The Sun.
London, England, 1847-06-19 00:00:00

TEE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, JUT

CATHOLIV, LAW, AND GENERAL LIFE
ASSURANCE COMPANY, 8, NEW COVENTRY-STREET,
LEICESTER-SQUARE.

London, June 19, 1847.
Notice is hereby given, that the first ordinary GENERAL
MEETING of this Company will be held on TUESDAY, the 6th day
of July next, at the Company's Office, as above, at twelve for one
o'clock precisely, for the election of directors, auditors, ant other
business. (By order) WM. NORRIS, Secretary.

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY ELECTION.
The Hon. C. E. LAW'S COMMITTEE SITS DAILY at
MORLEY'S HOTEL, No. 1, TRAFALGAR-SQI7A.RE, CHARING-
CROSS.

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY ELECTION.
At a numerous Meeting of the Members of the Senate, held
at No. 55, Charing-cross, on Saturday, the 12th of June, Mr. John
G. Shaw Lefevre's Address having been read, the following Resolu-
tions were unanimously adopted:-
1. That John G. Shaw Lefevre, Esq., from his high academical
reputation, his long connexion with the University, the interest
which he has always taken in the advancement of science, and his
able conduct in various Important public offices, has proved himself
eminently qualified to represent the University in Parliament.
2. That the Members of the Senate present at this Meeting pledge
themselves to use their best endeavours to secure Mr. Lefevre's
return.
A Committee was formed of the following Gentlemen, with power
to add to their number:—
The Right Honourable Sir Edward Ryan, Trinity, Chairman.
The Right Reverend Bishop of Sodor and Man, late Fellow of Mag-

dalen.
Andrew Amos, Esq.. late Fellow of Trinity.
1). T. Ansted, Esq„ Fellow of Jesus.
J. Armitage, Esq., Fellow of Trinity.
It. Baynes Armstrong, Esq., Q.C., late Fellow of St. John's.
The Ilonourable D. L. Astlev, Trinity.
Charles Austin, Esq., Q.C., Jesus.
Charles Babbage, Esq., Trinity.
William F. Beadon, Esq., St. John's.
Ralph Bernal, Esq., M.P., Christ's.
J. E. Drinkwater Bethune, Esq., Trinity.
W. H. Birch, Esq., St. John's.
W. Lloyd Birkbeck, Esq., late Fellow of Trinity.
John Elijah Blunt, Esq., Trinity.
The Honourable E. Pleydell Bouverie, M.P., Trinity.
The Reverend James Brogden, Trinity.
The Reverend W. H. Brookfield, Trinity.
William Brougham, Esq., Master in Chancery, late Fellow of Jesus.
E. H. Bunbury, Esq., late Fellow of Trinity.
George Burrows, Esq., M.D., late Fellow Of Cetus.
The Honourable Richard Denman, Trinity.
The Honourable George Denman, Fellow of Trinity.
The Honourable and Reverend L. W. Denman, Magdalen.
Frederick Drewe, Esq., Trinity.
Samuel Duckworth, Esq.. Master in Chancery, Trinity.
Francis Dumergue, Esq., Trinity.
The Viscount Duncan, M.P., Trinity.
The Very Reverend Dean of Durham, late Fellow of Trinity.
Edward Ellice, Esq., M.P., Trinity.
Thomas Flower Ellis, Esq., late Fellow of Trinity.
The Reverend James Evans, Pembroke.
Sir Robert Ferguson, Bart , M.P., Trinity.
The Reverend John Hutton Fisher, late Fellow of Trinity.
Frederick S. Flood, Esq., Trinity.
Peter Le Neve Foster, sq., late Fellow of Trinity Hall.
Francis Galion, Esq., Trinity.
James R. Gardiner, Esq., Trinity.
F. W. Gibbs, Esq., Fellow of Trinity.
Woronzo Grcig, Esq., Trinity.
The Reverend John Guthrie, Trinity.
Thomas 11. Hall, Esq., late Fellow of King's.
The Reverend Dr. Ilawtrey, late Fellow of King's.
Douglas Denon Heath, Es;., late Fellow of Trinity.
Robert Hollond, Esq., M.P., Corpus Christi.
The llonourable Charles Howard, M.P., Trinity.
The Reverend Dr. Jerrard, late Fellow of Qalus.
William John Johnson, Esq., Fellow of Clue. 1
E. Kay, Esq., Trinity.
John Mitchell Kemble, Esq., Trinity.
The Honourable P. J. Locke King, Trinity.
Mr. Sergeant Kinglake, Trinity.
Samuel Laing, Esq., St. John's.
It. G. Latham, Esq., M.D. Fellow of King's.
John Halsey Law, Esq., Fellow of King's.
Samuel Jones Loyd, Esq., Trinity.
Sir John Lubbock, Bart., Trinity.
The Right Honourablo T. Babington Macaulay, M.P., late Fellow of
Trinity.
Edward Maltby, Esq., Trinity.
The Reverend H. Melvin, Principal of Haileybury, late Fellow of
Peterhouse.
The Right Honourable Viscount Palmerston, St. John's.
The Viscount Milton, M.P., Trinity.
The Honourable G. O'Callaghan, St. John's.
The Honourable Charles Pepys, Trinity.
Thomas Jodrell Phillips, Esq., late Fellow of Trinity.
G. It. Phillips, Esq., M.P., Trinity.
The Honourable and Reverend Augustus Phipps, Trinity.
The Reverend Dr. Prendergast, Queen's.
The Honourable Mr. Baron Rolfe, late Fellow of Downing.
John Homily, Esq., M.P., Q.C., Trinity.
The Reverend E. S. P. Serocold, Jesus.
The Reverend R. Sheepshanks, Fellow of Trinity.
James Spedding, Esq., Trinity.
The Reverend W. A. Soames, late Fellow of Trinity,
The Honourable W. C. Spring Rice.
The Right Honourable E. Strutt, M.P., Trinity.
Lawrence Sullivan, Esq., St. John's.
Henry Tancred, Esq., 31. P., Q.C., Fellow of Jesus.
W. J. Tayler, Esq., Trinity.
Martin Thackeray, Esq., late Fellow of King's.
Mr. Sergeant Thompson, Queen's.
William Pollard Urquhart, Esq., Trinity.
Horatio Waddington, Esq„ late Fellow of Trinity.
W. H. Whitehead, Esq., Trinity.
The Honourable Mr. Justice Vaughan Williams, Trinity.
W. Page Wood, Esq., Q.C., late Fellow of Trinity.
John Werllcdge, Esq., late Fellow of Trinity.

