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

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTORS BILL.

On the motion for the second reading of this Bill,
Sir DE LACY EVANS said a large number of elec-
tors in the metropolis, and in fact throughout theswhole
country were disfranchised, in consequence of the lay
on which the rates were obliged to be paid, in order
to give votes a valdica:ion. The rates by the Re-
form Biil were to be paid en the sth of April.
He proposed by this hiii that they should be '
paid on the sth of October, which would give th voters,
six instead of three months to pay them in. This pro.
position was one of the mildest kinds of reform that
could be suggested.s and he would remind those who
were about to present themselves to their constituents,
that if they objected to such a mild reform as this they
would be considered advocates of the old rotten-borough
system (Lauehter) and he, therefore, called upon
those on the other side, who supported " liberal prin-
ciples and popular principles," to give their assent to
the Bill.
Mr. NEWDEGATE objected to the Bill. It might,
e,r it might not, be expedient to abolish toe ratf-
paying clauses of the Reform Act, but it was most ob-
jectionable to make such an alteration on the eve of a
general election for the convenience of a certain body
of electors.
Mr. WAKLEY said the Bill would not apply at the
ensuing general election.
Mr. NEWDEGATE saw no reason, then, why the Bill
'should not be deferred until a future session, and trusted
the Government would not allow it to proceed further.
They had pledged themselves to bring in a Bill
on the subject, and therefore no benefit could
arise from proceding with this measure during the
present session. He called upon the House to
pause before they passed the Bill, the proposer of which
stated that his ultimate object was to obtain household
suffrage, if not universal suffrage, which was a consum-
mation few would wish for. He trusted, as the Bill was
breaight forward as an election cry, that the House would
support him in placing every impediment in the way of
the passing of the Bill.
Sir W. CLAY supported the Bill. The ancient
system of voting consisted in possessing the franchise by
occupation and the payment of taxes, but he defied any
one to say that before the passing of the Reform Bill
the one was conjoined to the other. He supported the
Bill, not because it accomplished all he wished, but as
it would take away an unfair restriction. The Hon.
Gentlemen said that the Bill was brought forward as an
election clap-trap. It was by no means an unwise
step, at the end of a Parliament, to show the
people of this country who were their friends and who
were opposed to their liberties. The Hon. Gentleman
who used the expression " popular principles, and liberal
principles " was more noted for mooting difficult political
problems than of ever answering them, but he (Sir W.
Clay) considered that no principles would be popular
unless they were essentially liberal.—(Hear.)
Mr. WAKLEY supported the Bill, as he
considered that it would enfranchise an immense
body of properly qualified persons. The Honuurable
Gentleman the Member for Warwickshire (Mr.
Newdegate) was, no doubt, a fair man, and a friend of
the people, for he had voted for the Ten Hours Bill, but
he had a crotchet in his head with respect to this
Bill which he trusted he would soon get rid
of. The 26th clause of the Reform Act
merely said that persons should be registered by a
certain day, and did not make the anomalous distinction
between county and borough voters. He wished to see
the rate-paying clauses of the Reform Bill repealed—
( Hear)—lecause Ha man did not pay his rates he was
answerable to the law, and his goods might be distrained
upon ; and surely this was an unfair restriction to con
tinue when they had such a p ,wer. Why, he did
not object to annual Parliaments, because "short
reckonings made long friends," and was the cha-
racter of the House would be elevated by more fre-
quent communion with those who sent them there
When a member was about to meet his constituents it
was astonishing what attention he paid to questions
which his constituents were likely to discuss with him.—
(Laughter.) Under the present law many persons of
property were disfranchised. The Governor of the Bank
had his vote disallowed on one occasion because he had
not paid his rates by a certain day. He trusted the op-
position would be withdrawn, and that the Bill would be
carried.

