept
separate and distinct.
under the management of the Ec-
clesiastical Commisstot ers, it would be better to make
a stand at once, and say that this House would not
sanction the endowment of any future bishops. It ap-
peared that there were two funds kept distinct
by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. These were
the "episcopal fund" and the "common fund."
And an Act was passed in the year 1840, the effect of
which was to fuse into one these two separate and dis-
tinct funds ; but in the year 1841 an Act was passed
to amend the Act of 1840, thereby repealing the pro-
visions of the former Act ; and he could not deny
but that subsequent Acts bad recognised that
repeal of the provision for the fusion of the two funds.
In the late Government the subject of this Bill was very
frequently discussed, but it was finally decided by her
Majesty's advisers that they would not recommend the
adoption of the course proposed by the present Bill.

By the COURT—Did not know what had become of
Sergeant Parsons.
John Stevens recalled.—He saw Parsons on horse-
back near the Church Elms about 12 o'clock on the
night of the murder.
John Barnes, another constable, deposed that after the
first examination before the coroner the defendant said
that if they did not keep to the story that Parsons had
written down for them about his being on duty on the
night of the murder they should all get into trouble.
By Mr. HAWKINS—Parsons wrote out a statement of
what they were to say before the coroner.
This was the case for the prosecution.
Mr. HAWKINS addressed the jury for the prisoner;
but it was very evident, from the tenor of the Learned.
Counsel's address, that he felt he could not offer any an-
swer to the facts.
Mr. Baron PARKE having summed up, the jury re-
turned a verdict of Guilty.
Mr. HA.WKINS then took an objection to the form of
indictment, which, he said, merely averred that the
offence was committed on a certain day in the year
1846, and he submitted that the indictment should have
contained the words "in the year of our Lord."
Mr. Baron PARKE appeared to be of opinion that there
was something in the objection, and he said he . should
take time to consider of it.
Isaac Richton, another constable of the same division,
was then arraigned upon a similar indictment, arising out
of the same transaction.
The evidence was of precisely the same kind, and it
will therefore not be necessary to repeat it.
The prisoner, who had no counsel, admitted that he
had told some lies with regard to his meeting the ser-
g: ant on the night the murder was committed ; but he
said he was induced to do so at the solicitation of his
superior officer, and to screen him from censure for
neglecting his duty.
The jury found him Guilty, but recommended him to
mercy.—Judgment deferred.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.
H. G. Bough, clerk to Mr. Lewis, solicitor, and co-
roner for Essex, was brought before the Lord Mayor in
the custody of John Forrester, the officer, charged with
having committed a forgery upon the banking-house of
Coutts and Co. to the amount of 2221. 15s. 6d. Messrs.
Bush and Mullens, the solicitors to the Committee of
Bankers for Protection against Forgeries and Fr ' .iuds at-
tended for the prosecution. Mr. Wontner appeared for
the prisoner, who seemed to be a very young man, and
in a delicate state of health.
It was stated on the part of the prosecution that it was
impossible at the present moment to produce some of the
evidence, the witnesses living at a considerable distance
from London, and pains having been taken to avoid de-
tection by ingenuity of more than ordinary extent and
character. It would, however, be shown that a 501. note
which had been traced as part of the proceeds of the
money paid for the forged cheque was handed over by
the prisoner to his tailor, Mr. Dowdney, in payment of
a bill contracted by him with that shopkeeper, and that
the prisoner, in accounting for the possession of such an
instrument, said, it formed part of the proceeds of the
sale of several horses by the prisoner in Smithfield-
market—a statement for which there did not appear to
be any foundation.
Mr. Frederick Esse, clerk at Messrs. Coutts's bank-
ine.-house, said—l recollect perfectly well receiving on
the 13th of April last a cheque for the payment of 2221.
15s. 6d., purporting to be signed by. Mr. J. S. Caley, a
customer of the firm. It was contained in an envelope,
requesting that the amount might be given in a certain
way. The letter containing the instructions had been
destroyed as immaterial. I remember the contents,
together with the cheque, were to the effect, that Mr.
Anglican, in whose favour it was drawn, requested it
might be paid in the manner expressed on the envelope
—namely, in a note for 2001. and a note for 201. and the
rest in cash. I took it to Mr. Partridge, the cashier,
who gave me the notes, which I enclosed in an envelope
and gave back to the person who brought the letter.
Mr. Joseph Partridge, cashier at Messrs. Coats, said,
—I delivered the amount of the draft to the last
witness on the 13th of April, in a bank-note for 2001.,
No. 43,479, and dated 4th January, 1847, and a bank-
note for 201., No. 18,731, and dated 9th January, 1847,
and the rest in rld.
Mr. W on tner particularly examined the book in which
the entries were, and asked the witness at what time he
made them ? Witness—l made the entries on the 13th
of April at the time I cashed the draft.
Mr. J. S. Caley said, I reside at Brook-street, near
Brentwood, and keep an account at Messrs. Coutts and
Co.'s. No part of the draft now exhibited to me was
written by me, nor we,: anybody authorised by me to

_
write it.
For the prosecution—Do you know the prisoner?
Witness—l cannot undertake to say that I 00.
Do you know Mr. Lewis, the coroner? Witness—l
know him very well. Ho resides at Brentwood.
Here the draft was read. It was dated Brook street,
April 7, 1847, and was as
" Please to pay to John Caley, Del., 2221. 15s. 6d.,
and place the same to the account of
" J. S. CALEY.