_ .
r The Reverend J. W. L.-HEAVISIDE, Sidney.
Secretaries 'THOMAS E. lIEAT)LAM, Esq., Trinity.

Those gentlemen who arc favourable to the above Resolutions are
earnestly requested to take the earliest opportunity of communicat-
ing information which may assist in promoting Mr. Lcfevre's return
to the Committee, at 55, Charing-cross.

BOOKS FOR PRESENTS
1. ROGERS'S POEMS. 72 Vignettes. 16s.
2. ITALY. 56 Vignettes. 16s.
3. WORDSWORTH'S POETICAL WORKS. 1 vol. 20s.
4. CAMPBELL'S POETICAL WORKS. 58 Vignettes. 20s
5. TENNYSON'S POEMS. 2 vols. 12s.
6. CAMPBELL'S SHAKSPEARE. 16s.
7. CHAUCER'S POETICAL WORKS. I6s.
8. TODD'S SPENSER'S WORKS. 16s.
Edward Moxon, 44, Dover-street.

I HE WEATHER.—SUN OFFICE, JUNE 19.
THERMOMETER, Lowest, 50 ; Highest, 62 ; Noon, 66.
BAROMETER, 29.9.5.—W1ND W.N.W.; fine.

lIIGII WATER AT LONDON-BRIDGE THIS DAY.
Morning .. 54 minutes after 5. I Evening .. 13 minutes 4tlec G.

take into consideratiim, as upon its judicious re-
arrangement depends the commercial prosperity, we
had almost said the commercial existence, of the
nation. Ireland, again, and religious disabilities, are
subjects demanding the most rigid and consistent
scrutiny.

The catechism of the hustings must be conducted
upon a plan altogether dissimilar from that heretofore
prevalent. Party, be it observed for the hundredth
time, is shattered to atoms ; the old vocabulary of
political distinctions has become obsoleta. Candidates
must be judged not so much by the names of political
classification as by their independent views upon the
different questions of legislation. Of the peculiar
views entertained by such tried men as Sir CHARLES
NAPIER and Sir B. HALL no doubt whatever can
exist, and consequently the choice of the Liberal
electors of Marylebone is obvious.

