The Sun.
London, England, 1847-02-10 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY MORNING, FEBRUARY 10, 1847.

that this was what was required. He trusted that the shipping I
interest would not be overlooked, and prevent the alteration of
this most important law. The shipowners had doubtless made
out a case, and their grievance was evidently hardly inflicted
and as hardly borne, and he did think that when his Hon.
Friend behind him proposed this inquiry, in his very temperate
and guarded speech, he thought that a sufficient case
.for in-
quiry had been made out. Besides, he did not think that
any impediment should be placed in the way of his mo-
tion, and for his own part, he believed that no
Minister of the Crown ought to proceed to
utthe. alte-
ration of such important measures as this
.withoinqu.
He thought it was probable they would dietrtievee. great
With regard
advan-
tages from the appointment of this
to any measure that might result from the in irwy,hiheehcwoeurled
only say that it should be founded upon principles
likely to produce the greatest possible good, with the least
possible injury.—(Hear, hear.) Hitherto it had been said
that the change they had made in the navigation laws had
affected vat ions interests, and, amongst those, it was said
those
Some_changes had greatly affected the interests of the colonies.
lion. Gentlemen, in times gone by, had urged that it
was hardly fair to make large commercial alterations and
leave the colonies subject to the navigation laws. Now, here
would be an opportunity for those Hon. Gentlemen to adduce
reasons in support of their statements. There was another part
of the subject which also invited inquiry. It was with regard
to the state and condition of the shipping interest
itself. Hitherto several committees had been appointed to
inquire into that question, but they were appointed with the
view of going back again to restrictive laws. Protection was
then supported on the ground of the expense of building and
fitting out ships in this country being so great, that British ship-
owners could not hear competition. Let them hear now what
these restrictions were, and let the shipping interest state
bow it was they found their expenses so heavy, that
they might make the most practicable modification of
the existing laws, and keep up the stability of an
interest to which this country was bound to look as one
of the great sources of her political greatness, and by which it
could be improved, and its prosperity promoted.--( Hear, hear.)
He did not altogether agree with the argument that would
carry them back to a system of protection; but if they were
to do away with freedom, it was desirable that every interest,
which wished for protection, should bo heard, in order thus to
see whether it would not be much better to extend the bene-
fits of freedom to all who were in any way connected with the
shipping interests. For these reasons he should cordially give
his support to the motion for a Committee; and although he
had not intended himself to propose any Committee on the
subject, he was glad that an independent Member of Parlia-
ment, of so much intelligence and infermation, had brought it
forward.—( Hear, hear. )
Mr. RICARDO replied that he had waited for years in the
hope that some Hon. Gentleman would bring forward the ques-
tion, but as he was connected with a manufacturing interest who
felt that they were greatly injured by these laws, he could not
resist making this motion any longer. Still, however, if any
other Hon. Gentleman more conversant with the question
would take the inquiry under his control he should only be too
ready to give way to him.—( Hear, hear. )
The House then divided, when there appeared--
For the motion 155

Against it
Majority in favour of the motion -- 94
CATHOLIC PAINS AND PENALTIES BILL.
Mr. WATSON moved for leave to bring in a Bill for the
further repeal of enactments imposing pains and penalties upon
her Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects on account of their re-
ligion. The measures contemplated in the Bill were founded
upon the strictest justice, and not upon party feeling or pre-
judice.
Sir R. INGLIS said that if one or two divisions of the
House were to be considered as having any weight, then the
last division, defeating by a large majority the motion of the
Hon. Member, ought to be considered as decisive of the feel-
ings of the House on the subject. In the present age any
measure which would at all produce the slightest change was
sure to find numerous supporters, even if no other ground of
support were wanting, they would support it solely upon the
ground of change. He hoped the House would not allow,
piece by piece, the constitution of the country to be destroyed
by the passing of such measures as those now proposed.
Sir G. GREY thought the better course would be to allow
the Bill to be read a first time, and take the discussion of the
merits of the measure upon its future stages.
Mr. SHAW wished to know what was sought in the present
measure beyond the provisions of the Act passed last session
upon the same sleet.
Jr. WATS°. said, the Act passed last session repealed
those penal statutes against the Catholic clergy in particular ;
the present went beyond that, and applied to other classes of
Catholic subjects.
Colonel SIBTHORP would oppose the introduction of
every measure of this nature; he could not stand quietly by and
see the constitution of the country—( Hear, hear)—undermined
by any Government, or other Popish manoeuvre.—(Laughter.)
Leave was then given to bring in the Bill.
TENANT RIGHT.
Mr. PUSEY moved for leave to bring in a Bill for the im-
provement of Agricultural Tenant Right.
Leave given to bring in the Bill.
IRISH ABSENTEES.
Mr. GRATTAN said that he had given notice of his intention
to move to-day for a return of the absentees from Ireland,
stating their names, and annual incomes derived frem property
therein ; specifying the counties in which their estates are
situate, and distinguishing such as are temporarily or more
than six months absent from Ireland; and that the guardians of
the poor-law unions should furnish an account of the annual
value of the property of all absentees in their respective unions
assessed to the poor rate ; that the commissioners, under the
Act 5 and 6 Vict., c. 35, should furnish an account of the
aggregate amount of all property in Ireland taxed under the
provisions of that Act, and other Acts continuing the same.
Also, a return of the number of persons residing in England,
or temporarily absent therefrom, charged under the Act 5 and
6 Vict., c. 35, and the Act for continuing the same, in respect
of profits and gains arising from any alio .sance, annuity,
stipend, or trade in Ireland ; together with the total amount of
the duties levied in respect of such profits and gain. That
the governors and directors of the Bank of Ireland should
furnish an account of the amount of all annuities, dividends,
and shares of annuities payable by the said company eut of the
public revenues of the United Kingdom to or to the use or
benefit of any persons not resident in Ireland. In consequence,
however, of the lateness of the hour, and considering that the
subject might probably raise some discussion, he begged to
postpone his motion until an early day.
CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN THE NAVY.
Mr. HUME moved for a copy of the returns of corporal
and other punishments on board each of her Majesty's ships in
the Royal Navy, in each year, from the Ist day of January,
1844, to the 31st day of December, 1846, stating the name,
rating, nature of the offence, date of punishment, the number
of lashes, and remarks of commander-in-chief, or senior
officer, as to any excess of punishment or otherwise, accord-
ing to the schedules published, and ordered in the Admiralty
instructions, dated the Ist day of January, 1844, for the
government of her Majesty's naval service; stating also the
number of seamen and marines employed in each year, and
the average number flogged, distinguishing those with, and
those without, trial by court-martial distinguishing
the number of commissioned and warrant and petty
officers, also specifying the names of her Majesty's
ships Alai roses, and the name of the commanders,
is which no corporal punishment have been inflicted in any of
those years. These returns were highly important, and he
hoped the House would grant him the returns.
Captain BERKELEY could assure the Hon. Member that
he did not wish to refuse the returns moved for by him, at the
same time he was hound to say that this system, if persevered in,
-would be likely to subvert the best interests of the British navy.
He denied that the case of the navy was the same as
the army—they were not analogous. The Hon. Member stated
that he wished for this return, to show those who inflicted severe
corporal punishment, and those who conducted the discipline
ie their ships without resorting to it. If this House was
=aide an appeal from the Admiralty, they would be putting a
Znan on his trial again who had been honourably acquitted by
la court-martial. With regard to the returns moved for, the
-Admiralty would have no objection to grant them, but only for
'the first year.

