The Sun.
London, England, 1846-10-12 00:00:00

THE FOREIGN MAILS.

Notice relative to the departure, &c., of the foreign
mails v,as on Saturday issued at the chief office, St. Mar-
tin's-le-Grand, stating as follows:
THE PENINSULA MAILS.—The next mails for Vigo,
Oporto, Lisbon, Cadiz, Corunna, &c., will be dispatched
on the 25th instant. _ _ _

The Queen, with the above, duo on the 17th, from
India, &c., via Southampton. The next mails for
Gibraltar, Malta, Greece, the lonian Islands, Egypt,
India, China, &c., via Southampton, will be dispatched
on the 20th inst.
&C., VIA MARSEILLES.—The next mails for
the Mediterranean, Egypt, India, China, &c., via Mar-
seilles, will be dispatched on the 25th inst.
WEST INDIES, &c.—The next mails for the British
and foreign colonies in the West Indies (except Hon-
duras and Havannah), including Bermuda, San Juan de
Nicaragua, New Grenada, Chili, Peru, Venezuela, and
Madeira, will be dispatched from hence the 25th inst.
The Dee for the above.
MADEIRA, BRAZILS, AND BUENOS AYRES.—The next
mails will be dispatched from hence Nov. 5.
AMERICA.—The next mails for British North America
and the United States will be dispatched from hence the
19th inst. The Britannia for the above.
SYDNF.Y, NEW SOUTH WALES, &c.—The next mails
will be dispatched the 31st inst.

There is no truth in the statement copied from a
Brighton paper, that the Queen Dowager was in treaty
for the purchase of the Royal Pavilion in that town.
Nothing has occurred that could give the slightest foun-
dation for such a report.—Observer.
DRURY-LANE THEATRE.—So great has been the
hit made here by Madame Bishop, that in order to
secure good places application must be made some days
beforehand. The private boxes, which are nightly filled
by all the rank and fashion in London, are arrived at
the honour of a premium, and the town is altogether
greatly excited. There can be no question of her attract-
ing the entire play-going public again and again, to wit-
ness her delightful performance.
THE POISONINGS IN ESSEX.—The adjourned in-
quest on the body of Solomon Taylor, the illegitimate
child of Lydia Taylor, was resumed on Saturday, at
Maunden, four miles from Clavering. Further evidence
was adduced, which strengthened the case against Sarah
Chesham, and the inquest was again adjourned for a
fortnight.
WEST INDIA PINEAPPLES.—On Saturday 1,000
pineapples, ex Medway, Royal West India packet, were
sold by Keeling and Hunt, of Monument-yard. They
were in excellent condition, and brought very high
prices. This is the last consignment for the season.

