The Sun.
London, England, 1840-04-01 00:00:00

NGTON. 1 HOUSE OF COMMONS, MARCH 31.

HATTON-GARDEN POLICE COURT.
DISCHARGE OF MRS. J kRVIS.
The examination of Richard Gould, alias Arthur
Nicholson, and of Mary Ann Jarvis, charged with the wil-
ful murder of John Tcmpleman, at Lincoln Cottage,
Focock's-selds, Islington, was yesterday resumed before
Mr. Combe, the Magistrate. The first witness examined
was—
Mr. Wilcoxson, bootmaker in Tottenham-court-road—
He stated that, to the best of his recollection, between
twelve and one on Tuesday, while he was up stairs, his
daughter brought him a half a sovereign to change, and
he was to take 7s. 6d. out of it ; and he gave half a crown
in change. The pair of lace-boots produced witness be-
lieved to have come out of his shop ; he has no doubt
about it. (The boots were those taken from the feet of
Gould.) The boots have witness's shop-mark, the
figures 8-92. The 8 is the size ; the 92 refers to the
cost price, but 92 are sold at 7s. 6d. One of the
servants of the shop seeing that 92, would sell the article
for 7s. 6d. The laces are of cotton—in general in other
shops they give leather laces. The policeman first came to
him on the subject on Saturday, the 21st, and showed the
boots produced. This caused him to recollect the trans-
action.
Gould wished to ask him if he could swear positively to
the boots
Witness—l said before I could not swear positively, but
that I had every reason to believe so.
Miss Ann Wileoxson—ls the daughter of the last wit-
ness, and lives with him. Recollects Tuesday, March 17,
between twelve and one. Witness was in the shop. Re-
members taking up a half-sovereign to her father. She
took it up from the counter. Mr. Wills asked her to take
it up to her father for change, and said she was to take
7s. 6d. out. Does not recollect who was in the shop. Did
notice a person there ; but witness cannot recollect whether
a male or a female.
John Wills is the foreman of Mr. Wilcoxson. OR this
day fortnight witness was in the shop. Has no recollection
of taking the half-sovereign ; nor has any recollection of
seeing the prisoner Gould.
John Walter recollects the day in question, and that Mr.
Wills sent up half a sovereign by Miss Wilcoxson, but
does not recollect what it was for, nor who the person was
who had purchased the article.
Professor Graham, of University College, gave the
same evidence as to the analysis instituted by him into the
stains on the bag as he gave on Monday before the inquest,
and the result of the analysis being that the stains were
not blood, nor produced by blood, but by iron paint.
Ann Tomkins, the reother of the prisoner, Mrs. Jarvis,
repeated the evidence she gave on Monday at the inquest
relative to the bag found at Jarvis's house.
Mr. COME asked if there was any further evidence
against Mrs. Jarvis ?
Mr. Inspector Miller—Na, Sir.
Mr. COMBE—Then I shall discharge you, Mrs. Jarvis.
Mrs. Jarvis then left the Court, accompanied by her

mother.
In answer to a question from Mr. COMBE, she said she ,
had previously, in reply to a question from Mr. Combe,
stated that she had not seen her husband.
Mr. COMBE said that he should commit Gould for trial
on Tuesday next, on which day the case would be com-
pleted.
Gould asked if he could be tried at the next Sessions.
Mr. COMAE—Yes, they commence on Monday next.
Gould then said that if he was not committed before
Tuesday he should not have time to prepare his defence,
and asked how he was to get the depositions.
Mr. COMER said, he would commit him on Saturday if
he wished it, but as his trial would not come on before
Friday or Saturday, Tuesday would be time enough.
With regard to the depositions they would be sent to the
Clerk of the Arraigns, Mr. Clarke, at the Old Bailey,
and the prisoner was entitled to them.
Gould said that now it was explained to him he would
as soon be committed on Tuesday as Saturday, but that
if he were committed on Tuesday and tried on Wednesday or
Thursday, he should not have time to prepare himself. He
subsequently asked how he was to obtain a copy of the de-
positions given before the Coroner, as many of the witnes-
ses had given a totally different account of the same trans-
action at the Inquest and in this Court.
Mr. COMBE at first said he could not tell him how he
was to obtain a copy of 'those depositions, a; he blew no-
thing about the evidence given at the inquest, but after
having made inquiry ho told the prisoner that he could
obtain a copy of the depositions taken before the Coroner
by applying to Mr. Clarke, the Clerk of the Arraigns at
the Old Bailey.
Gould said that even if he should be deprived of pro•
fessional assistance he should have no difficulty in rebutting
the evidence against him.
Gould asked Mr. Combo bow he was to act to get his
witnesses ?—for instance, he could prove that at the time
Mr. Wills and Miss Wilcoxson were speaking of, he was
at a public house.
Mr. COMM said he had no power ; the Court had the
power, and if he made known his distress to the Court,
they would afford him the means of enforcing the attend-
ance of his witnesses.
He was then remanded to Tuesday.