Admiral BOWLES prote. ted against the Government giving
lip the authority which they exercised with regard to the
*discipline of the navy. It was impossible, after the manner
5n which gentlemen holding the opinions f the Honourable
Wernher who moved for these returns, proceeded—and seeing
the unscrupulous and unconstitutional means employed of
poisoning the minds of the public against any officer who en-
-leavoured to do his duty properly—it was impossible to regard
*hem with any other feelings than the strongest jealousy and
Suspicion. He protested most strongly against this proceeding,
sand, if he went out alone, he should divide the House against
the motion.

Mr. WARD said, that as.the Hon. Member 1 d stated his
determination to divide the- a
eHouse on the motion, should
be go out alone, he was bound to state that the Le lien
ng of the
Admiralty had been expressed with the same warmth with
which he had spoken on the subject.—( Hear, hear.) He was
bound, however, to state that what had been conceded with
respect to the army should also be granted with respect to the
navy, and as the returns of corporal punishment in the army
had been granted, he did not see how they could refuse similar
returns for the navy,he and did not understand why
the naval officers should not be
prepared
it to submit to
the same ordeal. He had no doubtthese returns were
produced, that they would have a most, wholesome and salutary
effect. He believed that they would have an influence on hasty
and impetuous men, and make them have
,af,rreater command
iover their feelings. He had been directed,
ttodassent
to the motion, and to state that returns would be therefore,ran
simi-
lar to those granted for the army, and would be laid uepont
table of the House by the Admiralty. He had no fear of the
consequences, though it was a great change ; but he did not
think they would have an injurious effect, for the good officer
'would not be made timid, but the hasty man more circum-
spect. He had a letter from the admiral of the fleet off Ire-
land, who had thirteen or fourteen ships under his command,
and 430 supernumeraries, and though they frequently had oc-
casion to go from one place to another in the transit of the
provisions for the different depots, not a single offence had been
committed worthy of capital punishment during the last quar-
ter.—( Hear, hear.) In the returns made out for the previous
tqcarter, enclitic, September, there had been only one offence,—
(Hear, hear.) He therefore had no objection to grant the
'notion, under the restrictions as far as he had intimated.
Sir CHARLES NA PIER said, that when the Hon. Mem-
Ler for Montrose brought forward a similar motion on a for- FATAL ACCIDENT FROM THE FROST.—On Sunday
sner occasion, he had promised to support him if he moved for night, about half-past eleven o'clock, as a woman named
a general return. He objected to the return of the punish- Jeffries, living at No. 13, Camden-street, Kensington Gravel
anents on board the Amazon, as Captain Stopford had been Pits, was returning home, she fell with great force on her
unanimously acquitted; every one of the officers on the court- back. She was assisted home by two policemen, but she
martial agreed that his conduct had been irreproachable ; by died shortly after her arrival, having ruptured a blood-vessel
reason of that promise I e was bound to concede the present by the fall.
motion, which he very much regretted. He did not FATE OF POPE'S SKULL.—Mr. Howitt, in his
by any means agree with the Secretary of the Admiralty " Homes and Haunts of the British Poets," says that the
an giving a return of the punishments from the skull of Pope now ornaments the private collection of a phre-
-.lst of January in the present year, as the etlicers nologist. Fifty pounds were paid to manage the transaction
tied no intimatiofnof such. a proceedingat—( Hear, hear.) From with the sexton of the church in which the deceased poet
leis knowledge ()cer the service, he was perfectly certain that there
waslists not i,znEre e was buried.
in the navy who would object to having his
Mr. WARD' nt submitted to the House. Mr. Dundas Thompson has ascertained, by experi-
Sir. CHARLES' shouldNapiEbeftsorry to see it done. ments on a large scale, that in a sack of flour there is a
difference in favour of bread made without yeast to the
any severity on the would not be sorry. As to seeing
Part of the officers, he was aware that
there existPd in nla amount of 30 pounds 13 ounces ; or, in round numbers, a sack
of flour would produce 107 loaves of unfermented bread, and
.and in many ships riot and many instaHees, a too great lenient--
tie h
ad annpdlaedissoirtda
teirohnaidn crypt
saying
in
so, although
a want
due severity.only 100 loaves of fermented bread of the same weight.
Inight have the effect of
wouindglioirn in a very bad poaslitthioonugwhitiht Hence, it appears, that in the sack of flour by the common
:persons with whom he
to remain in a good one. process of baking, 7 loaves, or VA per cent. of the flour, are
_But a very bad practice had existeicteinreresenting captains in driven into the air and lost.
made, use of another ea-
the navy as tyrants. The Secretary EXTRAORDINARY SUPPLY OF GUANO FROM BATS.—
viression, to which he would advert. Mr. Thomas Dickon, an eminent farmer in Lincolnshire, had
punishments should be inflicted, that they c said, that before been induced to go to Jamaica as manager of some exten-
shoul,l be submitted sive estates in that part of the world, with the intention of
sto the senior officer of the station.
oble.
An HoN. 31E3IBER—No, no. introducing the best systems of farming where they had
Sir CHARLES NAPlER—GoodGod,the Secretary for hitherto been unknown. Accounts have recently been re -
Admiralty said so. How could could such a thing be 1)- o' the
cowed from Mr. Dickon, by Mr. Joshua Wigfull, of
ailtisbro',sttlaltlai: that there is already every proba-
Should they allow a man to go unpunished because heconsiderable increase of sugar being pro-
=ander of the vessel was not able to reach the senior officer of cured ofois atbe estates, and that by applying a new
through a stress of weather, ors hundred other
guano
()are said to
the station,
the rocks in that tropical climate. The
it is the dung of large bats,
Obstacles ? The British officers were most willing to do away Which frequent
Dickon having observed many
nagmobofeu:ieotoof mthyerinaudms in number Mr.
cgwntashheftfvoCrunevdicete.
with corporal punishment, but such constant interference would
to be made and the lace caused an opening of these singular animals en-
retard their exertions, as it would teach the men that their
officers did not constitute a final jurisdiction.
lnotraeidn. r oTc khse,
Mr. WILLIAMS expressed his thanks to the Government
emexou
for conceding the mot on. 20 to 30 feet high Th ' feet long, 20 feet broad, and from
Mr.
The interior
Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT said that on two several gees.
nocturnal anini I * contained thousands
punishment had been introduced a s, which of these
'ions the principle of corporal lin for a
government g ges- At the betto
appeared to have been their dw 1
with the most beneficial results into their civil , ,
least four feet in thickness mof the cave, bats' e -
necessary
to pre- in ~ and and
• dung, at
and it could not;be denied, then, that it was
weight, wasaliscovered and f nting to about GOO tens
, ound to be
gerve it in some degree in the military and naval Idaho guano.--Lincoln Time,. equal to the best
Mr. FOX MAULE said that the Hon. Member had over-