IMPRISONMENT OF A QUAKER
BY rHE ROYAL COURT OF JERSEY, OWING
• TO THEIR OWN DISOBEDIENCE TO HER
MAJESTY'S ORDERS IN t'OLTSt
(Fr3m the Jer.:Ry Ne s.)
Our readers will recollect the case of one Philip
Lempriere, a person, who for many years past, has held
the religious sentiments of the Society of Friends. His
name appears in our books, on the laws of Jersey, as
one of those who has suffered for conscience sake, owing
to the refusal of the Bailly and Jurats to recognise the
laws of the Empire, ani to conform themselves to the
lawful orders of their Sovereign in Council. He has
been several times summoned before the Court to give
evidence, when he has demani, d to be heard on his
solemn affirmation, which the Court has generally re-
fused, and on two or three occasions has committed him
to prison, for not taking oath.
The first time that he appeared, 1835, was in the case
of Sinel v. Guilmoto, when the party who had called him
to depose, seeing him about to be committed to prison,
dispensed with his evidence.
'the second time was in 1837, the case of Shave v
Roussel, when Philip Lernprkre and George Payn, two
witnesses in the cause, objected to take the customary
oath, and claimed t) be heard OR their solemn affirma-
tion, conformably to the 3J and 4th, Wid. IV., c. 49, which
runs us follows:
" Whereas it is expedient and reasonable. that the
soleon affirmation of persons of the persuasion of the
people called Quakers, and of Moravians, should be
allowed in all cases where an oath is required," be it
enacted that " every person of the persuasion called
Quakers and every Moravian, be permitted to make his
or her solemn affirmation or declaration instead of taking
an oath, in all places and for all purposes whatsoever,
where an oath is, or shall be required either by the
common law or by an Act of Parliament already made
or hereafter to be made, which said affirmation or decla-
ration shall be of the same force and effect, as if he or
she hath taken an oath in the usual form." A false
affirmation to be punished as perjury. This Act does
net mention the colonies and possessions abroad, but
from the very comprehensive terms employed in it, the
rule as to statutes of universal application must be deemed
to operate upon it, and to give effect in all the British
dominions. The 2 and 4, Wm. IV., c. 12, is a separate
Act relative to Separatists.
The demand of Lempriere and Payn having been
overruled, they were committed to prison for contempt,
and an appeal was made to the full bench, when the
Jurats, by a majority of one, decided that the affirma-
tion of the witnesses should be received, provided they
first proved they were Quakers. The plaintiff, after-
wards conceding that point, the Jurats withdrew the
condition, alleging the consent of the plaintiff as their
motives for so doing, and amended their judgment as
follows:
" On the difficulty which has arisen touching the ob-
jection of George Payn and Philip Lempriere, witnesses
called by the said Guardian to take oath prescribed by
the code of laws of 1771, alleging that they were of the
Society of Quakers, as appears by the Act of the Court,
bearing date the 16th of January, 1837. The said George
Payn and Philip Lempriere in the cause. The parties
having recognised that the said Payn and Lempriere are
of the society called Quakers, and declared their consent
that they be heard on their affirmation, to speak the
truth without the oath being administered to them, the
Court has ordered, that they shall be received accord-
ingly: therefore the cause is sent back to the inferior
number."
The third time was in 1839, the case of Guilmoto v.
Halfyard, when the Court, refusing to recognise the
judgment of the full bench, as a precedent, condemned
Lempriere to take oath, and in default, to be imprisoned
until he complied. He was accordingly sent to gaol,
where he remained ten weeks, suffering greatly from his
weak state of health, until the Secretary of State took
cognizance of the matter, through the kind solicitude of
the committee for sufferings, belonging to the Society of
Friends, in London, a deputation of whom waited upon
him, for that purpose. The Secretary of State commu-
nicated with the Lieu tenant-Governor, and the latter, with
the Bailly, upon which a full Court was summoned, who
instead of deciding upon the merits of the question, Jibe
rated Lempriere, on bail, that he would be forthcoming
whenever wanted. The action was subsequently aban-
