The Sun.
London, England, 1847-07-09 00:00:00

cc? N
• 5

stituents, to retire from Parliament; and that his object,
therefore,'was not to ccurt favour with them; but the
Hon. Gentleman spoke highly of the cultivation of the
potato, and said he could not conceive what were the
objections to that cultivation. lie (Lord J. Russell)
conceived that the objections to persons living generally
upon potatoes were very obvious and conclusive. In the
first place, if they had a people living on high-priced
food like wheat, as the food became scarcer and dearer,
there were other kinds of food to which they could
resort. A man with Bs., 10s., or 12s. a seek, although
he could not then buy the same quantity of wheat,
could find a substitute for it; but if he were accustomed
to have wages so low that he could only buy the lowest
priced food, and the food at once disappeared, he would
be unable, unless he had a great increase in his wages,
which had unfortunately not been the case in the recent
calamity, to supply himself with the higher kind
of food, and would be therefore placed in danger of
starving. Another great objection to that kind of food
was that very ease of cultivation to which'the Honour-
able Gentleman referred—that a small quantity of labour
only was required to supply a man with a certain quan-
tity of food, and thereby, instead of a course of conti-
nuous and patient industry, being contented with an idle
and lazy course of life, and his labour being propor-
tioned to his wants, he became satisfied with that low
kind of food, and looked not for comforts, and what
might be called the luxuries of labour in a better con-
dition of life; and his situation was very much worse
than the situation of those who were accustomed to a
higher kind of food. Another very obvious objection
was, that wheat was a food which could be kept not only
for one year, but for a long course of years; and indeed
he had seen plants which it was averred were grown
from corn found with the munamiesof Egypt.—(A laugh)
—whilst the potato was of so very perishable a nature
that even in the most successful and fertile years, when
September arrived the supply of the former year was
altogether gone, and the poor labourer must depend upon
the crops of the current year. That made it a very
great misfortune to Ireland that the food of the people
should have chiefly consisted of the potato, and, great
as had been the sacrifice and expense to all classes of
the people of making the change, he did hope that, even
apart from the sudden disease which had overtaken that
species of plant, all classes in Ireland who had any in-
fluence with their countrymen—such persons as mem-
bers of agricultural societies, noblemen, and gentlemen,
and their agents, and the principal farmers—would
rather induce the people to turn their attention to other
kinds of cultivation than to look to the potato as a prin-
cipal source of food. lie would only add that it was
his apprehension that if the potatoes were again found
to be a flourishing crop, the facilities of cultivation might
lead the people to the same kind of distress from which
they had recently suffered so much.
Mr. DISRAELI was not one of those who would be
forward to criticise very closely the conduct pursued by
her Majesty 's Government under circumstances of un-
expected and unprecedented difficulty, for which they
had been called upon to legislate. He admitted that
they had acted with great ability under circumstances
of very great difficulty. But what had occurred since ?
They had not pursued that course in an unfaltering
spirit. The Government had itself been obliged on
more than one occasion to halt and hesitate in the midst
of their measures, and even to change the course of
their policy, and it was his firm opinion that the mea-
sure introduced to the House by his Noble Friend the
Member fur King's Lynn (Lord G. Bentincls), for the
promotion of railways in Ireland, would have been pro-
ductive of far more benefits to the people of that coun-
try than the course which had been adopted by the
Government. They were now near the end of a session
during which there had been many discussions on the
state of Ireland, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
in an elaborate speech, full of details, of which, at the
commencement of the session, he had been so very
chary, had to-night vindicated the course which Govern-
ment had pursued, and satisfied with the absolute wisdom
of that course, ai.d rejecting all the fruits of experience,
had informed them that under similar circumstances the
Government would follow the same course. But the
Noble Lord, in stating the case of the Government with
respect to Ireland, said he might have done nothing,
or he might have done that which had been proposed
by the Noble Lord the Member for Lynn, but that he
had taken neither of these two courses. The Noble
Lord said he had rejected the policy of doing nothing, but
when he told them that he had not been following the
policy of the Noble Lord the Member for Lynn, he (Mr.