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS

FROM THE DAILY PAPERS OF YESTERDAY.
(From the Globe.)
The remark of Mr. Hawes last night, that while " he
admitted the Atli, bravery, and humanity of Sir John Col-
borne, he thought that Parliament was too prone to bestow
honours upon mere military service, and objected to this
whilst the services of other men who had exerted them-
selves far more advantageously to the country were left
wholly without reward," is one which will often invite re-
petition, and appear to many persons, whose opinions we
respect, to require remedy. It appears to us, however, that
there are several reasons why military services, though they
may seem of a coarse nature, will always command more
marked public rewards than arc afforded to others. In the
first place, they are indispensable to the safety of States':
and they do not carry their own reward with them, like
many other pursuits of utility. In the second place, they
admit of a less disputed estimate than some other merits ;
the performance of military service, and the possession of
military reputation, arc matters of universal recognition,
unaided by cliques and coteries. Every one who has ever
done anything professedly for the public, of course takes
the highest possible view of his town merits and services ;
and it would be difficult for the public to know where to
stop in rewarding the host of claimants. But military ser•
vice cannot be mere pretension and charlatan erie, as a vas
deal of civil service would become, were it rewarded indefi
nitely.

(From the Courier.)
From a short conversation which took place in the
House of Lords last night between the Marquis of Lon-
donderry and Lord Fitzgerald, it will be seen that the
second reading of the Irish Corporation Bill is not likely
to pass. without a struggle. Lord Fitzgerald, on presenting
a petition from the Lord Mayor and Corporation of Dublin
against the Bill, took occasion to say that he should vote
for the second reading, and that he considered that the
House of Lords hail committed itself to the principle of
the Bill by sending down their amended measure to
the House of Commons last year. Now, if it is con-
sidered that the principle of this measure is the
establishment of useful institutions in Ireland calcu-
lated to promote its local interests, and not repugnant
to the general prosperity of the empire, we can have
objection to the admission of this principle, nor to
its practical application in the present instance. But if
the principle of this Bill is, under the guise of conferring
or extending Municipal Corporations in Ireland, really to
invest a party in that country, the Roman Catholic party,
with a monopoly of the powers, influences, and privileges, to
be created by this Municipal Corporation Bill, then we sly,
that such a principle has never been admitted by the House
of Lords, and we earnestly hope and trust that it never
will. The expediency of allowing the present Bill
to pass the second reading appears to us to de-
pend on this:—Whether it be such a Bill as may be so
amended in Committee as to be deprived of its noxious ten-
dencies. If it can, the usual and natural course will be to
allow it to go into Committee in order to consider its de-
tails seriatim, with the view to make such alterations and
amendments as may allow the House of Lords to give it
their sanction. But if the Bill is so vicious in its prieci-

ple as to render itimpossible to divest it of its cv
by any alteration or amendment, then we agree w
Noble and Gallant Marquis Landonderry that it is the duty
of the House of Lords boldly to take its stand against the
dangerous and insidious innovation, and at once to reject it.