doned, by which his evidence was not required.
The fourth and last case, is the present one, that of
Crown v. Halfyard and M'Grath, charged with having
stolen certain property, belonging to Lempriere, who
was summoned to give evidence in support of the prose-
cution. Halfyard, having been liberated on bail of 5/,
did not appear, but forfeited his recognizance. It is said
he has left the island. When the witnesses were about
to depose, it was observed, that Lempriere did not hold
up his right hand towards the heavens, which is the form
of taking an oath in Jersey, upon which the bailiff asked
witness the reason. He said, that it was on account of
scruples of conscience, being of the religious persuasion
of the people called Quakers. M'Grath's advocate, Mr.
Godfray, observed, that Lempriere could not be a
Quaker, because he did use the words thee and
thou, to which he replied, he could soon satisfy him
upon that point. The bailly asked Lempriere what
proof he could adduce that he was of that persuasion ?
Ile replied, that he had furnished the proof to the full
court, on appeal, in the case of Shave v. Roussel, who
decided, that he should be heard on his solemn affirma-
tion. The Act was sent for, and the Court took the
subject into consideration. Lempriere could not engage
an advocate to speak in his behalf, as Messrs. Ilam-
mond, Godfray, and Marrett were engaged for the pri-
soners, and Mr. Le Sueur as constable had entered the
report. The two others were absent. Lempriere re-
minded the bailiff of the Act of Parliament, 3 and 4.
Wm. IV., c. 49, which allowed him to give evidence on
his solemn affirmation, and of the Order in Council,
which required it to be registered. The bailiff, how-
ever, refused to take any cognizance of this. Lempriere
urged him to refer the matter to the full court, as before,
but in vain.
The following is a translation of the judgment of the
Court, so far as Lempriere is concerned:—
* * * " After which, when proceeding against the
said Thomas M`Grath, and to swear in the witnesses, the
said Philip Lempriere pretended, that he is of the per-
suasion called Quakers, and that consequently he cannot
be compelled to take oath, but must be heard upon affir-
mation, conformably to an Act of Parliament. Consider-
ing, that the said Act of Parliament had net been regis-
tered in this island and cannot have force of law: Con-
sidering, that the project of law passed by the States on
the 7th March, 1842, in order to assimilate the law in
this Island to that now existing in England respecting
Quakers and Moravians, has not obtained the Royal
sanction, and that therefore if Philip Lempriere was to
make a false declaration, there exists no law by virtue
of which he would be punishable, as a witness would be,
who should falsify his oath. The Court has judged, that
the said Philip Lempriere is bound to take the custom-
ary oath as contained in the Code of 1771, and the said
Philip Lempriere having positively refused to take the
said oath, the Court, conformably to the conclusions of
title said Queen's Procureur, has sent him to gaol until
he obtemperates to the judgment of the Court.'
Lempriere was then committed to the House of Cor-
rection and incarcerated in the same dungeon as that in
which Mr. C. C. Wilson was confined, for an alleged con
tempt. The next day he applied to the gaoler, for a copy
of the warrant of committal, and received a piece 01
paper, purporting to be a memorandum, of the following
tenor:-
1846. Philip Lempriere having refused to take oath
Sept. 28 as a witness at the suit of the Crown, sen-
tenced by the Court to be detained in pri-
son until he complies.
JOHN P. DE STE. CROIX.
Dy.-Visc.
Lempriere then sent for the editor of this journal, to
draw up a memorial to her Majesty's principal Secretar)
of State for the Home Department, and also to write on
his behalf to the Committee for Sufferings belonging to
the Society of Friends, to implore their interposition
with the Government. which he did ; but previJu
doing so, it was deemed necessary to obtain copir s of the
Orders in Council which had commanded the authori-
ties in Jersey to register and observe the Acts of Par-
liament passed for the relief of Quakers, Moravians, and
other dissenters. Mr. Le Cras, theta fore, applied to
the Greffier for copies, and was informed that they could
not be obtained, because the documents had not been
recorded. Upon this, he addressed the following letter
to the bailiff :