After a lengthened discussion the House of Com-
mons last night decided upon going into Committee
on the Health of Towns' Bill, the Government being
supported by the commanding majority of 141.
Prom the interest we have so long taken in promoting
the question of sanatory reform, we rejoice at the in-
fluential decision to which the representatives of the
people have at length come upon this important sub •
ject. The excellence of the object sought to be at-
tained by Lord MoRPETIt's measure is beyond the
pale of controversy. All the objections presented in
yesterday's debate for not proceeding with the Bill,
were, therefore, necessarily directed against its ma-
chinery. The motive for its introduction was un-
impeachable. The objections, however, that were
taken—though from their nature, if entitled to any
weight at all, the proper time for raising them would
have been in Committee—broke down one after an-
other under the salient replies and explanations that
were mutually given by Lord J. RUSSELL and Lord
MORPETH. Centralisation, patronage, and the
omission of the city of London from its provisions,
constituted the main points of resistance offered to the
progress of the measure. With respect to the first,
if it were valid as an argument, then should many
public institutions, at present in beneficial operation
for the community at large, be forthwith remodelled.
We recollect that similar strictures were made in
Parliament when the present police force was first
proposed to be constituted. It was then said, as now,
" leave the people to manage their own affairs;" but it
was then rejoined, as it was last night observed,
by the Premier, that experience showed that local
bodies could not be entirely trusted for adopting re-
gulations for the efficient protection of life and pro-
perty; and then, in accordance with what is now in-
tended in regard to sanatory reform, the city of
London obtained a separate Act for the management
of its own police. But does any man throughout the
empire desire the repeal of the Police Act on account
of the principle of centralisation on which it is based ?
We venture to say, not one. It answers admirably
all the purposes for which it was passed, which, it is
obvious (or, at any rate, experience imparts the
greatest strength to the presumption) it never would
have done, in the absence of the controlling powers
incorporated in the Act.

With respect to the objection of patronage
created under Lord MORPETH'S Bill, it is clear that,
if its object be worthy of being compassed by
enactment, certain public officers must be appointed.
When any general measure of reform is needful to
the public welfare, it is inevitably incidental to the
same, that its execution must be intrusted to persons
specially nominated by the Government, by virtue of
the authority of the Legislature, conferred pro re natii.
The only consideration, then, for the House of Com-
mons, as effecting Lord MORPETH'S Bill, in reference
to patronage, is, whether it is proposed to carry it to
an extent beyond what is required for the efficient
operation of the scheme. This has not been shown ;
and, inasmuch as the objection comes alone from
Colonel SIATHORP, who rejoices in blissful solitude,
it may be presumed that the proposition of the Go-
vernment in this respect is beyond the reach of any
reasonable exception.

Lastly, as regards the city of London and its
omission from the Bill, the answer of Ministers is
fraught with practical wisdom. They think, as
every one must, that it would have been better to
have had it included. But, first, the citizens of Lon-
don, a powerful bpdy, are opposed to such an ar-
rangement ; next, the session is too far advanced for
the Government to risk the success of a general mea-
sure of vital importance to the preservation of the
public health, by fighting through twenty or thirty
additional clauses, which it would be necessary to
pass, provided the city of London were not excluded.
Fever and disease of various kinds are making fearful
inroads in different parts of the empire. Mortality is
already lamentably above the average, compared with
what it would be were proper sanatory measures
in vigorous operation.

If Lord MORPETR'S Bill were passed to-morrow, a
considerable period would elapse before the necessary
plans and surveys could be completed ; so that any
undue procrastination in passing it, come from
what quarter it may, only aggravates the suffer-
ings of millions of our hard-working and poverty-
stricken population. Their health and strength
are daily wasting beneath the blighting effects of
their miserable, ill-ventilated, undrained, and noisome
habitations. Well might the knowledge of the
wretched lot of the masses of his impoverished country-
men induce Lord MORPETR, in his pathetic speech of
last night, " to mix actual entreaty with his appeal to
the House of Commons to make immediate progress
in the great work of sanatory reform."