➢ublic opinion ; still their first duty was to maintain discipline
in the army. This must be done at all hazards ; but if these
returns were made and published, it would create an invidious
distinction between the officers of different regiments and ships,
and do much to impair the efficiency of the military and naval
service.

Mr. HUME, after what had fallen from the Noble Lord at
the head of the Government, consented to withdraw his
motion, and would ask for the returns in the mode suggested
by him.
Captain HARRIS defended the character of the officers of
the army from the charges brought against them.
Mr. FERRAND considered the question should have been
settled as; once.

RAILWAY LEGISLATION.
Mr. STRUTT postponed till Thursday his explanation as to
the intentions of Government with respect to railway business
in the present session.

POLICE FORCE IN IRELAND.
Lord CLEMENTS postponed his motion for certain returns
relative to the police force in Ireland.
DESTITUTE PAUPERS (IRELAND) BILL.
Mr. MORE O'FERRALL gave notice that it was the in-
tention of his Hon. Friend the Member for the University of
Dublin, to move, on the third reading of this Bill, the insertion
of a clause to ensure the more easy collection of the poor-
rates.

The House then Adjourned at Twenty Minutes after Twelve

looked the circumstances under which the returns respecting
corporal punishment had been conceded by the Government
at the close of last session. When they reflected that the sell-
ject was brought under the consideration of the House at a
time when the deepest sympathy of the people, from one end
of the kingdom to the other, was awakened, he thought
that they would admit that the returns should be
cheerfully granted.—(Hear, hear.) From his knowledge
of the army, such returns could do no harm, and might effect
a great good ; and he would be quite prepared to lay before
the House a detailed statement of even the military imprison-
ments.
Sir ROBERT PEEL said that he considered that it was
quite right that the Neese should be put into possession of all
information which would tend to show the progress made
towards the abolition of corporal punishment. But he
considered that it would be by no means advisable
to state the names of the officers or the parties by
whom, and on whom, punishment had been inflicted.
And, in the event of a contrary course being pursued, the
discipline of the naval service would be materially injured.—
(Hear, hear.) The House of Commons ought not to have the
power which the Board of Admiralty had at present.—( Hear,
hear.) He very much agreed with his Hon. Friend that the
Members of the Government ought not to object to any re-
turn of the kind, and they would be wrong in being a party to
any mode in which the discussion could be interfered with.
He must say, nothwithstanding, that the modification pro-
posed by the Hon. gentleman was a very dangerous one.—
( Hear, hear.) He would rather give the return retrospec-
tively than prospectively, as it implied a want of confidence in
the officers. The Hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Ad-
miralty said that he should not give the return for the two
past years, but that he was willing to give it for future years,
because the officers of the navy would then have notice of the
measure, by which their names would be presented to the
House of Commons. If they sanctioned such a measure they
would imply a reflection, first, upon the naval service, and next
upon the Board of Admiralty, which had the direction of that
naval service. lie expressed his perfect conviction that,
speaking generally, it was the desire of the officers of the navy
to abolish this punishment. He dared say that there were
some strong-headed men who would still inflict that punish-
ment, but it would not be fair to judge of the general body
of the naval officers by that. The Noble Lord, lie be-
lieved, said that it was the desire of the naval officers to abolish
this punishment, and he was sure also that it must be the wish
of the Board of Admiralty. He ( Sir R. Peel) said that the
Board of Admiralty had the means effectually to check any
act of impropriety on the part of the naval officers, and let
them do so, finding that their powers were abused. An
officer could not maintain discipline without resorting to these
severe punishments—that was to say, not carried to excess—
for it was necessary to maintain discipline ; and that ought not
to become a marked case against the officer ; but let the
Board of Admiralty mark their disapprobation of any exces-
sive severity— let them mark the disapprobation of the Crown.
They would tell the naval officers, if they wished to injure the
service, to look to the House of Commons for favour or disap-
probation, instead of the Crown, with regard to what was
right or wrong. Therefore he was for the retrospective return.
He did not believe that power had been abused, and therefore
the returns ought to be given. He did net believe that the
retrospective return would discredit the naval service or the
Board of Admiralty. The distinction was dangerous—most
dangerous, to say to the naval officer that the returns should be
given for the future, and not for the past ; in that they must
lse aware that for the future their name should be printed in
the House of Commons return, and that the
House of Commons had the power to exert an
authority over them. The distinction between the
retrospective and prospective returns would, as he thought, in-
directly imply that the House of Commons was to have some
direct control. He would infinitely rather that they should
know all with respect to the last two years, and for the two
future years, than establish this precedent. The Members of
the Government would suffer no inconvenience from producing
the return ; but, as he said before, he was willing to presume
that they were the best judges as to whether they would grant
the return as called for by the Right Hon. Gentleman for the
two past years. It should be done in justice to the service and
the Board of Admiralty, and remove suspicion as to the returns
showing something that should lot be known. Mr. Cooper
said that the returns in the army were essentially different front
those it was proposed to produce with the navy, as they did riot
contain the names of the officers, nor the names of the separate
offences. He thought it would be advisable that these returns
should not point out individuals.
Mr. G OULBURN said, that it appeared to him, that amongst
the members of the Board of Admiralty, such difference of
opinion existed as to the returns proposed to be givers by them,
and that proposed by the Hon. Member for Montrose, that it