" Alder!inry Lodge, Les Vaux,
"Jersey, Oct. 1, 1816.
" Sir,—l applied yesterday to Mr. GrefiLr Godfray
for a copy of the Order in Council, addressed to the Go
vcrnor, Bailiff and Jurats, commanding them to register
an Act of Parliament,the 3d and 4th Will. IV., chap. 49
for enabling Quakers and Moravians in all cases and in
all places to make his or her solemn affirmation or de-
claration instead of an oath ; also for a copy of the
Order in Council sent in February, 1838, commanding
them to register an Act " for the more effectual Aboli-
tion of Oaths and Affirmations in various departments of
the State, and to substitute declarations in lieu thereof,"
and also for a copy of the Order in Council, dated Jan.
17, 1839, commanding them to register the Dissenters
Oath Act," all which Orders in Council, I understand,
have been disobeyed.
"Mr. Godfray informed me, that he could not furnish
me with copies of the said Orders in Council, because
they had not been registered. I shall therefore feel
obliged, if you will give directions to those who may
have the custody of the said orders, either to supply me
with copies of the same, or to allow me to inspect them,
so that I may acquire the necessary information to make
a representation to her Majesty's principal Secretary of
State upon the subject.—l have the honour to be, Sir,
your most obedient and very humble servant,
" ABRAHAM JONES LE GRAS.
"Sir John De Veulle, Knt., Bail& of Jersey."
The following is a copy of the Bailiff's answer :