,uality

( From the Standard.)
The motion of Sir James Graham, on the subject of the
Chinese war, which stands fixed for this day week, has ex-
cited an extraordinary alarm in Downing-street. Well as
Ministers are accustomed to defeat, they feel that their
power of endurance in this respect is nearly exhausted, and
they can hardly hope for escape in the contest before
them. Beaten as they were upon the second readin,,
of Lord Stanley's Bill, by the unaided strength of
the Conservatives, they must look forward to a more
powerful opposition upon the Chinese question—for
it is not to be expected that the economical Radi-
cals will commit themselves and the country to a long,
and expensive war, without even the hope of ulti-
mately saving their " squeezable" allies. While the hope
existed that, by voting black is white, or any other more
disgraceful compromise with conscience, the Ministers
could be permanently retained in office, the Radicals
acted consistently with their profligate character in setting
truth and shame at defiance. The division on Lord Stan-
ley's Bill has, however, taught them that the Cabinet in
now doomed, despite of all they can do ; and they will not
volunteer in further disgrace without any prospect of a
beneficial result. They have discovered the secret, that
union, which gives strength to honest parties, may some-
times constitute the weakness of dishonest factions, and
will always, in the judgment of an upright people, destroy
those factions, when combination necessarily involves a
sacrifice of principle.

TAKING NOTHING BY A MOTION.—One of
our Paris letters, dated Sunday, March 29, contains the fol-
lowing :—" Among tic French officers executed in 1815 was,
as will be remembered by most of our readers, General Mouton
Duvernct. The National a few days since asked was " the
Marquis de Castelbajac, now commanding the first subdivision
of the third military division, and about to be raised to the
rank of Lieutenant-General, the same who in 1815 (at which
epoch he was Colonel of the Chasseurs of the Pyrennes) con- 1
demned the brave Mouton Duvernet to death ?" In a letter to
the editor of that paper, published in its number of Sunday, the
Marquis de Castelbajac avows that he is " the same person who
in perfo- mance of a duty did that which the National indirectly
imputed to him ;" adding something about the " safety of
anonymous assailants in newspapers. The National rejoins
in a spirit which it might have been supposed had become ex-
tinct with its much regretted editor, Armand Carrel, that the
paragraphs in the National relating to M. de Castelbajac were
necessarily anonymous, but that the writers of them were always
ready to answer for them in any manner whatever."
On Saturday a notorious horsestealer,
himself Henry Kirby, and who is known by a number of othero
names, underwent an examination on a charge of horsestealing;
1 at Badminton, Gloucestershire, before his Grace the Duke of
I Beaufort, and was fully committed for trial.

The SPEAKER took the Chair, a few minutes before Four I
o'Clock, when a great number of petitions, chiefly on the !
subject of the Corn-laws were presented. But in conse-
quence of a " Call of the House" standing the first of the
(Mors of the Day, the galleries were not opened until
ten minutes past Four, when we understood the Order was
dischare-° ed.
Mr. B. WOOD presented a petition from an indi-
vidual possessing property at Bankside, praying for the
insertion of a protecting clause in the Greenwich Rail-
way Bill.
Mr. JAMES presented petitions from Cumberland
signed by 6,000 persons ; and from Scotland, signed by
2,000 persons, for the repeal of the Corn-laws.
Mr. GREG presented 63 petitions to the same effect
from places in Lancashire, Devon, and Glasgow.
Mr. WALKER presented similar petitions from Bury
and Lancaster.
Mr. SOM ERS presented a similar petition from the
borough of Sligo.
Mr. BRISCOE presented a similar petition from the
Operatives of Westbury. and another petition from the
same place, which we understood to b,3 against the repeal
of the Corn-laws, and in favour of a change of the cur-
rency.
Mr. NEELD, Mr. C. WADDINOTON, and several other
Members on the Opposition side presented a great num.
ber of petitions against the alteration of the Corn. laws.
Dr. LUSHING TON presented a petition, signed by
43,657 inhabitants of the Tower Hamlets for the repeal
' of the Corn-laws.
' Mr. CRAVEN BERKELEY presented a petition in