was difficult to say what return ought to be given. He did not
think that the return ought to be given with such particularity
as the lion. Member proposed.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that he understood from his
Hon. Friend at the head of the Board of Admiralty that
though he was at the head of that Board that it was not with
the concurrence of the Board, that he stated that there was
no objection to give the return of the punishment of each ship,
as the returns were made for each regiment in the army. He
conceived that he had that intimation from his Hon. Friend
who was responsible for the carrying out of that department,
and who had no doubt seriously considered the question, that
there was no objection to the granting of the return mentioned
by the notice, but he did not imply of course that he was
ready to grant the returns exactly in the shape moved for by
the Hon. Member for Montrose, but that he was ready to con-
cede as far as he was concerned to the production of the
returns of the offences and punishments of each ship. His
Right Hon. Friend who was the Secretary at War was not
only responsible for that department, he was not only aware of
the official bu'iness which he conducted in that department,
but he had served many years in a regiment of the line, and he
knew the feeling of the officers and soldiers on this subject. He
had great confidence in his Hon. Friend ; and in the; course
of last year, after several discussions, in which the lion.
Member for Bolton, and many others, urged the total and
immediate abolition of corporal punishments, which was re-
sisted by the Government, his Right Hon. Friend agreed to
a return, giving the punishment of each regiment, on the
motion of the Hon. Member for Winchester. He thought, for
his part, that there was more mischief, and more feelings of
jealousy and odium revealed by the discussion on these returns
and the refusal of them, than by their production.—(Hear.)
He had seen, on many occasion, that the mystery of con-
cealment with respect to certain facts had induced the public in
general to think that there was something wrong in the de-
partment with regard to the punishment of misconduct in the
nay.ll service, and when all the circumstances were known, the
department and the officers of the army and navy were entirely
exculpated, and nothing disagreeable was discovered. There-
ore, in general, he was not a friend to conceal-
ment, and he did not think that concealment was
in itself any advantage to the service, while
it would have a serious effect on the Admiralty. The public
would say that it was very true they had the returns with regard
to the punishment in each regiment ; it was very true that they
' had introduced the returns of punishment in each
ship, and of the different members constituting the
court—why was any attempt made at concealment ?
The public would say that there was something to in-
duce the Government to conceal the return, and, therefore,
his Right Hon. Friend had consented that these returns should
be given. He himself saw no objection to their production.
He (Lord John Russell) had also great satisfaction in adding
his testimony to that of the Hon. Member opposite, as t o the true
character of the officers of the navy. They had been charged
with undue severity. Such was the general impression when an
officer of the navy was recently brought before a court-martial.
It was then the opinion of the Board of Admiralty, as well as
the public, that undue severity had been exercised. When
the inquiry was made, however, this impression was over-
thrown and destroyed.—(Hear, hear.) This was one instance
why the returns of 1846 should not be given in the way required
by the Hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume). He trusted
the lion. Member would withdraw his motion, asking the
names of the various commanders; vith the amount of corporal
punishment inflicted by each, and he (Lord John
Russell) would have no objection, as he was sure
the House would not, to returns for the navy,
similar to those for the army given last year.
He suggested this as he did not think it would be
just to give the names of the commanders, as the returns
would not fairly represent the exact proceedings of each.
Some of the commanders who had not employed corporal
punishment were no doubt, in several instances, indebted to
previous commanders for the improved discipline which pre-
vailed, while others who were not so fortunate were obliged
to employ corporal punishment. These were the reasons why
he suggested another course to the Hon. Member for Mon-
trose, as he was desirous, if corporal punishment was at all
necessary, that it should 193 employed in a manner that would
not prove derogatory to the character of the officers in the ser-
vice.—( Hear, hear.)
Colonel WOOD said it seemed that the returns about the
army were granted last year when a great excitement prevailed
in the country, but he did not think much good had come
from them. He admitted that officers should he amenable to

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
HOUSE OF LORDS, Feb. 9.
The House sat to-day to hear appeals. The Peers present
were—the Lord Chancellor, the Duke of Manchester, and
Lord Beaumont.

WILSON V. WILSON.
The arguments in this case were commenced to-day, and
appear likely to occupy their Lordships for several days.
The case came before their Lordships upon appeal from the
decision of the Vice-Chancellor of England, decreeing the
specific performance of certain articles of agreement entered
into between the appellant and respondent, who are husband
and wife, by which :it was alleged that the appellant was
to give up to the respondent for her life certain estates, and
he was to accept an annuity of 1,0001. a year, and to live
separate from the respondent ; who, in consideration of the
execution of the agreement, agreed to forego a suit she had
instituted in the Ecclesiastical Court. As the facts of the
case are of a delicate nature, and some of them unfit for pub-
lication, we decline in the present state of the case entering
further into it.
Sir Frrznar KELLY is the principal counsel for the ap-
pellant, and Mr. BETHELL for the respondent.

PRIVY COUNCIL, Feb. 9.
The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council sat to-day,
at the Council Chamber, Whitehall, to hear appeale. The
Lords present were Lord Brougham, Lord Campbell, the
Master of the Rolls, and the Chancellor of the Duchy of
Cornwall.

IN THE MATTER OF MITCHELL'S PATENT.
This case stood in the paper to-day for the purpose of
having a day fixed for its hearing. On the case being called
on, and no party appearing, it was ordered to stand over to a
future day.