"Portland place, St. Helier's, Ist Oct., 1846.
" Sir,—l beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter,
dated the Ist inst.,* received on the 30th Sept., and in
reply, to inform you, that I consider that the Greffier
acted very properly in declining to give you copies of the
Order of Council and Acts of Parliament mentioned in
your communication, which it appears have not been
registered, and are not in force in this island. I beg
further to observe, that I could c ms'stently with my
duty, direct him to communicate to you any-document
which is not duly registered, or which does not emanate
from any of the local authorities.—l have the honour to
be, Sir, your obedient servant,
"Mr. A. J. Le Cras."

"J. DE VEULLE.

Before we conclude we must make a few remarks.
First, as regards the judgment. Lempriere pretended
that, being of the persuasion called Quakers, he could
not be compelled to take oath, but must be heard on his
solemn affirmation, conformably to the Act of Parlia-
ment 3d and 4th, Will. IV., e 49. Now .he Art of the
Court says, "conformably to an Act f Parlil.nent,"

* In the hurry of business we made a mistake in the
date. The bailiff also makes a mistake, in supposing we
wanted copies of the Acts of Parliament, whereas it was
poly of the Orders in COUJNiI.-.-ED.

without specifying what me, and singular enough, it
says, " the said Act of Parliament has not been regis-
tered." Really, this slovenly way of ren:iering judgment
is unpardonable. The Act of the Court then goes on to
say, "considering that the project of law passed by the
Stet s, on the 7th March, 1842, in order to assimilate
the law in this island to that now in England, respecting
the Quakers and Moravians, has not obtained the royal
sanctio.i. and that therefore if Philip Lemnriere was to
make a false declaration, there exists No law by virtue
of which he would be punishable, as a witness would be
who should falsify his oath, the Court has adjudged that
he is hound to take the customary oath as contained in
the code of 1771." Thus, this juAgment is not founded
on the pretension, but is altogether beside the question.
The witness claimed the benefit of the law, and no power
upon earth can lawfully withhold it. The affirmation of
Quakers :as long been known in Jersey and pro-
vided for by the laws of the island, enacted by competent
authority, but then those laws have been repudiated.
So then the Court, take advantage of their own wrong
or disobedience towards her Majesty, by declaring that
the Act of Parliament which they refused to register,
has not acquired raw of law! They say nothing of the
Ostler in Council which commanded them to register it,
and which order, as well as several others, have not
been registered, although Mr. Le Breton assured the
Commissioners that " Orders in Council were always re-
gistered, notwithstanding the Court had the power to
suspend them until a representation was; made." Again:
because the States have passed a project to supersede
the Act of Parliament, which project has been disallowd,
the Royal Court declare there is no law for the punish-
ment of Quakers, who may make a false declaration.
Now what said Mr. Le Breton before the Commis-
sioners? "Although we have no criminal law, but the
coutumier, yet the Court uses its discretion in the
punishment of crime." Then why not have done so in
the present case? whether there is or not, a law, for the
punishment of a false declaration, the Court was bound
to admit the witness to affirm, conformably to Act of
Parliament. It was bound to administer the law just as
they found it, and not to anticipate, that the witness
would perjure himself. By doing so, they have violated
a positive law to prevent a bare contingency—which is a
grave dereliction of their duty. If they did not think
proper to admit Lempriere to depose on his affirmation
they ought to have dispensed with his evidence, and not
to have imprisoned him for non-conformity.
The Act of Parliament under which Lempriere
claimed exemption was applicable to all the British
dominions; besides, there was an express provision made
in the Code of Laws, permitting persons calling them-
selves Quakers to be heard on their solemn affirmation
in certain cases, which is a recognition of the right. It
was an Act of George 11., for collecting moneys for the
upport of Greenwich Hospital, and contains the fol-
lowing clause:—" Provided and be it further enacted
by the authority aforesaid, that in all cases, wherein by
this Act an oath is required or appointed to be taken,
the solemn affirmation or declaration of the people
called Quakers, shall be accepted instead of such oaths,
in such manner and form, as by laws and statutes of this
kingdom is directed and appointed; and if any such
Quaker shall refuse to make such solemn affirmation
and declaration in any case, wherein any other person
is hereby required to take an oath, every such Quaker
so refusing. shall for every such offence, be subject to
the like forfeitures and penalties, as any other person
refusing to take an oath. is made liable to by this Act.
And in case any such Quaker shall upon his solemn
affirmation or declaration, affirm or declare any matter
which shall be false, or if any other person before any
such receiver or other person hereby authorised to
administer oaths shall wilfully make a false oath, every
such Quaker or other person being thereof lawfully
[ convicted, shall for every such offence, suffer and be
!Wale to the like fines, pains, penalties, and punish-
ments, as persons convicted of wilful and corrupt per-
jury are subject and liable to by the laws of the re-
spective places, where such offence shall be committed."
The Court have acted under the erroneous impression
that an Act of Parliament, in which the islands are in
eluded, under general terms, have not force of law, but
this objection has been anticipated and provided for by
[ the Order in Council, which is the statute law of the
country. As for the notion that an Act of Parliament
has not force until registered it is preposterous. It has
been overruled by the Lords of the Council, the Queen's
Bench, and the Court of Exchequer. The authorities
may petition the Privy Council against an Act, but in
vain. It is not within the competency of the Crown to
release them from its obligations, as may be seen by the
following Order in Council :
At the Court at Hampton Court, the first day of July,
1731, upon reading this day at the Board a report for
the Right Hon. the Lords of the Committee, for the
affairs of Jersey and Guernsey, dated the 16th of last
month, in the words following, viz., " Your Majesty
having been pleased, by your order in Council of the 9th
of July, 1730, to refer unto this Committee the humble
petition of the States of your Majesty's Island of Guern-
sey, setting forth that by an Act passed in the second
year of your Majesty's reign, it is enacted that some
former Acts made concerning the raising sixpence per
month from all seamen's wages, towards the support of
Greenwich Hospital, should be extended to the ships and
vessels belonging to any of the subjects of the said Island
of Guernsey, and that the said duty should be collected
and levied in that island. That apprehending the col-
lecting and levying the said duty within the said
island is contrary to the charters and privi-
leges' granted to the inhabitants by your Ma-
jesty's royal progenitors • they, therefore, humbly
prayed that they might be heard in maintenance of their
privileges, and that your Majesty will be pleased to
;rant them your royal protection, and such relief in the
premises, as to your Majesty shall seem meet. The
[ Lords of the Committee, in obedience to your Majesty's
said order of reference this day, took the said petition
[ into consideration, and were attended by counsel for the
States of the said Island of Guernsey, as also for the re-
ceivers of the said duty. But it appearing on the face of
, the said petition, to be a complaint " against an Act of
Parliament," their Lordships did not think proper to
hoar the counsel on the merits of the said petition,
being of opinion that the same was not cognisable
before your Majesty in Council ;" and therefore humbly
report to your Majesty, that the said petition ought to
be rejected.

' We have now only ono more observation to make.
Lempriere has been robbed of his property. He has
charged two persons with the commission of the offence,
tnd they have been liberated on bail ; one has forfeited
his recognisance, the other may do the same, but Lem
priere, who comes forward on behalf of the public to
bring them to justice, is mtd the scape goat. He is
first robbed of his property, and thi n of his liberty al.o.
And yet this is a Christian country. Hurrah for
reform