Mr. CRIPPS opposed the Bill, and moved that it be
read a second time that day three months. If the lion.
Member for Finsbw y (Mr. Wakley) brought forward a
Bill for Annual Parliaments next session, he trusted
that he would couple with it a Bill to render the office
of county coroner open to annual election.—(Laughter.)
Mr. WAKLEY said he was ready to resign whenever
galled upn to do so.
Mr. CRIPPS said the difference between counties
and boroughs was this—in the first persons might vote
who neither paid rates nor assessed taxes, whilst in the
other the franchise was only obtained by rating. It
would be better if Hon. Gentleman would reserve their
addresses on the subjs,ct until they were on the hustings,
instead of making them in the House and having their
sentiments made known to their constituents through
the uewspapor.—(Laughter.)
Sir B. HALL denied that this Bill was an infringe
ment of the Reform Act, as had been stated, for in his
opinion it was only carrying out the principles of that
measure. All that the constituents of towns wanted
was to be placed upon the same footing as the
constituencies of counties. He therefore hoped
the Bill would meet with the approbation
of the House, and that late as the session was it would
receive the sanction of the Legislature before the ter-
mination of their labours.

Mr. HENLEY opposed the Bill on the ground that it
would operate injuriously, not only on the franchise, but
on the poor. He was also of opinion that the Bill could
not pass into a law on account of the lateness of the
session, and that being the case he did not see the use
of pressing it forward.
Captain PECHELL supported the Bill. He thought
it a most moderate m-asare, and they would be only
approving themselves the friends of the poor by passing
it into a law.

Sir DE LAC Y EVANS considered the Bill was called
for by the present state of the law respecting the fran-
chise, and if the opposition to it was successful, it would
be only perpetuating- the system of c.)rruption which at
present prevailed.
The House then divided, when there appeared :
For the Amendment 54
Against it
The SPEAKER then gave his vote, the numbers being
equal, against the amendment, which was consequently
lost.

The House again divided on the original motion,
when the numbers were—
For the second reading
Against it 53
Nitijority
The Bill was consequently lost.
BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY BILL.
Oa the question that the report on this Bill be re-
ceived, _ _

Mr.' lIANIILTON mow(' the following clause:—
"Arid be it enacted and declared, that in the cons: ruction
of this Act and the several Acts herein referred to,
the expression barrister-at-law, or barrister, shall
mean a barrister-at law called to the bar either in Eng-
land :or Ireland; and the expression attorney at-law,
shall mean an attorney-at-law either for England or
Ireland, except where it 11 otherwise provided."
The ATTORNEY GENERAL opposed the clause.
Mr. STEWART also opposed the clause, and hoped
the Hon. Gentleman would withdraw it.

Mr. BOUVERIE supported the clause.
After a few words from Mr. HENLEY,

Sir J. GRAHAM took that opportunity of asking the
Attorney-General whether a judge, under the Ni W
County Courts Bill, was eligible to be el, cted a Member
of Parliament, as he saw that one of the judges of the
County Courts was setting up as a candidate for
the next election. If the Learned Attorney
General was of opinion that they were eligible to be
elected it would be his duty on the third reading of this
Bill to propose a elKuse for their disqualification.
The AT fOLLNEY-GENERAL said the matter was
doubtful, and he did not wish to give any opinion
up ai it.
Sir JAMES GRATTAN! said that in that case, as
the state pit the law was such, he would, on the third
readino of the present Bill move a clause for their dis-
qualitication.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. HAMIL'I ON then withdrew this clause, as it
did not appear to meet with the approbation of the
House.
The report .vas then received.
FEVER iOSPITAL BILL.

This Bill ;ai read a sPeond time.
PUBLIC WORKS AND DRAINAGE (IRELAND,

BILL.
This Bill was read a third time and passed ; as also
the constabulary Force (Ireland) Bill, and the London-
bridge Apprc•aches Bill.
DESTITUTE PERSONS (IRELAND) BILL.
On the rceitinn that ths Bill be read a third time, _
in
Sir G. GREY explained that there had been raised
vo;untary cinvributions for the relief of the destitute
poor in Ireland, under the Queen's letter, a sum of
171,0001., and from other channels sums that made a total
of 424,764/. Of this sum 170,0001. had been ad-
vanzied to the Committee of the British Association
for distribution. The remaining portion of the fund was
distributed thr.iugh other channels.
COPYRIGHT COLONIES BILL.
This Bill was read a third time and passed.
MILITIA PAY BILL.
Thio report on 'this Bill was received, as also the
reports on the New Z aland (No. 2) Bill, and the Trus-
tees Relief Bill.

