The Sun.
London, England, 1848-06-28 00:00:00

interference had taken place, and had systematically
t ;ken place, in the Colonial-office with regard to
these documents. The distinction between official and
personal responsihily was this : the charge made was
that these documents had been withheld, or suppressed
.` in the Colonial-office;" there was, therefore, no accu-
sation against the Noble Earl, because it could not be
known that it had taken place in consequence of the
Noble Earl's interference, He had admitted that the
Noble Earl's defence was conclusive, and had acquitted
him of any intentional withholding of the documents.
But he had felt it a duty to an absent friend, whom he
valued as highly as the Noble Earl did his friends, to
show that this was a case which justified suspicion on
the part of Parliament, and justified the expression of
that suspicion on the part of the public. On one topic,
and one only, he thought the Noble Earl had fallen into
a grave error, that of conveying an erroneous inference
from the memorial of the Jamaica planters. It was not
the mere opinion of the colonists which the Noble Earl
had withheld, but the facts as to what had already taken
place. On the 7th of February, the Nob!" Earl, speak-
ing in that House, traced the distress of the planters to
certain causes.
The Earl of MINTO here interposed a remark which
was not heard in the gallery.
Lord STANLEY repeated he did not complain of the
Noble Earl suppressing opinions, but he complained of
his givinz a portion of the facts and suppressing others,
which appeared in the same dispatch, and which were
entirely contradictory of the inference he had attempted
to draw. He did not complain that the Noble Earl, in
quoting the declaration of the planters, that they had
embarked 142,0001. in the colony, and that, consequently,
a great change in society was going on, had not stated,
at the same time, that other fact, wherein the parties de-
clared that that investment of 142,000/. had been a total
and entire failure, and that they had lost all they had
embarked. The Noble Lord then read the portion of
the memorial referred to, and said that the planters
showed that they only received an annual return above
their expenditure of 518/. towards defraying the in-
terest at 6 per cent, of the money they had borrowed,
The Noble Earl had suppressed all this, and of that he
complained. That was the only part of the case in which
he thought the Noble Lord had misled the House; for
this document was not laid before the Committee until
the 28th of March, nearly two months after the Noble
Lord's statement.
Earl GREY—lnstead of being only laid before the
Committee on the 28th of March, the memorial was re-
ported by the Committee on the 14th of March, and I
believe it was laid before them in February.
Lord STANLEY admitted that he had been mistaken
as to the date.—(Cheers.)
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE, who was most im-
perfectly heard, was understood to say that he could not
allow the House to separate without calling attention to
the fact, that though the Noble Lord opposite (Stanley)
had admitted he had fallen into an inaccuracy, the whole
of his last speech had been directed to proving an inac-
curacy on the part of the Noble Earl (Grey), and in so
doing he had entirely quitted the subject before the House.
No one who had heard the statement of the Noble Earl
(Grey) could fail to be convinced that be stood corn•
pletely absolved from anything like the charge which
had been brought against him.—(Cheers.) The duty
of examining and canvassing the conduct of all public
officers was one that ought to be exercised unrestrictedly;
and it was only because imputations had been made,
not against the Noble Earl's discharge of his public
duties, but because statements had been made which it
had been found necessary to retract here:and elsewhere,
that the Noble Earl bad found it necessary so long to
occupy the attention of the House.—(Hear, hear.) He
trusted that one result of this debate, already perhaps
too long protracted, would be to show how important it
was that motives of an improper kind should not be im-
puted on light and trivial grouads—(Cheers)—and that
the conduct of public men should not needlessly be made
the object of Parliamentary discussion and debate.
Lord REDESDALE expressed his belief that nothing
personal had been meant towards the Noble Earl oppo-
site. Perhaps the charge of neglect had been too
strongly made against the Colonial-office; but as for
anything personal, that had been distinctly disclaimed
by the Noble Lord who made the charge.
Earl GREY (with much warmth)—No, no.
Lord REDESDALE said he referred to what had
taken place here, not in the other House. As to the
other memorial from Jamaica, he thought the defence
of the Noble Earl was a very imperfect one. The
Noble Lord (Stanley) had stated nothing but facts and
fair inferences from the papers, of which the Noble Earl
had no right to complain. It was a strange position for
a Colonial Minister to assume, that he would only take
the facts reported to him, but would pay no attention to
the opinions expressed.
Earl GREY—None at all.
Lord REDESDALE—That was tantamount to say-
ing that the House should only have the opinions of the
Noble Earl, and not those of the persons who were spe-
cially sent out to collect and form opinions from actual
observation.
Earl GREY—I hope that when the Noble Lord next
professes to quote what I have said he will state some-
thing Wale like what I did say.—(Cheers.)
The motion was then agreed to, and their Lordships
adjourned at Half-past Eight o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, June 27.
There being only 32 Members present at Four o'clock,
the House was adjourned until tomorrow (this day).