THE AFFRAY ON THE NEW-
CASTLE AND BERWICK RAILWAY.
NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE, SATURDAY —The prisorers
George Mathews and John Hughes, were brought up
before the Magistrates, Mr E. J. Collingwood and Sir
M. W. Ridley, Bart., at the Moot-hall, this day, when
William Oliver, Mary Bryson, and Captain Potts were
xsmined.
William Hunter, police-officer at Walker, was then
,worn—He said, I received information of the murder on
Monday afternoon, and traced the prisoner Hughes to
Sunderland, where I apprehended him between one and
two o'clock on Tuesday morning. On conveying him
to Newcastle, when we reached the Pelaw station, the
prisoner asked me if the man was dead? and on my
telling him that he was, he said, " I told my companion
he had done wrong in stabbing the man with the knife,
ind that we were sure to be taken; but that I would
take one way, and he another."
John Bler.kinsopp said—l am a butcher in Newcastle,
and was going towards Long Benton when I met Cap-
tain Potts, who told me a man had been stabbed, and
.ave me a description of the person who had done it,
Led the direction he had taken. I proceeded in the
lireetion pointed out, and overtook the prisoner
Nlathews near Byker, where I passed him and gave in-
f,rmation to the police, at the Ouseburn station, and
when he came up one of the policemen toook him into
:atstouly.
John Potts, inspector of police, said—l came into the
station soon after the prisoner Mathews was appre-
hended, and searched him, but did not find a knife upon
him.

Turner, police-officer, said—l searched the road
which the parties had taken after the man \vas stabbed,
and found a penknife open, lying on the side of the foot-
path, about 180 paces from where the murder took place.
It was rusty, but the ground was wet, and it had rained
the night before. There was the appearance of blood
on the knife.
Thomas Commons, surgeon, said—l made a post-
mortem examination of the body of the deceased, and
found a wound on the inside of the left thigh, nearly in
;he groin. It was two and a half inches long, one and a
half inches in depth, and three-quarters of an inch wide.
It appeared to hare been trisdc by a plunge and a rush
upwards. The femoral artery was transfixed and lace-
rated upwards nearly an inch, and the vein had also been
opened. Death was caused by the loss of blood conse-
quent on that wound. The animal life would be extinct
in a few seconds. A penknife is an instrument that would
mike such a wound.
The clerk to the magistrates stated that the next wit
ness was expected to prove that Mathews and the de-
ceased had had a battle on that day month, when the pri-
soner Hughes acted as the second of Mathews, but he
found that he was not able to identify the parties.
No other witness was called, and the prisoners on
being charged—Mathews with the murder of the de-
ceased, and Hughes with aiding and assisting—said
they were not guilty. The prisoners were then formally
committed for trial at the Northumberland assizes.
Mr. REED, the coroner, was present during this exa-
mination, and at its close he said he had a complaint to
make against the gaoler, for having disobeyed his war-
rant in not bringing the prisoner before him at the in-
quest which was held on Wednesday.
The gaoler said he was ordered not to do so by the
magistrates.
The CORONER said that made no difference. lie
ought to have obeyed the order. As it happened, it
was of no consequence, for the prisoners were identified
by Captain Potts, who had had an opportunity of seeing
them.

The Clerk of the Peace said the prisoners were com-
mitted by the magistrates into the custody of the gaoler,
to be produced before them on Thursday, and they
had subsequently altered the time to Saturday. The
gaoler was to keep the prisoners in this county, and if
he had taken them to the inquest they would have had
to pass through the borough of Newcastle, which would
have been virtually putting them out of his custody
altogether.
The COURT—When the prisoners were remanded
into the custody of the gaoler, he was required to pro-
duce thew before this Court, and he only obeyed the
instructions of the Court in keeping them in custody
within the jurisdiction over which this Court exercises
its authority.
The CORONER was then asked if he wished the pri-
soners to be produced before him on Monday? when he

replied that h^ would leave the matter entirely in the
hands of the magistrates._