In Oriental tales we read of absolute potentates,
who, not content with punishing in an exemplary
manner the actual perpetrator of any heinous offence,
were also accustomed to put his nearest relatives to
death—to sell the more distant connexions to slavery,
and to raze even the foundations of his house, so that
no record should remain of the criminal. In the
earlier ages, and in uncivilised countries, the same
principle was generally adopted. The death of the
guilty person alone was not considered a sufficient
expiation unless his innocent family were involved in
one common destruction. Every person was, therefore,

not merely responsible for his own actions ; it

was notsufficient that he should be a good and faithful
subject, an honest and industrious citizen, well and
efficiently discharging all the duties incidental to his
social position, of approved integrity, and beyond the
reach of reproach or calumny. All might be insuffi-
cient to shield him from the penalties of that law, which
should have been his protection, but which was turned
into an instrument of oppression and persecution, if
he, unhappily, numbered amongst his kindred an
evil-disposed or badly conducted person. As civili-
sation increased, and more just and equitable notions
prevailed, the gross injustice of this system became
manifest, the more- obvious and direct punish-
ments were wholly removed. A child could
not be imprisoned because his father had violated
the law ; a woman could not be brought to the
gallows because her husband had committed a mur-
der ; but, even to this day, in our own England—in
the country which arrogates to itself a prominent
position in the scale of nations—which prides itself on
its stern and undeviating justice to all—a similar ini-
quity is indirectly sanctioned, and the crimes of the
fathers are indeed visited on their helpless and in-
offensive children, or on the almost heart-broken
widows, who have never been even suspected of a
participation in their husband's misdeeds. We are
accustomed to boast of the excellence and purity of
our laws and constitution, and it is only when some
monstrous case is brought prominently forward, and
laid bare before the public in all its enormity, that
we perceive how urgently reform and revision is re-
quired, and how harsh and oppressive may be the
operation of the law.
Among the relics of barbarism still suffered to
exist, and to inflict an indelible stain on our juris-
prudence, is the law relating to escheats and forfei-
tures. Practically they are seldom enforced, the
Crown generally waiving its rights and restoring to
the parties entitled (subject, however, to a heavy
deduction for legal expenditure) the property
which had belonged to an attainted person.
This, however, is a matter of favour and
not of right, an indulgence which need not
be conceded, and which is frequently delayed,
although not often absolutely denied. Why, then,
should the law be retained in its present objectionable
state, more particularly when it is so seldom enforced ?
Why should the feelings of the surviving friends be
again harrowed, their wounds re-opened, and the
public mind again disturbed by a renewal of prc•

ceedings in a case in Winch the efrendei had alfeady
suffered the extreme penalty of the law, and had sur-
rendered his forfeit life in expiation of his offence ?
We have been led to these remarks in consequence
of the proceedings which took place on Thursday, at
Hertford, under a commission of escheat, in
relation to the property of the late JOHN
TAWELL, who was executed in the month of March,
1845, at Aylesbury, for the murder of SARA)"
HART. The Senior Commissioner explained the law
to the jury, " that a felon's heritable blood was de-
stroyed, and that his lands and tenements at once de-
scended to the Crown, from the day of the commis-
sion of the offence, and his goods and chattels from
the day of his conviction." According to this prin-
ciple, we find that if his guilt was for some time con-
cealed, and that he subsequently, and before it was
discovered, disposed of real estate to a bona fide
purchaser for full and valuable consideration, that
still it would become the property of the
Crown, and that innocent purchaser would lose
the property he had fairly acquired, and the
money he had paid for it. This would indeed be the
innocent suffering for the guilty. It is no answer to
say &at such a claim would never be enforced on the
part of the Crown ; why should there be the possibi-
lity of committing so grievous an injustice under the
sanction and colour of law? Again his heritable blood
is destroyed, his children would be unable to de-
rive title, through their guilty father, to property
which might otherwise descend to them from a more
distant relation. Surely this is a most inequitable
provision, their rights as citizens are taken away ;
they are not merely deprived of their father's pro-
perty, which they ought to obtain, but they
are prevented from inheriting from others, in
fact they are practically rendered illegitimate-
We trust that amongst the many legal reforms
that are about to be brought forward, a total
abolition of this law may be one of the earliest.
In the present case, the harshness of the pro-
ceeding seems to have been greatly aggravated
by compelling the widow, a lady, who had ever
maintained the most irreproachable character, to come
forward as a witness, in fact, to give evidence against
her own rights and interest. The deepest sympathy
was manifested on every side for the unfortunate
lady, who appeared greatly affected at her painful
position. The total value of the property forfeited,
under the present proceeding, would appear to be
about 8,0001. We trust that the just claims of the
widow, and also of the children of the wretched
malefactor, may be admitted by the Government,
and the forfeiture remitted in their favour. By so doing
they will merit and receive the public approbation.