Disraeli) begged to remind the House and the country
that the only part of the policy of the Government which
had been successful was the policy of the Noble Lord
the Member for Lynn, and when the Noble Lord oppo-
site told them that the Government were right in doing
nothing, and correct in not doing all that could be done,
all he should say in reply was, that he was perfectly
content to leave the Government to that golden medio-
crity of which they seemed so proud.
Mr. LABOUCHERE had no wish to protract the dis-
cussion, but he must say that he could not agree with the
lion. Member for Shrewsbury in thinking that the policy
of the Noble Lord the Member for Lynn was the proper
policy. Its two main points were an extensive system
of railways, and a complete interference with the provi-
sion trade of Ireland. He still retained his opinion, that
if these two courses had been adopted they would have
failed in relieving the distress. When the Hon. Gentle-
man talked of free trade, he ought to know that it was
one thing to apply the principles of it in ordinary cases,
and in a crisis like that which had occurred in Ireland.
When two millions of people were starving, it would be
a fatal error if they were to look into the book of free
trade in order to know how to deal with them. But it
was another thing to refuse to apply the principles of
free trade to cases in which they were perfectly appli-
cable. If they bad undertaken to carry on the provision
trade of Ireland by importing food, be believed that they
would, to use an old expression, have been substituting
the watering-pot for the shower, and that the result
would have been most calamitous.
Mr. STAFFORD O'BRIEN was rather surprised to
hear the speech of the Right Hon. Gentleman, the Se-
cretary for Ireland. What did it amount to ? Why
that free trade principles were very good in general, but
whenever an emergency, or a difficulty, arrived, they
must give way to the system of protection,—(Hear,
hear.) It had been stated by one of the Members of
the Government, that if the Government had to deal
again with the same circumstances, which had taken
place in Ireland, they would pursue exactly the same
course over again.—(Hear, hear.) Now, he would ask,
if this was the case, why did they supersede the 9th
and 10th of Victoria, by the Soup-kitchen Act, and the
other measures which they subsequently brought for-
ward to remedy the mistakes which they had fallen
into.— (Hear, hear.) Ho would conclude, however, by
saying, that he gave the Governmen credit for the
best intentions in the course they had adopted, though
he could not approve of it.
Mr. POULETT SCROPE rose for the purpose of
expressing a strong hope that if the same calamity
should again occur, the question of reproductive works
would be more favourably considered than they had been
during this session. He was sorry to find that the waste
lands measure was not proceeded with, as he believed that
it would be found more advantageous than any system of
railways. In any case, however, they could not continue
the same outlay as they did this year, but must have
recourse to some scheme less oppressive to the people of
this country, and more advantageous to those to whom
assistance was extended.
Sir R. FER4IJSON said that unless the gentry of
Ireland worked themselves little benefit would result
from any expenditure that might be made.—(Hear.)
The resolutions were then agreed to.
STOCK IN TRADE EXEMPTION BILL.
This Bill was read a third time and passed.
DRAINAGE OF LANDS (IRELAND) BILL.
This Bill was also read a third time and passed.
MASTERS IN CHANCERY AFFIDAVIT OFFICE
BILL.

The report on this Bill was received, and it was or•
dered to be read Fs third time to-morrow.
BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY BILL.
This Bill went through Committee.
CONSTABULARY FORCE (IRELAND) BILL.
This Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be
committed.
JOINT STOCK COMPANIES (IRELAND) BILL.
'This Bill went through Committee, pro Jornui, and
ordered to be re-committed on Monday next.
POST-OFFICE BILL.
The report on this Bill was received.
NATURALIZATION OF ALIENS BILL.
This Bill went through Committee, and was ordered
to be read a third time to-morrow.
POOR REMOVAL (No. 2) BILL.
Captain FITZROY moved the second reading of this
Bill.
Sir G. GREY would oppose the Bill, and hoped the
Icd Lao Lyn
were Committee.
The m
Hon. Member would withdraw it.
Captain FITZROY would not withdraw it, and would
press it to a division.
After some further remarks,
The How. GENTLEMAN consented to postpone it till
Tuesday next.