ANSTRUTHER AND OTHERS V. ARABIN.
Mr. M. C. Hill, Mr. Bethell, and Mr. M'Christie appeared
for the appellants ; Sir Fitzroy Kelly and Mr. Lloyd appeared
for the respondent.
Mr. LLOYD applied that the case might stand over to an-
other day, in consequence of Sir Fitzroy Kelly being unable to
attend, but their Lordships refused the application.
Mr. HILL stated the nature of the case. It was a petition
to her Majesty, praying for leave to appeal from a judgment
of the Supreme Court of the Island of Ceyl n. By the 52d
section of the charter of Ceylon, by which legal proceedings
there are governed, parties litigant have a right de jure to
appeal to her Majesty in council, against any final order,
judgment, or sentence, that may be pronounced by the courts
in Ceylon, but not against an interlocutory order
or any order or sentence not having the effect of
a final order; and in the present instance the
order complained of was neither a final order nor
could it very well be said to have that effect ; hence the ne-
cessity of presenting the present petition under the
fetid section of the charter to her Majesty for
leave to appeal under the peculiar circumstances of this case.
The plaintiffs were the administrators of the property and
effects in the island of Ceylon of the late Right lion. Mr.
Stewart Mackenzie, who was formerly Governor of that
island. He died possessed of a large estate there, upwards of
300 acres of which were cultivated as a coffee plantation.
It was alleged by the respondent that a sale of the estate had
been made to him by the agent of the late Right llon. Gen-
tleman, and by some means or other he got possession of it
so long ago as the year 1843. The appellants denied that
any such sale had been made, and commenced an action of
ejectment against the respondent in the early part of last
year for the purpose of recovering the possession of
the estate and obtaining damages. By the practice of that
island all original proceedings must be instituted in the pro-
vince in which the property is situated; and from every
interlocutory proceeding taken there, the parties have the
right of an appeal to the Supreme Court at Colombo. The
proceedings in the present case had therefore to be com-
menced in Kandy, and for nearly one entire year the road
between Kandy and Colombo had been traversed with ap-
peal after appeal made by the respondent until the
order now complained of had been pronounced. After the
utmost difficulty on the part of the appellants, they obtained
a judgment and verdict on the 31st of July, 1846, from the
District Court of Kandy, by which the respondent was or-
dered to deliver up possession of the estate to the appellants,
and to pay them 6,0001. as and for damages and niesne profits,
together with the costs of the suit. The respondent had
previously repeatedly moved for commissions to examine
witnesses and parties in England, all of which, with other
applications and appeals, in the shape of dllatories had
been refused. lie appealed to the Supreme Court against
the final order of the 31st of July of the District Court of
handy, and, after having heard the case argued at great
length, the Learned Judge stated :—" I don't intend giving
my opinion to-day. I feel this to be a case of nicety, and
would rather wish for time to consider it. We shall put off
the case, therefore, till Thursday, if it will not be any incon-
venience for you assessors to come here then again. lam
sorry to give you that trouble, but this is an important case,
and the position oft lie Court is rather difficult, being a question
not of law, but aljustice ; and there are so few rules to guide
the Court in athninistering justice AS DISTIWCT FROM LAW,
that I think it better to take further time to consider it.
I shall give my opinion on Thursday." Accordingly on
Thursday the Supreme Court, deciding upon its view of
justice as contra-distinguished from law, set aide the judg-
ment and verdict of the Court below, and remanded the case
back for a new trial, requiring further evidence to be
given on both sides, and giving the respondent
liberty to amend his proceedings, which would inevitably
have the effect of causing the whole thing to be gone over
again de novo. The appellants had been under the necessity
of sending out his (Mr. Hill's) Learned Friend, Mr.
M‘Christie, to assist in the conduct of the cause in Ceylon.
That gentleman had now returned, and he had had the be.
nefit of consultations with him, and his assistance on the
present occasion ; he was able, therefore, to state with ac-
curacy the facts, for Mr. M'Christie had been present at,
and taken part in, all the preceedings which had taken
place in Ceylon. Mr. M'Christie objected to the
Judge of the Supreme Court remanding the case
back to the District Court, bat submitted that, if he
did send it back, it ought not to do so except upon the
payment of the costs by the respondent, and certain other
terms being imposed. The Supreme Court, however, refused
to impose any such terms, notwithstanding the respondent
was residing in France, and out of the jurisdiction of the
Court; and without any such, back it sent it, which the ap-
pellant considered and felt to be a very great grievance.
With a view to appeal to her Majesty, Mr.
M'Christie, after the judgment of the Supreme Court,
now complained of was pronounced, moved that Court for a
certified copy of its record of all the proceedings there in the
cause. That motion was granted, and that record was now
ready to be produced to their Lordships, so that every thing
that cculd enable the Judicial Committee to arrive at a judg-
ment upon he rights of the parties was before it, and there-
fore he (Mr. Bill) submitted that this was a case in which
the appellants ought to have leave to appeal.
Lord BROUGHAM observed, that his difficulty was to
know, bow the Judges or the powers of the Supreme Court
of Ceylon had the ability between Tuesday and Tharsday to
prepare a code of justice as distinguished from law, by which
they could have been enabled to decide any question in this
case.—(A laugh.)
Mr. LLOYDD submitted that the appellants were not at
liberty to come to her Majesty without having first gone to
all the judges of the Supreme Court collectively, by way of
review, as provided by the Charter. He also submitted that
this not being a final order, the appellants had no right to
come hero at all, and that they had not shown sufficient
pressure upon.them to entitle them to call upon her Majesty
for the exercise of her prerogative in granting them such an
indulgence as they now prayed for.
Lord CAMPBELL considered that it surely must be but fair
that the appellants should have an opportunity of supporting
the judgment they had obtained from the District Court;
and it would be impossible for them to do that if liberty
were not now given them to appeal.
The MASTER of the ROLLS said that the necessity ofhaving
gone to the Collective Court before the appelants came here
only existed in the case of afinci/ order, which this was not
said to be.

Lord BROUGHAM called en Mr. 11I‘Christie to state if he
thought proper, anything that might occur to him, from his
local knowledge of the island, as he had been there.
Mr. 151‘Ctintsmt. said the respondent had had every oppor-
tunity, on all occasions, of defending himself, that the whole
of the proceedings, as certified by the Supreme Court, were
now in London, and ready to be produced to their Lordships,
and it was a well-known fact, both between the legal ad-
visers on both sides in Ceylon, and also to the judges
there, that no decision of the courts there would be submit-
ted to by the parties in this case, without in the end coming
to their Lordships; and, therefore, it was of the utmost im-
portance that the case should now be entertained here.
Their LORDSHIPS were all clearly of opinion, that under
the circumstances of this case, the appellants ought to be
allowed to appeal, and liberty was graated to do so ac-
cordingly.