Madrid journals of the 12th have arrived.
The Gaceta publishes an official announcement of
the abandonment of Viana, Isua Munzon, and Puenta
de Leina, by the forces of the Junta of Oporto, and
of their occupation by Spanish troops. In the same
number we find a royal decree conferring the title of
Duke of SARAGOSSA on Don JOSE DE PALAFOX,
Captain-General of the Spanish army, and his heirs.
The Clamor Public° states that Senor SALAMANCA
has determined to offer for sale those properties be-
longing to Don CARLOS, and those belonging to the
order of St. John of Jerusalem, which have been con-
fiscated to the service of the State.

The Correo (SALAMANCA'S organ) declares that the
Government has never entertained any intention to
permit the free importation of English cotton goods.
The Faro states that the QUEEN'S visit to La
Granja is indefinitely postponed.

There were rumours in Madrid of an intended
modification of the Cabinet. It was said SALAMANCA,
MAZZAREDO, and BENAVIDES would retire.
The Three per Cents. elose'd 011 the 12th inst. at 3011
for cash ; the Four per Cents. at 18; the Five per Cents.
et 18; the Passives at 54; and Coupons at 15.

We have received the Paris papers of Thursday.
The motion of M. DEMESMAY for a reduction of
the duty on salt, was carried on Wednesday in the
Chamber of Deputies by a majority of 250; the num-
bers being—For the motion, 264; against it, 14. On
this subject the Constitutionnel says—
" The Ministry experienced on Wednesday one of the
most remarkable Parliamentary defeats that a Govern-
ment ever sustained. It was in vain that M. Dumon,
the Minister of Finance, and M. Duchatel, Minister of
the Interior, sti&eisively rose to combat the proposition
for the reduction of the salt duty. It was in vain that
they endeavoured to obtain the adjournment of the
question by promising to introduce a measure on the
subject next year. The proposition was adopted by a
majority so compact that the Ministers themselves
dared not rise in their places against it. The ballot
showed a minority of only 14 votes against 264. The
new Minister of Finance occupied the tribune for nearly
an hour. His arguments were directed to prove that
the increased consumption of salt would not compensate
for the diminution of the revenue, and he promised to
make further calculations, and, as we have already said,
to present a Bill on the subject next year. AI. Dupin,
in an animated extempore address, did full justice to
the arguments of the Minister of Finance, and asked
who it was who had brought our finances into the posi-
tion in which we find them? M. Duchatel did not wish
to leave the Chamber under the impression produced by
M. Dupin's animated attack. He endeavoured to jus-
tify the financial management of the Ministry, and
drew a brilliant picture of the advantages to be derived
from the execution of public works. In what way do
Ministers propose now to act? No doubt they propose
to bury the measure in the Chambers of Peers. There
is, however, a promise made, and a Chamber which
will demand its performance. But how can they give
satisfaction to public opinion in presence of a deficiency
of 30,000,000 f. evident in the budget for the year
1848 ?"
The Presse, too, raises its "song of triumph" over
M. GUIZOT, and asserts, that after such a vote a
British Cabinet would have resigned immediately.
That the Cabinet of M. GUIZOT entertains no such
intention is, however, evident from the following
Ministerial manifesto, which appears in the Journal
des Debats :
" The Chamber of Deputies have adopted, by a very
great majority, the proposition for a reduction of the
duty on salt. This result will surprise no one. We ex-
pected it, for our part, and the Government without
doubt expected it also. Last year the Chamber, by a
majority of 240 votes against 26, declared itself in favour
of the adoption of the reform, contrary to the opinion of
the Government, which did not believe circumstances to
be opportune; yet they were much more so than they are
this year! The Government did not forget this remark-
able and solemn vote; there is nothing forced in tho word.
It knew that the greater part of the Deputies, that the
greater part of the Conservative Deputies especially, had
formal engagements with their constituents on this im-
portantlt could, therefore, labour under no
not hope that the Chamber, denying its
previous
tehrethaedl
adjournment,
u rn it opposeden mtchhe
immediate
and its promises, would consent to the
adjournment
illusion! question.
c(t)inc douuled t
Nevertheless
it knew to be impossible. Why ? It combatted, not for
a d oo f p
tt
ihoenreform.
and
advised
success, but for prineiple. It did not believe that it was
permitted to it to associate itself with a resolution which
circumstances rendered in its eyes imprudent, or at least
premature. Its duty and that of the Chambers are dif-
ferent in this sort of affairs. The Chamber does not
govern, as was well said by M. Dupin ; it does not bear
the responsibility of its decisions, and has not the em-
barrassments of their consequences. If the reduction
of the tax on salt makes a void of 50,000,000 f. in the
Treasury, it is not the Chamber which must find
means to replace it. If difficulties and embarrassment
of affairs result therefrom, it will not have to submit
to the one or remove the other ; it will wash its
hands of it, and affairs must be carried on. In a
word, the Chamber is only bound to see the questions
it discusses ; the Government must embrace them all,
study them one in relation to the other ; resist the se-
duction of such a one, in order not to excite compli-
cations in the conduct of several others which are not less
important to the country. We understand,'then, perfectly
well that the Government did not think it right to cede
to the same movement as the Chamber. At bottom, it
knows that the reform is just, useful, necessary. It did
not believe that it could, by consenting to its immediate
adoption, give an example of imprudence which the
financial circumstances in which we are placed causes it
to regard as dangerous. In short, the Government has
observed this year the same conduct as it did last year,
and it had better reasons for doing so this time. It has
been consistent, like the Chamber. The Opposition will
not fail to find in this conduct of the Government the
pretext for numerous and, without doubt, violent accu-
sations.
Suppose that the Government, at the com-
mencement of the sitting, had come to declare, through
the Minister of Finance, that it accepted the proposition;
it would have thereby acquired an immense popularity.
The Opposition would have found itself reduced to the
necessity of proclaiming that; the Ministry, as we be-
lieve at least, would not have been insensible to that
glory; but it has preferred to fulfil the austere duty that
circumstances, in its opinion, imposed on it. We do not
find that there is reason to blame it."
The same journal announces that, on the 10th inst.,
the Queen of PORTUGAL published a proclamation
granting a full and entire amnesty to the insurgents.
The discussion on the report of the Committee
appointed to consider the request of the Chamber of
Peers to examine M. EsimE DE GIRARDIN at the bar
of their House, was fixed for Thursday.
The Union Monarchique says that the Committee
on Petitions of the Chamber of Deputies has unani-
mously resolved to refer the petition of Prince
JEROME BONAPARTE, praying for the abrogation of
the laws which condemn his family to exile, to the