ale Court, alter a brief consultation, deferred signirg
the committal mit'''. Tuesday, to which day the prisoners
w: rc= acc.-.)r,iiagly reinandA
The inainctiiate cause of the brutal attack seems at
present involved in considerable mystery. It appears
that frequent quarrels have lately occurred between the
Irish and English labourers. The deceased was often
heard to complain that the Irishmen were always
molesting him, and he appears to have had a fight
with one of them. He had the reputation of a
good fighter, but was, nevertheless, of a very peaceable
disposition. The evidence of the girl Bryson, as to what
deceased saki to her, would lead one to suppose that
the men bad robbed him, but there does not appear to be
any good ground for that supposition. From the pay-
ments. which deceased was understood to have made after
receiving his wages on Saturday, he was not likely to
have had any more money in his pocket than what was
actually found up.an him, which was 6rl. and some
copper. The only circumstance which might lead to a
suspicion of robbery was that of Murray throwing
away a pair of trousers in attempting to escape, but the
trousers have since beets identified by his landlady as his
own, so that his throwing them away could only havo
been to facilitate his escape.
Hughes, the taller of the prisoners, is a good and in-
telligent looking man, of strong muscular powers, keen
eye, and large perceptive faculties. Mathews presents
a remarkable contrast to him in all theso respects. He
has, besides, a vacant stare, which gives him an appear-
ance almost idiotic. Both prisoners were dressed in the
ordinary costume of their class—fustian trousers and a
wliite smock frock. Hughes stated that his name was
not John Hughes Murray, but John Hughes.

POLICE INTEL LIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.

A lad, named John Pyc, was brought before the Lord
Mayor, charged with having infringed the Act for the
Protection of Merchant Seamen, by giving a false answer,
stating that he had not received a register ticket, and
Captain Gardner of the ship Pacific, was charged with
having aided and abetted the boy in committing the mis •
demeanour.

The solicitor to the Board of Admiralty attended for
the prosecution, which excited much interest, and termi-
nated in a manner very different from what was ex-
pected on the first view of the case. The solicitor to
the Admiralty stated that the Merchant Seaman's Act
required that each person in the merchant service should
be registered, in order that if able-bodied seamen should
be wanted for her Ma:;esty's service upon any emergency
the Government might be able to procure without trou-
ble the necessary amount of assistance.
Mr. E. H. R. Coleman, clerk in the General Register
and Record Office for Seamen of the Port of London,
Hamet-street, Minories, stated that when seamen were
registered at the outports, duplicates of the register
tickets were returned in pursuance of the Act of Par-
liament to the office in London within a week from the
time of such registration. In the present case the dupli-
cate register ticket was signed in the handwriting of Mr.
Bentley, the proper officer at Hull, and was numbered
204,730, and issued to John Pye, at Hull, on the 11th of
September, 1846. Witness, in consequence of some in-
formation which he received, went on board the Pacific,
lying in the London Docks, to make inquiries. The
prisoner Pye was on board, and witness asked him
where his Hull ticket was? He replied that he never
had a Hull ticket, and witness took him into custody.
Pye then took witness to his lodging, and gave to him
the original register ticket produced, acknowledging that
he had been registered at Hull, and that he knew he had
done wrong, but it was the fault of the captain who had
made him do it. Witness then accompanied Pyo to-
wards the Mansion-house, and in passing the house of
Thomas King, a licensed shipping agent, that agent
identified the boy as a person whom he had bound
apprentice.
Mr. R. Peppercorn, clerk in the Register and Record-
office for Seamen in the Custom House, said it was part
of his duty to register apprentices to seamen, and to put
the necessary questions previously to granting a regis-
ter. On the 2d of October a youth, whom witness be-
lieved to be Pye, applied to him to be registered as an
apprentice, and was accompanied by a Captain Gardner,
the captain of the Pacific. Witness put to him, amongst
other questions, the following:—" Have you, or have
you net, been registered before ?" and he said, " No."
Witness then asked him where and when he was born ?
and he replied in Kirkaldy, county of Montrose,
29th June, 1830. In consequence of his answers he had
a register ticket granted, a duplicate of which was pro-
duced, and the captain took the indenture and the ticket
away with him.
Mr. Thomas King, licensed shipping agent under the
Board of Trade, said that he was employed by Captain
Gardner, the captain of the Pacific, and bound Pye to
that person as an apprentice on the 2d of October. The
boy was called forward by the captain, in order that the
indenture might be made out, and said that he had ob-
tained a register at Hull, and that he was eighteen years
old. Witness said to the captain that the lad could not
be bound, as he was eighteen years of age. The captain
then told the boy toput the Hull ticket out of the way, and
say nothing about it, and witness said it would be illegal,
cby
aptainfilling
thenump,
ets
hs osaid
cettnhetadut r
ewt
the
et na eiensc sdo
indentures to
d to
hhbieem
cordingly.
The LORD MAYOR here said it appeared to him that
the agent who had been licensed by the Board of Trade
was much more culpable than either of the individuals
accused, as it was evident the imposition was sanctioned
by the authority of ttie agent. The case having been
postponed for further evi fence, Mr. Hobler appeared as
solicitor for Captain Gardner.