cery—T _ command v9U to do your duty," Mrs. Folcroft said
4
he was not an officer of that court, anq mentioned his name.
The party, however, who had been Joined by others from the
street, proceeded to lift up the corpse ; she ran out of' the
roots, and informed Miss Huggins of the proceedings, who
came out of her room in her dressing-gowm but by
that time the body had been covered with a black
cloth, and strapped to a black board resembling a
coffin lid. Mrs. Holcorn begged them to desist, and
characterised the proceeding as a mock funeral.
The windows were thrown up and assistance called for. The
feet of the body were thrust against her, and the servant
was knocked down and injured. They did all they could to
resist the removal of the body, and Phillips (who was the
driver of the hearse—for a hearse and two mourning coaches
had been brought to the door), exclaimed, "If they will
not let the body come down throw the b— over the banis-
ters" (meaning Watkins). The Misses Huggins clung to the
feet of the body, and, in consequence, considerable disturb-
ance was created, and a man, named Hawkins, who also
resisted, was nearly thrown over the banisters. Mr. and
Mrs. Hale (the niece of the deceased) and their two sons,
who were staying in the house, and several persons be-
longing to the town, also endeavoured to prevent the body
from being brought down stairs. Mr. Haynes himself ex-
claimed " Throw the body over." They at length succeeded
in their object, and took the body into the parlour. Very
horrible and disgusting language was used. The coffin,
which had contained the deceased, with the mattrass and
shroud, which were stained with blood, were placed across
the door of Miss Huggins's room, so that access could not be
obtained without stepping over it. The magistrate, Mr.
Williams, who was consulted by the defendant on the sub-
ject, declined to interfere, and ultimately the body was re-
moved and buried at Kennington. They returned in the
evening, and stopped in the house till twelve that night,
drinking and making a great noise. It appeared that the
defendant had been in the house for some days before the
occurrence.

whom
ceeded

Ail
.
posed that in 1845, he •
railway transactions. Among others, lie
licitor to the North Western Trunk Railway.
recollected in October having met the defendant
in company with Mr. Bull, at the Birmingham
station. They all travelled in the same carriage.
and the conversation turned on this railway. Mr. Bull said
he was going to attend a meeting of the directors in London.
In the course of their conversation Mr. Bull said " Garbett,
you may as well put the name of Walter Lyndon in the list
of directors." The defendant said if Mr. Bull was in the
company he had no objection to joining the company.
Witness had a prospectus onihim, a number of copies of which
had been struck off, and he wrote Mr. Lyndon's name down
on it. He believed the defendant promised to attend the
meeting next day, but he did not. A Mr. Wylie was also
present, who likewise consented to become a provisional di-
rector. In pursuance of this, steps were taken by the witness
to have the names inserted in the prospectus. The defendant
asked when his name would appear, and witness replied that
it would appear the next morning in the London newspapers,
and in the country ones the week following. The shares of
the company bad never been allotted; they were obliged to
fall back on those who had agreed to act as directors of the
company.
The witness further deposed that the defendant had sent a
letter, stating his intention to take 150 shares if allotted to
him, but that when the affairs of che company got unsatis-
factory he had sent another letter, denying he had ever con-
sented to be one of the provisional directors.
The cross-examination of the witness did not illicit any
material point.
James Stevens, the secretary of the company, proved that
he had ordered the prospectuses of the company to be adver-
tised through Mr. Charles Barker. He gave the orders ge-
nerally in writing. He was in the habit of causing sum-
monses and notices to the directors to be issued, and among
others Lyndon was several times written to. The list
of names was made up from the printed prospectus.
The written orders, authorising the insertion of the
advertisements of the scheme, were then put in, signed "I.
Stephens."
Mr. Stephens, under examination, admitted the orders put
in to be in his handwriting, for which he quoted the resolu-
tions passed at the first meeting of the provisional com-
mittee, on the 6th October, 1845, as his general authority,
for the insertion of the advertisements, requesting all things
necessary for the advancement of the scheme to be done.
At a meeting of the 11th of October, 1845, the name of the
defendant, along with twenty-nine ethers, was added to the
list on the prospectus, by a resolution of the managing
committee, in the absence of the defendant. The witness
said he had a general authority to see that the matter was
properly advertised,- except on one occasion, when he was or-
dered to advertise as little in the Times as possible, on ac •
count of the opposition which that journal had evinced
against railways.
Mr. Sergeant BYLES said, the books produced by this wit-
ness had come upon him by surprise, and he was not prepared
to go on with the case until he had an opportunity of
examining them.

These were the material facts in support of the proseoution,
and were testified to by a great number of witnesses. It was
elicited from some of them that the defendant claimed the
body of his father as his heir, and in accordance with a wish,
which he had expressed to him in a letter, to be buried near
the grave of a child at Kennington. In his will, however,
the deceased expressed his wish to be buried at Edgware.
The case for the prosecution having been closed,
Sir FREDERICK TIIESIGER. then proceeded to address the
jury on behalf of the defendants. He submitted that the
object of those who had instituted the prosecution was not
so much to promote public justice as to prevent the de-
fendant from continuing the suits which he had instituted in
the Court of Chancery and in the Ecclesiastical Courts, for
the proper investigation of his father's affairs, and the resti-
tution of his own rights. It appeared that the unfortunate
deceased had formerly been the inmate of a lunatic
asylum, that he had conducted himself so strangely
as to have estranged his family from him, and
during the later period of his life to have admitted into his
house strangers who had obtained so much influence over
him as to have induced him to have left the bulk of his pro
pert.y to them—Miss Huggin nearly 800/. a year, Mr.
Burton, the prosecutor, 500/., and his own son, the defendant,
but 100/. a year. They had arrayed themselves against the
family of the deceased for the purpose of keeping all the de-
ceased's property in their hands. Executors had only to deal
with personal property, and as the house at Edgeware was
'freehold, and, moreover, as he repudiated the competency
of his father's testamentary acts, owing to his lamentable
condition, he had a perfect right to take possession of the
house at his death, and to take possession of his body for
the purpose of sepulture. Then there could be no doubt that
the defendant wished to remove the body down stairs for the
purpose of having it placed in a coffin in the parlour; and
that they were quietly proceeding to perform this task, when
the interference took place, and the noise and confusion arose
in consequence of that interference. The body was com-
pletely covered, and preparations had been made to inter it
in a proper manner, so that the allegation of indecency could
not be maintained. After some further observations, he
concluded by confidently trusting that the jury would acquit
the whole of the defendants.
The jury acquitted all the defendants.

The case was therefore postponed till to-morrow morning.
when Mr. Sergeant Byles will proceed with the cross-exami-
nation of Mr. Stephens.

BAIL COURT, Feb. 9.
(Sittings in Banco before Lord Chief Justice DENMAN,

ANDREWS V. I.OID LYNDHURST.
In this case, ➢lr. Andrews, formerly a prisoner in the
Queen's Bench, moved for a rule to show cause why Lord
Lyndhurst should not pay over a fine of 5001. for refusing to
grant a writ 6f habeas corpus while in possession of the great
seal. The penalty was sought to be enforced under an old
Act of Parliament.