POOR REMOVAL ACT AMENDMENT (No. 2)
Th Thise otherß i Bill weerndte
orders
through Bnthegh
House adjourned at Ten o'clock. disposed of, and the

ALLEGED INFANTICIDE.—Monday Mr. W. Payne
held a protracted inquiry at the .8t Olave's Union,
Southwark, on the body of a female infant, about four-
teen weeks old, belonging to Anne Blackmore,
in-
mate of St. John's Union. The deceased wasal late
lg
have been strangled by its mother, and who weased to
re-
manded at the Southwark Police-court, on the previous
day on the above charge. It, however, appeared from
the evidence of a host of witnesses, that the woman,
Blackmore, who was unmarried, though she frequently
represented herself as being a married woman, was living
in the neighbourhood of Tooley-street, and on Monday
last she took her little one with her, calling at various
public-houses, and drinking to an enormous extent. At
ten o'clock that evening she went into the Bull public-
house, Tooley-street, with deceased in her arms, and she
had previously fallen down with the child on the stones,
thus causing a fracture of the skull to the infant, which
produced concussion of the brain, and resulted in death.
The prisoner was now in a beastly state of drunkenness,
and on some one taking the child from her arms it was
found to be dead. Mr. Leader, the house surgeon of St.
Olave's, proved that the injury to deceased might have
arisen from such a fall as described, and the jury, after
much more testimony, returned a verdict of " Accidental
death."
THE LIBERTY OF THE PRESS IN FRANCE.—The
Independant de l'Ouest, a Legitimatist journal published
at Laval, has been prosecuted for having published a
fragment of a letter of Junius, written in September,
1771, and addressed to George 111., King of England,
together with an extract of a speech delivered by Mr.
Windham in tic Englijl Parliaiaent. The accusations
of avarice, egotism, ambition, and corruption contained
in those fragments have been considered by the law
officers of the Crown as an offence against the person of
King 9t the French!

LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, JULY 9, 1841.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, July 8.
(Sittings at Nisi Prins, Guildhall, before Lord Chief
Justice DENMA.N and a Special Jury.)
FISHER V. THE ROYAL EXCHANGE ASSURANCE
COMPANY.
Mr. Watson, Q C. (with whom were Mr. Phinn and
Mr. Rew), appeared for the plaintiff, who declared on
two time policies, one from the Bth of June, 1842, for 12
months, and the other from the Bth of June, 1843, for 12
months, by each of which a vessel called the Mary Mal-
laby was assured at a sum of 3,0001. On the first po-
licy the demand was for an average loss, and on the se-
cond for a total loss. The vessel was commanded by
the plaintiff, who was the owner, and sailed from the
Mauritius to trade in the Persian Gulf, and part of the
cargo was insured as specie to a considerable amount
to certain underwriters in India. When the vessel was
in the Indian Sea, and on the sth of June, 1843, a storm
came on, and she suffered considerable damage. On
the 25th of June, however, she arrived at Muscat, and
was repaired. On the 14th of July the plaintiff sailed
from Muscat for Bunder-Abbas, in the Persian Gulf;
and while between the island of Ormuz and Bander-
Abbas, was overtaken by another storm, by which the
vessel was eventually driven ashore, and sustained fur-
ther damage. This induced the plaintiff to abandon her.
As soon as the vessel had struck, two boxes containing
the insured specie were brought up from a part of the
ship called the lazaret, and placed in a spot convenient
for removal. By the next morning the two boxes had dis-
appeared, and had, it was stated by the plaintiff, been
stolen by Arab wreckers. Actions for the amount had
been commenced against the underwriters in India.

Evidence was then given, chiefly documentary, in sup-
port of the plaintiff's case.
Sir F. Thesiger, Mr. Martin, Q.C., Sir John Bayley,
and Mr. Bovill appeared for the defendants, who had
pleaded that they had not broken their covenants.
The Learned Counsel then opened a defence, which in
substance amounted to a charge that the Mary Mallaby
had been unnecessarily and fraudulently abandoned for
the purpose of obtaining the amount of the insurance on
her and the specie; that the vessel had not any specie on
board, for two boxes, believed by one of the crew to be
the same as those placed in the Mary Mallaby as con-
taining specie, had been found in the Persian Gulf, near
a lost anchor of the Mary Mallaby; and on being opened
on board her Majesty's ship Clio, were found to contain
only the metallic dross of the island of Ormuz. The
Learned Counsel then stated that the Mary Mallaby,
having been sold for 240/., was repaired at Muscat, and
afterwards put to sea ; and though eventually lost at
Madagascar, had proved seaworthy for 25 days, which
would have sufficed to take her to Bombay. If the
vessel had been taken to Bombay, it might have under-
gone a thorough repair at that place ; but the plaintiff
bad refused the offer which had been made to him by
Commodore Porter, of her Majesty's ship Euphrates, to
get her off the beach, saying that he would sell her for
the benefit of the underwriters.