The following Members were present at the adjourn-
ment:—
Barnard, E.• G. Jackson, William
Bellew, R. M. Lacy, Charles
Boyle, R. E. Kershaw, Alderman
Bowring, Dr. Maitland, Thomas
Brotherton, Joseph Molesworth, Sir W.
Brown, William Parker, John
Cobden, Richard ' Pechell, Captain
Dundas, Admiral Rutherford, A.
Drumlanrig, Viscount Russell, F. C.
Duncan, George Spooner, Richard
Ewart, William Salwey, Colonel
Hughes, W. B. Thoinpson,'Colonel
Hodges, T. L. Tufnell, Henry
Henry, Alexander Thornely, Thomas
Inglis, Sir R. Wilson, Matthew

LAW IN TELLIGENCE.
COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, June 27.

(Before Mr. Justice WIGHTmAN and a Special Jury of
the county of Middlesex.)
THE QUEEN V. HARDEY.

The defendant appeared, in discharge of his bail,
upon an indictment for alleged perjury arising out of
certain voluminous affidavits made in the Court of
Chancery, in a suit relating to matters of account.
After the jury had been sworn,
Sir FREDERICK TIIESIGER, Q.C., (with whom was
Mr. liurlstone,) stated that it was not his intention, on
the part of the prosecution, to offer any evidence, and,
therefore, the jury must return a verdict for the de-
fendant.

Mr, Cockburn, Q.C. (with whom was Mr. Prender-
gast and Mr. D. D. Keane), appeared for the defendant,
but was not called upon by the Court.
Under the direction of the Learned Judge, the jury
immediately returned a verdict of Not Guilty.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.
A master baker was brought before the Lord Mayor,
charged with having attempted to commit suicide.
A policeman stated, that two watermen had informed
him that the defendant had been rescued by them out of
the Thames, into which he had flung himself from Lon-
don-bridge, when in a state of intoxication. The de-
fendant was taken to a public-house in the neighbour-
hood and stripped, and thence conveyed to Guy's Hos-
pital, where he received the necessary attention and soon
recovered. Upon his person were found in a bag 141. 10s.
in gold, 1/. 4s. 2d. in silver, and some halfpence, with
which he had intended to go to make a purchase of flour
in Mark-lane.

Musard, a Horslydown waterman," said, that he and
another waterman heard a splash in the river, and soon
after observed the defendant floating through the second
arch of the bridge. They picked him up and carried him
to the Swan public-house, and they believed the act was
the consequence of intoxication. The surgeon by whom
he had been examined i❑ Guy's Hospital said the man
was drunk at the time.

The LORD MAYOR (to the defendant, who appeared
to be in a state of complete astonishment)—Well, sir,
what account can you give of this attempt upon your
own life ? The defendant—l really cannot give any
account of it at all. I have no reason on earth for at-
tempting to destroy myself, and I must have been mad
drunk to do what it appears I have done. I have as
good and comfortable a home as any man can have, and
I am a man of most sober and industrious habits, but if
I take any strong drink I am quite a madman.
The LORD MAYOR—Knowing that drink produced
such dreadful effects upon you, how did it happen that
you exposed.' yourself to the temptation ? Defen-
dant—l don'Anow. I intended to see a party in Mark-
lane, from whom I meant to purchase flour, and unfor-
tunately I drank some ale in a tavern in which I was
waiting with another master baker.
The LORD MAYOR—Are you a married man ? De-
fendant—l have been married exactly nine weeks.
The LORD MAYOR—Have you had any quarrel with
your wife or her famil? D .fendant—Nut the least.
No man can be happier in domestic circumstances than I
am. I never knew, nor had the most distant idea, that
I had jumped over the bridge until I recovered my
senses. lam quite unconscious of having made any at-
tempt of the kind.
The complainant's wife said, there never had been the
slightest misunderstanding between her husband and
herself, and he had never been before, since his mar-
riage, at all in liquor; on the contrary, he was a most
sober and hardworking man.
The LORD MAYOR—You must procure two sureties
to answer for your good behaviour fqr six months. If
you have any regard for your life, or for your wife, I
would advise you never to drink twain.
The defendant said, he never again should yield to
any persuasion to touch strong liquor, and he felt most
grateful to those who had saved his life, and would wil-
lingly and liberally reward them.
Bail was immediately procured by the defendant, who
could scarcely be prevailed upon to believe that he had
been nearly drowned.
MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

James B7onleyFoord, formerly in the East India
Company's service, and a person of very respectable con-
nexions, was brought up for re-examination, charged
with having defrauded a number of tradesmen by means
of false and fraudulent representations.

-11;-palicity given to the proceedings against the pri-
soner on Saturday last had the effect of completely
crowding the court with tradesmen, who had been either
victimized or nearly so by the prisoner.
The charge against the prisoner, found to be complete,
was the one for obtaining 51. from Mr. Lane, the pro-
prietor of the hotel called Lane's Hotel, St. Alban's-