COMMONS ENCLOSURE BILL.
This Bill passed through Committee, and ~Na 3 ordered
to be reported.

PUBLIC BUSINESS.

- -
In reply to S r J. GRAHAIII,
Sir G. GREY mid that the House would meet to-
tnorrow at th-ee o'clock ; that public tusinesi would
commence at half-past three, wh,..0 the Uum,uittee on
the Consul:Awed Faqd 13.1 i would be tAen hest ; theT,
t''PPos,.d third r-adings, al;c1 after that the Bishopric
ont?'
Manchnster Bill.
the "they o,d rs 0- the ,lay wer‘ th n di-pose of, ~Ld
}jut" adjourned Halt-past ' 'k
at

;
OF DISSOLUTION PARLIAMENT.—It As,'e under-
stand, di:c
dßed that the Parliament shall be pr; rogu
on Thursy
on the following
week next. The dissolution will take place
Friday, and writs •of election will be
issued on the Saturday.—Adverliser.
FALL OF A HOUSE IN THE MINT.—On Tuesday,
shortly after seven o'clock, the greatest alarm and con-
sternation prevailed in the vicinity of the Mint, South-
wark,
ca v conseence of an ancient h
situated in a
p/aee lled Mi o•he ; side of St.utti-
v,arY, brldge-w.,t, and inaniedi.::,-) • 'Le roar 0t
Ge Minr•stre,r, to the ground
Pith dreadful violence, whereby Sevcrilt persons were
slightly injured, but none, fortunately, to nay serious
extents.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
SECONDARIES' COURT, July 14.
(Before Mr. Secondary POTTER.)
WEBB V. LITTLEWOOD.
The plaintiff in this action is a livery-stable keeper,
&c.. at Croydon, sad the defendant is a surveyor, &c.
The action was brought to recover the sum of 351. 10s.,
f,r the hire of a horse and gig, and damage done to a
horse.
The dt f, ndant suffered judgment to go by default.
The plaintiff% nephew proved that defendant had fre-
quently had the horse and gig out, and on one occasion
the horse was knocked up " dead lame," and cut about
so that it was laid up Defendant paid off part of the
account, and promised to pay the remainder, and agreed
that the injury to the horse should be estimated at 101.,
but defendant said he did not at all know how it hap•
pened.
The jury gave a verdict for the full amount.
lIYAMS V. ARMSTRONG.

The plaintiff in this action is a preserved fruit mer-
chant, and defendant an oilman in Thames-street. The
action was brought to recover the sum of 51., the balance
of an account for goods sold. •
Mr. HOBBY, who appeared for the plaintiff, said that
this was a most harassing proceeding on the part of the
defendant, who had pleaded, but did not appear to sup-
port the plea. The cause was set down for trial this
day fortnight, but could not be proceeded with, in con-
sequence of the absence of the principal witness to
prove the delivery of the goods. The defendant had
given him in custody on a frivolous charge of stealing
a child's cap.
There being no defence, the jury gave a verdict for the
amount claimed.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
HOME ClRCUlT.—Chelmsford, July 13.
CROWN SlDE.—(Before Mr. Baron PARKE.)

Emma Elizabeth Hume, 24, a pretty young woman,
was indicted for feloniously attempting to administer to
Thomas Hume, her husband, a large quantity of a cer-
tain deadly poison called sugar of lead, with intent to
kill and murder him.