Mr. George Burnell, assistant to Mr. King, was called
for the prosecution. He stated, that on the Ist of Octo-
ber he went en board the Pacific, in the London Docks,
and received instructions from the boy as to his age and
Wall-place. The boy said he was sixteen years of age.
That was merely a visit preliminary to drawing up the
indentures; and on the following day witness went on
board again, and the captain and the boy and Mr. King
were on board. The captain pointed to the boy as the
person he wished to be bound, and Mr. King said he
would fill in the name in the indentures. The boy said he
was just upon eighteen years of age, and Mr. King said he
could not be bound at that age, and the captain said to
the boy, " You must make it a little younger than that;"
and the boy said, " Say sixteen, then—but how about my
other re inter ticket?" The captain said, " Oh, just
keep that out of the way. You have no occasion to let
them see it, as it is only a matter of form, merely a
nominal thing just to work the vessel out."
Mr. King said, "You must mind what you are about
captain—you are acting contrary to the law." The
captain said, " It's only just to work the vessel out to
Hobart Town." Witness then filled in the indentures,
and witnessed the signatures of the captain and the
crew.

Mr. King was called and re-examined by Mr. Hob!er.
Mr. Milder—You being a Government officer, didyou,
knowing that the boy could not be apprenticed at
f,ighteen years of age, fill up the indentures and per-
form the necessary torms? Mr. King•—l did not. It
was my aisistant.—(Lnighter.)
Mr. Hobler—Why did you not, knowing that the
whole of tho business was illegal, tell the captain that
you could not act at all? Mr. King—l did tell him so.
But he entreated me very much.
Mr. 'nobler—And yc.o allowed him to do an illegal
act ? Mr. King—lt was not I that did it ;it was my
young man.—(Laughter.)
Tho captain declared that Mr. King was his agent in
the business, as well as the Government agent, and he
' left, all to Mr. King„ who he supposed would not sanc-
tion anything that was decidedly wrong.
Mr. King—l told the captain he was acting in oppo-
sition to the law.

The LORD Melt:Jß—And still you obeyed the instruc-
tions of the captain ?
Mr. Kin.. —I did not. It was my assistant that filled
up the indentures. I assured the captain that he was
not justified, but there was no use in talking to him. II
would have the boy bound.—(Laughter.)
Mr. nobler submitted that the case was a most flagrant
one against the Government agent, who had solicited to
be employed in the matter, and had afterwards betrayed
the captain, who, having been absent from England
twenty years, was not aware of the state of the law, and
relied entirely upon the judgment of the agent.
The LORD MAYOR said that Mr. llobler's view of the
case was pe:fectly correct. The Government agent was
the offender, and he hoped the solicitor to the Admiralty
would take care that the matter should be represented
to the Board of Trade.

The Soicitor to the Admiralty said that if he hay]
known what had come out in the presence of his Lord-
ship, he certainly would have hesitated before he charged
the captain, and that he should take care that the case
should be represented to the Board of Trade.
The Captain, in answer to the Lord Mayor, said that
he should take the boy with him as a seaman, and his
Lordship discharged both defendants.