N

19,

President of the Council (Marshal Souvr) and to the
Council of Ministers.

The National has the following on the virtual re-
jection of the petition of the Prince by the Chamber
of Peers.:—

" We cannot pass over in silence the discussion in the
Chamber of Peers on the petition presented for Jerome
Banaparte. The petitioner had innumerable reckon-
ing on the sympathy of the Peers. If we were to name
all the men in this Assembly who have taken an oath of
eternal fidelity to the Emperor, and all who owe to
him their titles, their fortunes, and even their fame,
we should take in nearly the whole of the Members of the
Chamber. It seemed then inevitable that the petition
shoul I be referred to the President of the Council of
Ministers, and this was what some speakers, whose elo-
quent language revived glorious souvenirs proposed.
But the Ministers entreated that the petition might not
be referred to them ; and, after having crowned Prince
Jerome with funereal eulogiums, they politely threw
his petition into the dusty cartons, where it now lies
interred. We can be but little suspected of sympa-
thy for kings, princes, or pretenders. But there are
examples of ingratitude which we cannot allow to
pass over without reflection. To whatever shade of
opinion one belongs, astonishment must be felt that
the companions in arms of Jerome—that the Generals
who beheld him fighting with so much courage at Wa
terloo—that the law officers, who had sworn fidelity to
the Emperor, that the administrators who had served
him, should not recommend this petition to the Ministry?
Was not that a natural consequence of their past career,
a duty to themselves, an act of gratitude to the memory
of Napoleon? It remained for the Goverment to decide;
but could the Peers dispense with expressing a wish that
the sun of France should be restored to the Napoleon
family? The most timid might be tranquil about the
result: but the man of Ghent will not absolve the
soldier of Waterloo. The strange language of some
Peers is worthy of remark. M. Daunant, for instance,
asked if the petitioner had first applied to the King—if
he had sent in an act of submission. There is a legis-
lator for you! The abolition of a law is demanded, and
a member of the legislative body exclaim,s—' If the King
has not been first applied to, I shall vote for
the order .of the day.' Another Peer does the
same ; and a General, an old Carbonaro, is lost
in his expressions of obsequious prostration Let us
leave the matter,' said he to the King's heart. I care
little about constitutional forms ; it is in the King's
heart that I place my trust ; yes, gentlemen, let us let
the King act ; and if prudence will permit the prayer of
the petition to be granted, his heart will not hesitate.'
But royalists of fresh date that you are, the matter in
hand is to revoke an existing law. Is it a grace that
the Napoleon family demands ? Do they kneel down
before the junior branch of the Bourbons ? No—they
demand to have a law abrogated. When a law presses
heavily on any one, he does not demand favour from it ;
he undergoes its effects, and demands its abrogation.
Any other course would not be worthy of respect ; and
if we have insisted on this petition, it is precisely be-
cause it has followed the direct line—because it has
struck at the door of the established powers, having no
other ambition, but to attract public attention. France
is sufficiently powerful and sufficiently sure of herself to
fear nothing from pretenders."
The prospects of the harvest still continue to be
most flattering, notwithstanding which, however, the
holders of grain demanded an advanced price in the
Paris corn market on Saturday, a demand with
which the buyers refused to comply, and, conse-
quently, scarcely any business was transacted. Wheat
of inferior quality could scarcely be disposed of at
any price.