The boxes were produced in Court, and were found
to contain stones of great weight, of the colour of
copper.
Commodore Porter and Lieutenant Foullerton were
also examined in support of the defendant's case; and,
after the reading of an immense mass of documentary
evidence, which protracted the trial to a late hour,
Lord DENMAN summed up the evidence, and
The jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, July 8.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius, Guildhall, before the LORD
CHIEF JUSTICE and a Special Jury.)
POWELL V. BRADBURY AND ANOTHER.
Mr. Sergeant Wilkins (with whom wore Mr. Huddle-
ston and Mr. H. Hill) conducted the case for the plain-
tiff ; and the Attorney. General (with Mr. Wells) ap-
peared for the defendants.
The plaintiff had been engaged as one of the sub.
editors of the Daily News newspaper for two years,
from December 20, 1845, at a salary of 15Z a week ;
and the present action was brought against the defen-
dants as representing the proprietors of that paper, to
recover damages for the dismissal of the plaintiff from
the establishment, without any reasonable cause, before
the expiration of the period for which he was so en-
gaged. The defendants had pleaded—first, a denial
that they made the contract ; secondly, a denial
that the plaintiff was dismissed without reason-
able cause ; and, lastly, a plea of justification for
the dismissal, on the ground that the plaintiff; whilst
sub -editor, had, at the request of one William Alfred
Wearing, who was also employed on the Daily
News, written to the correspondent of the paper at Bris-
tol for a report of the proceedings in the Bankrupt
Court there in the matter of one William Henry Smith,
a bankrupt, the plaintiff at the time well 'knowing that
a personal hostility existed between Wearing and Smith.
The plea then stated that a report of the proceedings was
sent up from Bristol, and also that Smith wrote a letter
to the proprietors of the Daily News, stating that Wear-
ing had boasted he would publish an account of Smith's
difficulties, and asking the proprietors not to allow the
newspaper to be used for such an object. The plea fur-
ther stated that the plaintiff delivered this letter with
the report to Wearing, and permitted him to take away
the letter and prevent its coming to the knowledge of
the proprietors, and in abuse of his employment suffered
a garbled and unfair abridgment of the report, prepared
by Wearing, to be inserted in the paper. It appeared
that Mr. Wearing, who was engaged on the paper to re-
vise under the sub-editor, was personally hostile to Mr.
Smith, the party examined in the Bristol Bankrupt
Court, and that the plaintiff had, at the request of Wear-
ing, written to the correspondent of the Daily News at
Bristol, requesting his attendance at the Court there
when the proceedings in the matter of Smith should come
on, and to send up a fair report of such proceedings. The
report was accordingly sent up on the 4th of August,
1846. On the same day Smith wrote a letter addressed
to the proprietor of the Daily News, of which the follow-
is a copy :
" I have discovered that Mr. W. A. Wearing, the
person whose name is disreputably associated with the
accompanying memorial, addressed the editors of the
several Bristol newspapers for the purpose of inducing
them to report the proceedings in my case, which was
brought before the Court of Bankruptcy 011 Monday.
He has also boasted that, as editor of the Daily News,
he will publish in extenso the account of my pecuniary
difficulties, not only in the Daily News, but in other
London papers with which he has influence. I feel
confident that you will not, by your permission, assist a
private and vindictive object by unreasonably and unne-
cessarily giving publicity to proceedings which took
place in a district court of bankruptcy,
and which,
'
involving no point of public interest or justice, can have
no other effect than that of adding additional pain and
injury to a man who has long suffered from the unfor-
tunate position in which persecution and unavoidable
circumstances have placed him."