The defendant had entered a demurrer.
Lord DENMAN observed, that it would not be necessary
for Mr. Cowling, on the part of the defendant, to make any
observations, as the Court had already come to a decision on
the matter. In the opinion of the Court, the penalty could
only be recovered in the event of the Chancellor refusing to
grant a writ of habeas corpus in a case of felony or treason ;
it did not apply to the case of a prisoner confined for debt.
The demurrer put in by the defendant would, therefore, be
considered valid by the Court.
The effect of this decision is literally a judgment altogether
in favour of Lord Lyndhurst.

es-a.
he could recover. The Learned Gentleman then pro- POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
to call his witnesses.
""round Garbett, of Wellington, was called, and de- ree MANSION-HOUSE.
^sseeed as solicitor in several e
LORD MAYOR, upon taking his seat in the justice-
- ^
oint-so-
was room, stated, that in consequence of the publication of the
j
~„„ complaint by Mr. Austin, the :proprietor of Peele's Coffee-
1-ense, of the unauthorised reference made to that establish-
es.- "eve who advertised for a wife, he had received
ment by
the following letter:— ' --se, Poole, Feb 2, 1847.
" " Lytchett-n.,.._ —nts to the Lord
Mrs. Greathed presents her compile.- e
Mayor. She incloses a paper which will evince n.."r unfor-
tunate it is for the poor woman that a paragraph has re.:n_
its way into a paper so extensively read as the Times, giving
a report of his Lordship's mentioning that Corder btained
his wife through an advertisement. It was natural the
Lord Mayor should allude itp the circumstances, as it is men-
tioned in the trial in thff Annual Register' of 1828. If
true, the poor widow has paid the penalty • but it is
thought to have been an aspersion upon the widow by a near
relative of the murderer, in order that he should not be en-
cumbered by her and her unfortunate son. Every inquiry
has been carefully made, and the highest character is given
of Mrs. Corder by those is the neighbourhood of Polstead.
She has struggled during nineteen years for her support. At
last everything has been seized and sold, and her mind is be-
come toe unsettled to do anything. The hope is to raise a
sum which will be placed in the hands of a careful and well-
known person, who will dole it out for the maintenance of
Mrs. Corder and her son.
"Nothing can tend so much to destroy the impression at
present made upon the public as the Lord Mayor and some
of his friends kindly affording an addition to the subscription
open at Hatchard's."
The paper enclosed by Mrs. Greathed is as follows :
" Appeal on behalf of Mrs. Mary Corder, widow of William
:order, who was executed in 1828, for the murder of Maria
Martin. Some ladies, to whom Mrs. Corder is personally
known, and who have made careful inquiries as to her history
throughout her iife, have (unknown to her) drawn up this
appeal to the sympathy of the public. Mrs. Corder, previ-
ous to her marriage, was a governess, highly respected by
her pupils and their parents. She is uow in the deepest dis-
tress, her mind being in some degree affected by her severe
affliction, and being also a sufferer from almost total deafness.
Her only son, born about the time of the discovery of the
murder, is deficient in intellect, and his right side is para-
lysed. They are both in want of clothing and means to pro-
cure food, and capable of but little occupation. Mrs. Corder
supported herself and her son for some time by hemming
cravats for a shop, and letting lodgings, but owing to her state
of health both these resources are at an end. The fund
raised will be carefully expended for Mrs. Corder by a com-
petent person.
" Donations will be gratefully received by Messrs. Hatch ard
and Co., 187, Piccadilly, London; Mr. Baisler, 124, Oxford-
street, London ; Mr. Johnstone, 15, Princess-street, Edin-
burgh; Mr. Bowner, George-street, Hastings; Mr. Reeve,
Leamington ; Mr. Simms, Bath."
The list of subscriptions exhibited no more than the total
sum of 51. 17s. 6d.
The Loan MAYOR said, nothing was further from his ima-
gination at the time he alluded to the circumstance to which
the lady who had done him the honour to write to him re-
ferred, than the idea that the observations he bad made would
Have been prejudicial to an appeal based upon so unques-
tionable a claim upon the sympathies of the benevolent. In
quoting the case, of which he had spoken merely upon the
authority of hearsay, his only object was to caution females
against being attracted by advertisements in newspapers to
form such serious engagements, and be thought he could not
more clearly mark his intention than by instancing what ap-
peared to him to be the strongest of all evidence of the ne-
eessity of peculiar circumspection. Much of the corres-
pondence which Mr. Austin had very properly taken posses-
sion of showed remarkable credulity, and was calculated to
excite unmixed commisseration for the poor girls who were
so eager to venture upon such perils, and he had observed,
that that gentleman had expressed a most decided objection
to the publication of anything which might point at any one
of the writers.
A gentleman who was in the justice-room when the
Lord Mayor made the foregoing statement and remarks,
said he bad been given to understand that no "matrimonial
inquirers" had been referred to Peele's Coffee-house since
the application had been made to his Lordship on the subject.
The LORD MAYOR said he had felt that the press would
at once put an end to the nuisance. He believed, too, that
through the same powerful and benevolent medium, the un-
fortunate widow, whose case was in every respect one of
most awful calamity, would find some friends, As for him-
self, he should certainly not forget the ingenious, but most
humane suggestion in the concluding paragraph of his fair
correspondent's communication.
WORSHIP-STREE7.
Yesterday Daniel and Mary Ann Dowling, husband and
wife, the former stated by the police to have been before
convicted of felony, were placed at the bar before Mr.
Broughton, for final examination upon numerous charges of
robbery and burglary.
A poor Irish couple named Sweeney, living in Anne's-
court, Peter-street, Westminster, stated that in July last the
prisoners called to visit the husband, who happened to be
oct at the time, and had no sooner taken their seats than
the male prisoner asked the wife (Mrs. Sweeney) to accom-
pany him up stairs to the room of another lodger, whom he
said he had not seen for some time. She accordingly pro-
ceeded there with him, leaving her sister with Mrs. Dow-
ling, and almost immediately afterwards heard a loud
crash in her own apartment when, on looking
over the bannisters, she saw the two women has.
toning down stars with a large bundle, which
neither of them had upon entering the house. On
examining her room she found that a trunk, containing some
silver and all her husband's best clothes, together with a
large quantity of her own wearing apparel, had been broken
open and the whole of its contents carried off. On going
up stairs to apprize the male prisoner of his wife's infamous
conduct, she found that he had decamped also, and all trace
of either of them had been entirely lost until she heard they