A fall in the Three per Cents., and on the shares of
sonic of the railroad companies, took place on the Paris
Bourse on Thursday. This decline was generally 23
cribed to the vote of the Chamber of Deputies on the
salt question; but while the Three per Cents. fell 10
centimes the Five per Cents. rose 15 centimes. Agaii
Marseilles and Avignon shares fell from 730 f. (the
closing prices of Wednesday) to 7121 f. Northerns fell
from 595 f. to 5861 f. Vierzon fell sf. The shares of the
other companies drooped, but did not fall in such pro-
portion.
The Three per Cents. closed on the Paris Bourse on
Thursday at 77f. 50c.; the Five per Cents., at 117 f. 80c.:
Orleans Railroad Shares, 1,272 f. 50c.; Rouen, 966 f. 25c.;
Havre, 650 f. ; Great Northern, 5861. 25c. ; Avignon, 712 f.
50c. ; Vierzon, 6121. 50c.; Bordeaux, 507 f. 50c.; Boulogne,
411 f. 25c.; Basle, 187 f. 50c.; Dieppe, 315 f. ; Paris and
Strasburk, 1128 f. 75c.; Tours and Nantei,4l2f.-50c.; Paris
and Inns", 445 f; Lyons and Avignon; 45.0 f. ;Bordeaux and
Cette, 450 f. ; Spanish Passives, 4%.
MARSEILLES, JUNE 14.-Marseilles and Avignon, 743 f.;
Northern, 602 f. 50c.

LYONS, JUNE 15.—Paris and Rouen, 972 f. 50c.; Avignon
and Marseilles, 745 f. ; Vierzon, Gl7f. 50c. ; Northern,
598 f. 75c ; Paris and Lyons, 442 f. 50c.
BUSINESS DONE IN FOREIGN RAILWAYS AT THE
LONDON STOCK EXCHANGE, JUNE 18.
Boulogne and Amiens, 1634—Direct Bombay and Madras,
Vs—Luxembourg, 154—Namur and Liege, 314—Northern
of France, 11%—Rouen and Havre, 26.

THE COURT.—The Queen, with the royal children
and the Court, "were'. expected', to leave Buckingham
Palace soon after three.•o'clock this afternoon, for Clare-
mont, where her Majesty and the Royal circle will re-
main until the beginning of next week. His Royal
Highness Prince Albert will join her Majesty this even-
ing, from Osborne, Isle of Wight.