On the other aide of the paper which contained this letter
was a printed memorial by Smith to the benchers of the
Hon. Society of Lincoln's Inn, reflecting on the charac-
ter of Mr. Wearing. The Benchers, however, had sub-
sequently dismissed this memorial, and called Mr.
Wearing to the bar. The plaintiff as sub-editor opened
this letter, and handed it over, together with the report,
to be abridged, to Wearing, who afterwards took away
the letter. The report as abridged was inserted in the
Daily News, and seemed to have been fairly abridged,
omitting nothing in favour of Smith, with the exception
of so much as had reference to Wearing himself, being
that part in which the bankrupt complained of the con-
duct of his detaining creditor, Wearing.
Mr. John Dickens was examined, and proved the
agreement, and
Messrs. Hodgkin, Soutar, M'Diarmid, Bryn?, Griffin,
Moran, Morgan, Serle, Beard, and Black,
described the
duties and authorities of sub-editor. In their opinion,
on his becoming aware of the examination of the bank-
rupt at Bristol, if he considered it an important matter,
it was his duty to write to the correspondent at Bristol
for a report. A sub-editor had authority to open all
communications, whether they were addressed to the
proprietors or not, he -being, in his office, the representa-
tive of the proprietors. They did not consider it the
duty of Mr. Powell to have forwarded the f letttheerwis
t-
in
question to the defendants, although
nesses thought they should
have done s
correspondent of
some o
Mr. John Gover Powell, the Bristol
the Times, stated that he was present at the
of Smith, on the 4th August last, and sent a report up
News was much
condensed, but he did not consider it garbelexdam. inTahtieorne
to his paper. The report in the Daily
were matters making against the bankrupt, and al so cir-
cumstances in his favour, which were omitted.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL contended that the plaintiff
ought not, in common prudence and honour, to have
handed this report and letter to Wearing, whom he knew
was personally the hostile creditor of Smith, and that
after the proprietors became acquainted with this, they
had no other course to pursue than that of dismissing
the plaintiff as they did; for if it be.eame known that the
paper might be used as a means of gratifying personal
malice, it would be highly injurious to its character.
He then called the following witnesses:—
Mr. George Powell, the corresNews, at Bristol, who sent up the report in question,
pondent of the Daily
Previous to the day of was examined, and stated that he received a letter from
Mr. Powell, requesting him to attend to the examination
of Mr. Smith, which it termed " a Case of some impor-
tance, in • which a gentleman in our establishment is
concerned," and concluded by
.requesting " a fair re-
nt the presence of the
port of the proceedings."
hear-
ing he received another letter,
sent up
him of the
subject, and he attended,
Mr. Dilk, the manager of the Daily
proved
that he investigated the matter. had an interview
and
euppleis
News,
with Mr. Powell and Mr•;Wearing,
editor, in his room. Witness asked the plaintiff if he
knew of a feeling of hostility between_ Wearing and Smith,
edhn o
and he acknowledged he did. lie said he had written
for the report. Witness then asked the plaintiff if he
had received any . letter froniSrtlith?
Mr. ;Wearing
answered the question. He said there was no letter re-
ceived, there was a printed statement. Witness appealed
that he had
taken it home, and went and fetched it,
Cross-exatnined—
itto
to
Wearing,Powell,
Nearingthere
a
wase a k
wle letter;dge had given
When he was appointed manager,
his instructions were not to reduce the expenditure. His
opinion was, that at first he rather increased it; but it
was subsequently reduced, particularly by publishing a
single sheet. He did not know Count D'Orsay was ever
a contributor. Mr. Fonblanque,
-'ox, Mr. Scott
Russell, and Mr. Costello had contributed much; they
had now retired. Mr. Wills had succeeded Mr. Powell
at a less salary. There was a gentleman named Elliott
on the Express. He was a brother-in-law of Mr. Smith's.
Mr. John Foster, the editor, gave similar testimony to
that given by the last witness, as to the investigation.
Mr. Sergeant WILK.Ltes having made a very eloquent
speech in reply.
His LORDSHIP summed up the evidence to the jury,
tht- cr.estion v..as in re;T: had
d in the-discharge of his outy
'-fu'edit.)r. The
proprietors considered that the sub-editor ought to see
that nothing was done calculated to reflect on the cha-
racter of the Paper, kT9 complaint Was made that the