favour of the repeal of the Corn-las from 3,1)25 men o
Gloucester, and another from ,059 women of the same
place.—(A laugh, and cries of " Hear.") Ho also pre-
sented 60 petitions from the various trades of Bristol, and
from 70,000 inhabitants of that city.
Mr. M. PHILLIPS presented a petition from dealers
in beer, in Lancashire, praying to be put on the same foot-
! as the tavern keepers.
Sir J. DUKE presented a:petition from Bost-on, praying
that the beer trade should be thrown open.
Mr. THORNE L Y presented petitions in favour of the
repeal of the Corn-laws from Wolverhampton and its vici-
nity—one of them signed by 5,000 persons.
Mr. DUNDAS presented a petition from the city of
York against the Corn-laws.
Mr. MILNES presented a petition from York against
the alteration of the Corn-laws.
Mr. ORMSBY GORE presented petitions from va-
rious parts of England, Scotland, and Wales against the
repeal of the Corn-laws.
Mr. LIDDELL presented several petitions in favour
of the Corn-laws, from places in Durham.
Similar petitions were presented by Captain Percival,
Colonel Rushbrooke, and Mr. Begg.
Mr. H. HINDE presented a petition for the repeal of
the Corn-laws and all other taxes —( Laughter)—also
for Universal Suffrage, &c. He did not concur in the
prayer.
The HoN. MEMPER also presented a petition from New-
castle, for inquiry respecting the dismissal of three persons
from the Post-office, for refusing to deliver letters on a
Sunday.
Lord CLEMENTS presented a petition from a place in
Ireland,complaining► of the oppressive conduct of landlords
towards tenants, who voted contrary to their dictation.
Sir JOHN HOB 1-1 0 USE'presented 22 petitions, one'of
which was signed by upwards of 10,000, in favour of the
repeal of the Corn-laws.
Mr. DRINKWATER, Mr. DARBY, and a number of other
Hon. Members on the Opposition side, presented petitions
against alteration of the Corn laws ; and also petitions
in favour of Church Extension, and some others against
the grant to the College of Meynooth.
Lord SANDON presented a petition from merchants
of Liverpool, against the equalization of the duties on
East and West India produce, which they said would be
ruinous to the West Indian Colonies.
The NOBLE LORD presented also several petitions from
the Society of Friends and others, praying this House to
pass a measure to put an end to the trade in Opium.
LUDLOW ELECTION.
Mr. ORD brought up the list of Members selected to
try the merits of the petition against the return for
Ludlow. They were, Sir T. D. Acland, Mr. Wrightson,
Lord Howick, Lord Sandon, Mr. Sanford, Mr. B.
Baring, and Mr. Horsman, Chairman.
The Committee were sworn in, and directed to mee
'orthwith.

IPSWICH ELECTION.
Mr. ORD brought up the Report of the Ipswich Elec-
.ion, and the following Committee was appointed and
sworn in to try the merits of the petition :
Mr. Wilbraham, Honourable F. Spencer. Mr. Wode-
house, Sir J. Pollen, Mr, G. Evans, Lord Henniker, and
Chairman, Lord Eliot.
BIRMINGHAM AND DERBY JUNCTION RAIL.
WAY (TAIVIWORTH APPROACH) BILL.

The amendments to this Bill were agreed to.
Mr. GEORGE WOOD brought up the Report of
Public Petitions.
WAR IN THE EAST.
Mr. GOULBURN gave notice that on the 9th of
April he would move that there be laid before the House
copies of any communications between the Government
and the East India Company, showing any arrangements
made for paying the expences of the army now preparing
in India.—(Hear.)
PENSIONS.

Mr. HUME gave notice of a motion for a return of all
the pensions granted since 1792 for alleged public services.
CROWN LANDS AND COLONIES.
On the motion of Mr. S. O'BRIEN, certain Returns
were ordered regarding the ;sale of Crown Lands in the
British Colonies.

CORN-LAWS.
On the suggestion of Mr. HUME, it was agreed, that,
for the convenience of the House, and in order to the pre-
sentation of the hundreds of petitions regarding Corn-laws,
the time for presenting petitions exclusively on that subject
should be extended.
Lord ELIOT presented twenty-six petitions from
East Cornwall, in favour of the Corn-laws, signed by
mechanics, as well as agriculturists.
Mr. CLAY presented several petitions from artisans in
Spitalfields, in favour of a repeal of the Corn-laws.
Mr. O'CONNELL presented a petition, signed by
upwards of 20,000 of the operatives of Dublin, praying
for a repeal of the tax upon bread, which they said was
not required for financial purposes. Also a petition to the
same effect from Darlington, signed by 1,73 individuals.
Also from Newtown, in the county of Down ; and from
various other places.
Lord WORSLEY presented a large number of peti-
tions from the county of Lincoln, in favour of the Corn-