were in custody upon other charges of a similar description.
Sweeney himself added, that having discovered that the ac-
complice in the robbery had immediately gone to Ireland, he
followed her there, and brought her back to this country,
when she handed him about 238., which was her portion of
the plunder, and so earnestly entreated his forgiveness, on
the ground of the peranaainn and indueomante held nut. UP
her by the two prisoners to assist in the robbery, that he ulti-
mately consented to set her at liberty. The witnesses now
identified numerous articles of wearing apparel produced by
a pawnbroker, at whose shop they had been pledged the
same day the robbery was committed, as being part of those
stolen.
Sergeant Sanders informed the magistrate that since the
prisoners had been in custody, in addition to the quantity of
duplicates he was already in possession of, he had discovered
no less than forty more at a former lodging of the prisoners,
from which they had decamped and left them behind them.
Mrs. Sweeney's sister, a young woman named Norah
Halpin, was then admitted a witness for the Crown, and
having clearly established the fact of the robbery upon the
poor Irishman, the prisoners, both of whom denied with the
greatest effrontery all knowledge of it, were fully committed
for trial, the male prisoner upon one, and his wife upon all
three charges.
SOUTHWARK.
Yesterday William Barfield, the night porter at the
Catherine Wheel Inn, in the Borough, charged with stealing
a pocket-book containing 3001., the property of Mr. Skipper,
under the circumstances already detailed; appeared upon his
recognizances to hear the depositions of the several witnesses
read over, preparatory to the case being sent for trial.
When the name of the principal witness (Mr. Skipper)
was called, it was found that he was not in attendance, and
his absence from the court was accounted for by a gentleman
named Burbidge, a solicitor, who stated that Mr. Skipper
was prevented from being present owing to to the apprehen-
sion he entertained of being arrested an his leaving the court.
Mr. Burbidge then applied for the restoration of the 3001.,
which was found, as already described, in the street near the
Catherine Wheel, when the parties were going to the station-
house after the prisoner was given into custody. The appli-
cant then produced a written authority from Mr. Skipper
for the whole of the above sum, describing that he was in
much want of it to enable him to arrange some pecuniary
matters, so that he could attend the court without the risk
of being arrested.
Mr. CoTTINGHAM, in reply to the application, said that he
had no objection to order a portion of the 3001. to be delivered
up to the gentleman who was empowered with the authority
of the owner to receive it; but that he should retain the
remainder in order to insure the attendance of Mr. Skipper
to prosecute the charge. It was a case of much public im-
portance, and, in justice to the accused, was one which
required the fullest investigation before another tribunal.
He added, that if the prosecutor himself came forward, heard
the depositions read over, and entered into the required re-
cognizances to appear at the Central Criminal Court, the
whole of his money should be given up to him.
Mr. Burbidge repeated that his client was fearful of
appearing in consequence of the circumstances he had pre-
viously related,but that it was his full determinatien to pro-
secute the charge.
Mr. COITINGHAX remanked, that he should issue a sum-
mons to compel the prosecutor's attendance, and that upon
that process he would be perfectly free from arrest for debt
while coming to that Court to give evidence, and until his
departure.
Mr. Burbidge said, that Mr. Skipper would be liable to
arrest immediately after his departure, and that it was to
avoid that casualty he was not present on that occasion. He
added, that notwithstanding some imputations had been cast
upon the character of Mr. Skipper, owing to the way in which
he occupied himself on the night of the alleged robbery, in
riding about and calling at different public-houses about
sweepstakes before his arrival at the Catherine Wheel Inn
with his relative, Mr. West, yet that he was a highly respect-
able young man; was possessed of independent property;
had large expectations, and for the last two years, to his
(Mr. Burbidge's) knowledge. occupied a residence, called
Albert-villa, at Whetstone; that he was only 23 years of
age, and, like 'many young men at that period of life, was
rather gay and volatile in his habits. He again repeated
that Me. Skipper was in much want of the whole of the
money, and that he would be sure to attendlee. the
next ex-
amination if another adjournment took place.
necessity of a thorough investigation
Mr. Humphries, on the behalf of thientaecctuhsisedm,
eusrtgseedriethaes
omnsissu arrests
from this court would preserve thepe
case, and at the same time observed thnastecants
after quitting the court, on
and, in the event of his captionourmfmro
immediate liberation would be
question but his
there was no
an application to a judge. detailing the facts of the case,
ordered. fectly aware of that fact, and he
The MAGISTRATS was
e grounds before stated.
declined to attend, forthwith issued a summons against the prosecutor, who, how-
ever,t' the 300/., offering
r. Burbidge subsequently atopplleinedvefo2rootili. eiortehsetohraantiodns
ooff
1001. out o
the clerk of the court.
after some. !election, considered it so
that he
essential for the sake of public justice that Mr. Skipper should
attend to prosecute the charge,
the proposition, unless he was assured by the solicitor that
the money was required for the purpose of enabling him to
attend at the court to give evidence.
Mr. litirbidge, however, could not undertake to state that
although he was confident his client, who
alreadythefact,
given
him iusi;:Stetions for the prosecution, would
Lad such .vas
attend at the
After some further discussion on theNbjeCt, the magistrate
said that the summons not being attended to, he should issue
a warrant to compel On eemplainant's attendance.
The depositions of the vrillsesses were then read °vs:: by
Mr. Edwin, the chief clerk; and when he arrived at the
evidence given by the three policemen, 101 M, 191 M, and
30 M, they stood forward and stated that they omitted to
mention on the previous examination that when they were
called to the Catherine Wheel to take the prisoner into cus-
tody, Mr. Skipper informed them that he had searched the
man, and found nothing in his possession, and that was the
reason they (the policemen) did not consider it necessary to
institute another examination of his person.
Mr. COTTINGIIAM expressed his astonishment that the po-
licemen should have neglected to mention so important a fact
when before him on the last occasion, but he remembered
having questioned them separately on the subject of search-
ing the accused before they left the Catherine Wheel for the
station-house, and that neither of them said one word about
that which they now asserted upon oath was said by the
prosecutor to them.
Mr. Humphries urged the necessity of adding tiiii
testi' 'l,' t" the deposit wow, •ind de':, 'l, a
further adjournment of the case took place,
in order to have
the Prosecutor's evidence to ocenplete the oleo.
• -