No counsel was engaged either to prosecute or defend
the prisoner, and Mr. Bosanquet was requested by the
Court to examine the witnesses from the depositions.
It appeared from the evidence of the woman's hus-
band, who was considerably older than herself, and who
nad the appearance of a sickly, ailing man, that he was a
widower at the time he married the prisoner, and had
some grown up children. For some time prior to the
month of April he had been suffering from a liver com-
plaint, and a man named Merchant, who lived in the
same village with the prosecutor and his wife, and who,
it appeared, had the reputation of being able to cure the
disorder in question, had been prescribing for him, and
had made up for him some boxes of pills. On the 7th of
April the prisoner was observed by her daughter-in-
law to be mixing up some flour and water to a
thick paste, and she then moulded it into the
form of two large pills, which she placed upon
the oven to dry, and when they were dried she put
them into a box which contained some of the pills that
had been sent by Marchant. At this time her husband
was bedridden, and it appeared that she went to him
and told him it was time for him to take his medicine;
and she then produced the two large pills, and wished
him to take them. From circumstances that had pre
viously occurred, he had some suspicion of her inten•
tions, and, after observing that the pills were too large
and too strong for him, he refused to take them. The
prisoner pressed him to do so, and told him that " Tom
Warner" had said that they were just the things for his
complaint; but he persisted in his refusal, and the pri-
soner at length put the pills back into the box with the
others. The next day she again pressed him to take
the large pills, but he refused; and it appeared that after
that they were handed over to the police. The prose-
cutor also stated that a short time before this happened
the prisoner had brought him some fried potatoes, but
the moment he had put a portion of them into his mouth
ho discovered such a nauseous taste that he was obliged
to spit out what he had taken; and upon another occa-
sion she brought him some broth, which had the same
taste, and he refused to drink it. Tom Warner, it
appeared, was a labourer in the village of Tollesbury,
where the prosecutor and his wife resided.
At the conclusion of the examination of the prosecutor
the prisoner asked him why he had put her into the
workhouse when he was well able to keep her?—The
prosecutor said he had not done so.
The prisoner then asked whether he had not said that
he would leave her at Chelmsford, if he took a false oath
to do it.

He denied ever having made use of such an expression.
Prisoner—Did I not say to you that I would not do
what they wanted me—to poison you?
Prosecutor—l never heard you say so.
Sarah Elizabeth Hume, tho prosecutor's daughter,
proved that she saw her mother mix up the large pills,
and place them with the smelt ones in the box, and she
afterwards saw her offer the same pills to her father, and
press him to take them, upon two occasions. She also
stated that upon the occasion when her mother made the
mutton broth, she first put some white powder into a
basin, and mixed it up, and then poured the broth into
it and back into the saucepan, several times. Her fa-
ther refused to drink the broth, and when it was brought
down the prisoner told her to throw it away, and at the
same time directed her to wash the basin and saucepan
quite clean. She said that after her father refused to
take the pills they were placed in the box upon a ledge,
and she afterwards saw the same pills handed to Fox,
the constable.

Mr. Baron PARKE told the prisoner she was at liberty
to ask the witness any questions she pleased.
The prisoner said it was not true that she asked her
to wash the saucepan, she did it herself.
F. the constable who took the prisoner into custody,
said that upon his showing her the large pills she at
first denied all knowledge of them, but she afterwards
admitted that she had attempted to administer them to
her husband, but the said she did not intend to poison
him.

It was then given in evidence that the two large pills
referred to, upon their being analyzed, were found to
contain 26 grains and a half of sugar of lead ; and that
in the state of health of the prosecutor that quantity
would certainly have caused his death if he had taken it.