laws.
Mr. MUNTZ presented a petition from Glasgow, pray-
ing for the immediate abolition of the Corn-laws.
Mr. HAWES presented a petition from St. Giles
Camberwell, against the Corn-laws, as detrimental to our
commerce ; also similar petitions from various other places.
Mr. WALL presented four petitions praying for a total
and immediate repeal of the Corn-laws. One of these
petitions was signed by 4,688 persons, residing in the West
Riding of Yorkshire.
Sir E. KNATC ['BULL presented two petitions from
parishes in Kent, against any alteration in the Corn-laws.
General LYGON presented a petition from Bewdley,
to the same effect.
Mr. MACAULAY presented five petitions from Edin-
burgh and other places, praying for a total and immediate
repeal of the Corn-laws.
Mr. B. BARING presented a petition in favour of the
existing Corn-laws.
Sir M. WOOD presented six petitions praying for a
repeal of the Corn-laws.
Lord LINCOLN presented twenty petitions from
parishes in Nottinghamshire, and fifteen from parishes in
Derbyshire. against any alteration in the Corn-laws.
Sir C. BURRELL.presented two petitions to the same
effect from parishes in the county of Sussex.
Lord DALMENY presented five petitions, praying for
a repeal of the Corn-laws.
Lord HENNIKER presented a petition in favour of a
repeal of the Corn-laws.
Mr. G. MARTIN presented a petition against any
alteration in the Corn-laws.
Mr. HUME presented petitions from Aberdeen, from
places in Wilts, Devon, and Middlesex, from the Sunday
School teachers of Torrington, from Fortarshire, from
places in Lancashire, from Arbroath, and from other
places, against the Corn-laws. The number of petitions
presented by the Hon. Member was twenty.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL presented petitions
from various places in the county of Edinburgh, praying
for a total and immediate repeal of t')e Corn-laws.
Sir J. TYRRELL presented thirty-five petitions from
parishes in Essex against any alteration in the present

Corn-laws.
Mr. SLANEY presented a petition from a place in So-
mersetshire, against any alteration in the Corn-laws.
Mr. BARNEBY presented a petition from a place in
Hereford to the same effect.
Mr. WARBURTON presented petitions from Ux-
bridge, from places in Devonshire, three petitions from the
parish of Lambeth, and one from Drury-lane, in favour of
the immediate repeal of the Corn-laws.
Mr. GILLON presented several petitions from places in
iitirlingshire to the same effect.
Mr. B. 'WOOD presented a petition from Swaffham,
in Norfolk, in favour of a repeal of the Corn-laws.
Mr. BROA DLEY presented a petition from the West
Riding of Yorkshire, in favour of the present Corn-laws.
Mr. PAKINGTON presented several petitions from
parishes in Worcester against any alteration in the Corn-
laws.

Mr. BROTHER FON presented petitions from Stock-
port and Heaton Norris, praying for the release of John
Thorogood; a petition from the Directors of the Fife and
Kinross Association for the Suppression of Itremperanee on
the subject of the Opium Trade with China; two petitions
from Eccles for the repeal of the Corn-lows, and one peti.
tin from Stockton. on-Tees, praying. the House to rejoct
any motion for the alteration of the Corn-laws.
PRIVILEGE.

Mr. WARBURTON presented a petition from Brid-
port, signed by the Mayor, two Allermen, seven Council-
men, and four Justices of the Peace, stating that they con-
sidered one of the most important functions of the House
was the right of printing and publishing its proceedings,
and of enabling the public to purchase their rep4rts at a
cheap rate. The petitioners viewed with regret that the
House had not asserted and maintained the privilege
in question with properfir mncss and dignity.
A Conservative MEMBER inquired how many signatures
were attached to the petition ?
Mr. WARBURTON said the number of signatures
were altogether 150, but it was important, not so much on
account of the number as on account of the static), of the
individuals who signed it.—(lronical cheers from the Coa-
-1 servative benches, and counter-cheers from the Ministerial.)

SULPHUR.
Mr. HAWES, seeing the Right Hon. Gentleman the
President of the Board of Trade in his place. wished to
ask hint whether the negotiations for a treaty with Naples
relating to the trade in sulphur had been broken off unox-
pectally and without the chance of a favourable result ?
Mr. LA BOUCHERE replied that despatches had
recently been received by his Noble Friend, the Secretary