" To Messrs. Coutts and Co.. bankers, Strand."
There was an endorsement on the draft to the follow.
ing effect:—" Pay the contents, namely, 222/. 15s. 6d.,
to George Chris. Anglican, of Wimbledon Park, or
bearer. John Caley, Jesus College, Oxford, April Bth,
1847."
Witness in continuation—l have no relative of the
name of John Caley.
Mr. it. J. Sykes, clerk in the issue department of the
Bank of England, said, I produce a 2001. note. On the
13th of April this note was brought to me to be changed,
and I paid to the person who brought it 1501. in notes,
and 501. in gold. I gave a ticket for the amount of the
notes payable to " George," which appeared to me to
be the surname of the person to whom the draft was
payable. The writing of the name was bad and not
very legible.
Mr. J. Reece Adams, clerk in the issue department of
the Bank of England, said—On the 13th of April I gave
to Mr. Sykes, the lest witness, 150/. in bank notes, pay-
able to "George." We can produce the ticket, but I
have here an extract, from which it appears that there were
ten 10/. notes, numbered from 7,024 to 7,033 inclusive,
and dated the 10th of March, 1847, three 51. notes,
54.498 to 55,000 inclusive, and 60,651 to 60,657 inclu-
sive, dated the 13th of March, 1847.
It was here stated for the prosecution that there was
evidence to show an effort upon the part of the person
who committed the offence to remove the track from
the eye of detection by means of obtaining a cheque
upon the Westminster Bank for several of the small
notes which had been received at the bank.
Mr. W. S. Higley, clerk to the London and Westmin
ster Bank in Lothbury, agents to the North and South
Wales Bank in Liverpool, was then called, and a cheque
for 152/, drawn by the North and Soath of Wales Bank
upon the former establishment was handed to him. He
said—This draft was presented on the 12th of May to
me, and I think, but am not sure, that I saw the party
who presented it endorse it. I paid it in two 50/. notes
and 52/. in gold. The notes were numbered 87,237 and
90,585, but I cannot now mention the dates.
Melthart Sjamme Bott—l am in the employment of
Mr. Dowdney, tailor, in Lombard-street. On the 14th
of June I received a 501. note from the prisoner, Mr.
Baugh, who has been for some time a customer of the
house. I was to take 31. 19s. out of it, and I delivered it
to Mr. George Dowdney, who went out and brought
back ton 5/. notes to me_ I gave nine of those 51. notes to
Mr. Baugh, and the difference between 31. 19s. and 5/.
I knew the name and address of the prisoner; it was
Mr. Baugh, Brentwood.
In answer to questions from Mr. Wontnor, the witness
said the prisoner at once attended upon being informed
of the circumstance of the alleged forgery; and when
told that Mr. Bush was desirous to see him he took that
gentleman's address, and expressed his immediate inten-
tion to call at the office of the solicitor to the bankers.
Mr. E. Goodine, clerk at the banking-house of Bar
clays and Co., of Lombard-street, said, Mr. Dowdney
keeps an account at our house. I changed for Mr.
Dowdney, on the 14th of June, a 501. note, the number
of which was 87,237, and the date the 6th of Jan., 1847.
It was stated for the prosecution that the clerk of the
North and South %Vales Bank at Liverpool would come
forward to prove that the cheque upon the Westminster
Bank was procured for the small notes which had been
procured at the Bank of England; and it wield be also
distinctly shown that the prisoner had been in London
and in Liverpool on the days the different transactions
alluded to with respect to the forgery took place.
An application was then made for a remand of the
prisoner for a week.
Mr. Wontner said he bad no objection to a short re-
mand of his client, but in fact there was no case against
him. If Mr. Baugh was at all conscious of guilty know-
ledge of the forgery, he certainly would not have gone
to his tailor to change a note which had been received
amongst the proceeds, neither would he have manifested
a desire to go to Mr. Bush when informed that the note
was the subject of awkward inquiry.
The prisoner was then remanded.
A p• or man brought to the Lord Mayor a Bank of
England note which he said he had found at the corner
of Coleman street, and requested that his Lordship
would act according to his judgment about it, for the
finder was too poor to advertise it, and too much em-
ployed for his own living to search fcr the owner.
The LORD MATOZ said he had no doubt that some
notice would be taken of the loss, and if the loser could
be found, a recommendation should be made to him to
reward the finder.