The prisoner, in her defence, merely denied the
charge.
Mr. Baron PARKE having summed up, the jury, after
deliberating for a tew minutes, returned a verdict of
Guilty.
The Learned JUDGE, addressing the prisoner, said she
had been convicted upon the clearest testimony of the
diabolical crime of attempting to take away the life of
her husband by poison ; and there was too much reason
to fear that she would have succeeded in her attempt if
her previous conduct had not excited suspicion in the
breast of her husband as to her intentions towards him.
He felt it to be his duty, therefore, to pass upon her the
most severe sentence fixed by the law for this offence ;
Ind he at the same time observed, that he knew of no
other crime so dreadful that was not visited with the
punishment of death. He then ordered the prisoner to
be transported fur the term of her natural life.
The prisoner heard the address of the Learned Judge
witn apparent indifference, and the moment the sentence
was pronounced sprang to the side of the dock, where
her husband was standing, evidently with the intention
of inflicting any injury that might be in her power upon
him. She was immediately seized by two or three turn
keys, with whom she struggled with the most desperate
determination. Finding herself overpowered, she leaned
towards her husband as far as she could, and grinned at
him, and, with a most savage expression of countenance,
muttered imprecations upon him; the poor old man was
trembling in every limb, and apparently almost dead
from fright. The prisoner was at length carried out of
court by the turnkeys.

OXFORD CIRCUIT.—Oxford, July 13.
CROWN COURT.—(Before Mr. Justice ERLE and

Common Juries.)

FEATUERSTONEHAUGH AND PIITTERILL V. SHERWOOD

AND CO.

Mr. Whateley and Mr. Selfe appeared for the plain-
tiffs; Mr. Keating and Mr. Pigott for the defendants.
The detendants were contractors for making the new
line of railway from Oxford to Rugby; and the plaintiffs
were employed by them to fence and otherwise prepare
several miles of that line; and the action was brought
to recover a balance of 1131. due for the work so done.
The defence was a set-off to a greater amount, and after
a trial of four hours the set-off was established to the
satisfaction of the jury, who, without hesitation, re-
turned a verdict for the defendants.
FEA.THERSTONERACCII AND PUTTERILL V. CLARIDGE.
The same counsel again appeared for the plaintiffs,
and Mr. Keating and Mr. Dowdeswell for the defendant.
This was an action of slander for saying of the
plaintiffs that they had forged the name of a Mr. Purnell
for 90/.
The defendant pleaded only " Not guilty."
At the opening of the case the plaintiff's counsel ex-
pressed a readiness to take a verdict for nominal damages
if the defendant would apologise.
Mr. KEATING said that the defendant meant to impute
forgery to the plaintiffs, and was ready to make any
apology they might desire, ,if a juror was withdrawn,
and the cause so terminated, each party paying his own
costs.
tdorybe,
eax twr iatcnteesds, was
r, proved that the words
call
suppose then a second,
out answero
f wnhootm b
ne iontgh i
us
ga t i
es
ofaucl
however, proved
referred only to Mr.
F e
eat h e rds to nt h ahuagwvh.eh been
At the suggestion of the Court, Mr. Keating's offer
was acceded to, and the jury discharged.
This was the fourth and last case in this Court, and
was over at half-past one o'clock.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT.—York, July 12.
The assizes at this place commenced to-day, the ccan.
mission having been opened on Saturday by Mr. Justice
i
Wightrnan. The other Learned Judge, Sir Frederic.
Pollock, did not arrive until last evening.
The cause lists, which are not yet published, are ex-
pected to be very light. There are 110 prisoners named
in the calendar, 4 ut whom are charged with murder, 2
murder and robbery, 3 rap,,, 1 attempting to shiait, 3
manslaughter, 17 burglary, 3 housebreaking, 9 cutting,
kvounding, or stabbing, 5 forgery, 7 uttering forged
documents, 18 rubbery with violence, 6 horse-stealing, 3
arson, 1 housebreaking and rape, and 5 concealment of
birth. Three of the persons named are for offences com-
mitted within the city. The authorities cf the city have
expressed a desire that these latter may be tried at the
Guildhall, instead of in the county, at the Castle, as is
he should
ply with the wish.
usual, and the Lord Chief Baron, upon application made
to the Court this morning, intimated that
Judges began the business of the assizes
t noon to-dad.
the Lord Chief Baronice %I/1g tman i presiding at
The Learned
Nisi Prins, and Mr. Just ' h n the Crown
GILL V. LUND.
The plaintiff, blr, Richard
CIVIL SIDE.—(
ill :Ind the defendant, Mr. Before tae LORD CHIEF BARON.)