CRIMINAL COURT.—(THIS DAY).
• OLD COURT.
(Before Lord Chief Justice WILDE, Baron ROLFE, and
Mr. Justice PATTESON.)
FORGERY.—A young man, named Horatio Nelson
We.,t, was charged with uttering forged railway scrip.
Mr. Clarkson conducted the case for the prosecution.
The facts are contained in the following evidence:—
The handwriting of the prisoner being identified,
Mr. Bodkin was sworn—Was a member of the Stock
Exchange, and on the 22d of March last received a letter
from the prisoner, who requested him to dispose of some
scrip which he enclosed, and which purported to be scrip
of the London and South-Western Railway Company.
He received another letter on the 27th, in which the
prisoner stated that, in consequence of his former letter
not having been promptly answered, he had opened an
account with another broker for the sale of a large num-
ber of shares, but that he enclosed twenty certificates of
shares, which witness disposed of, and sent the proceeds,
951., to the prisoner. He subsequently disposed of forty
shares, and remitted 2701. to the prisoner. The prisoner
dated his letter Moore-street, Birmingham, and signed
himself Thomas Perry. He afterwards remitted the pri-
soner a sum of 1051. 10s., the proceeds of additional
scrip which he had disposed of for him.
George Brinke, Esq., clerk in the employment of
Messrs. Sterne and Pitman, stock-brokers, proved
having received 80 of the forged scrip in question
from the preceding witness.
Mr. Simpson, clerk in the employment of Messrs.
Chalmers, stock-brokers, stated that ho had received
them from Mr. Grey.
Mr. Alfred Morgan, treasurer of the London and
South-Western Railway Company, stated that that coin-
pany, in January last, issued 1,021 new shares, and the
80 shares now produced were forgeries. There was a
decided difference between the watermark on the coun-
terfeit and that on the genuine scrip. The mark on the
spurious scrip was straight, and on that of the genuinescrip it was slightly turned at the top. This witness
was cross-examined by Mr. Ballantine, who appeared for
the prisoner, but nothing was elicited to shake his direct
testimony.
Mr. Emins, of the firm of Emms and Smith, printers
to the London and South-Western Railway Company,
stated that the forged scrip was not on the same paper
as that used at his office. The watermark also was dif-
ferent. The word "proportionable" in the forged scrip
was spelt incorrectly, the o being omitted.
Mrs. Mary Ann Dingle proved that the prisoner
lodged at her house in Birmingham at the date of the
above transactions. He went under the name of Perry.
She could not prove his handwriting.
Mr. Francis Woral Stevens, of the firm of Stevens,
Hansard, and Co., sharebrokers, proved to having sold
50 of the forged scrip, at the desire of the prisoner ;
and that he remitted him a cheque for 2594, which the
prisoner acknowledged. The prisoner called upon him
subsequently, in reference to a mistake which had been
made by the.banker upon whom the cheque was drawn,
who had over-paid 401. The notes had been trace Ito
the prisoner, who said his name was West.
Henry Reichter, clerk to the preceding witness, de-
posed to having entered the scrip in question in a book
at his office kept for that purpose.
Mr. Fitzgerald, of the tirm of Stevens, Hansard, and
Co., stated that he took the scrip to the station at tha
Nine Elms, and was informed by one of the clerks there
that they were genuine, and with that information he
was quite satisfied.
Mr. Charles Rogers, cashier to Messrs. Bruce and Co.
proved having paid the 259/. for the cheque for the scrip.
(The evidence had not concluded when we went to
press.)

WORSHIP-STREET.—(THIS DAY.)
William Brown was charged with stealing a copper
boiler, the worm of a still, and the furnace thereof com-
plete, and 200 cwt. of treacle, said to be the property of
Thomas Chubb, a currier, and George Hayward, a but-
cher, formerly a police-constable of the H division.
Sergeant Coleman, of the H division of police, stated
that when the prisoner was brought to the station-house,
he (the sergeant) on the instant sent to the supervisor of'
Excise, who, however, sent back word that he did not
think it worth his ' while to attend to the case, and the
prosecutors had not thought proper to attend.
The prisoner :said that he was merely an employee of
the complainants, who had furnished him with the appa-
ratus, which he had by their direction fixed in his own
domicile, and which, with the 200 cwt. of treacle, also
sent to him by them, was to be worked,
and the latter manufactured into gin on his
own account, he being answerable for all conse-
quences which might possibly arise therefrom. A dis-
agreement had taken place between himself and his em-
ployers, and he thought he could account for their ab-
sence from the court, by stating that he had told them
that he would divulge to the magistrate a concern they
had, which was in a most flourishing condition.
Mr. COMBE, who set for Mr. Broughton, advised the
defendant to give the necessary information to the Ex-
cise, and he would most probably obtain some pecuniary
recompense, and added that as there were no prosecu-
tors he was discharged.
The defendant thanked the magistrate and withdrew.

• 'l,l‘
r ..074.1.11 • NA, /
"Ml",,,__Alt
.7 Qmigt vile% Ilk
Rr • NlO%, s - •
• lto IT ..
n "t

SECOND EDITION.