The Sun.
London, England, 1846-06-23 00:00:00

THE STN, LONDON, TrEsnAy MORNING, JUN P, lft4tl.

k Mr. HALSEY said he opposed the Bill non a solemn
: conviction that the state of crime in Ireland did not aff ,rd to
th'm a sucient ground for the introduet,on of such a mea-
sure. Did the state of crime in Ireland show on -ncrease
over former years?—( Hear, hear.) There had, certainly, been
atrocious crimes committed in Ireland, and there appeared a
marked s,mpathy for the criminals. but this Bill was a most
' irritating as well as a most unconstitutional measore. And
with regard to the intimidation of witnesses, it did not in any
way provide against that evil. The Bill was not what it
should be—an encouragement to the people of Ireland t o seek
measures of conciliation with their superiors. He did not seek
to put the question on personal grounds, but he did conceive
that it was a fair ground of discussion to speak of the conduct
of public men. He certainly found fault with the conduct of
the promoters of this measure, as they had said that the success
of the Corn Bill was dependent on the passing of this measure.
He did not see what connexion there could be between a com-
mercial measure, which was to arrive at maturity in three
years, and a temporary and unconstitutional measure.—
(Hoar, hear.) He did not wish to judge of the motives of her
laje,ty's Ministers in bringing forward this measure. They
might have been of opinion that it was necessary for the state
of Ireland, but if they were of such an opinion, why did they
not press it forward at once,? for under such circumstances
delay was little short of a crime. Under these circumstances
he should give the Bill his most strenuous opposition.
Mr. V. STUART was not prepare' to deny. that crime
existed to a friditful extent in Ireland, but he fully believed
that this Bill was nct at all the one likely to suppress it.
There was not one member of that Hous! who knew an thing
of the state of mind of the people in Ire and, who did not
kn W that thy had a great want of confidence in the laws;
and was the present op ressive and unconstitutional measure
the one which would restore that confidence? Were the laws
in existence with regard to Ireland at all calculated
to restore that confidence ? Did not tj e judges
inform them that laws were made for the benefit of society ;
and did their application bear out that fact ? He had seen the
law prostituted to the worst purposes. He had seen whole
fami ies driven out upon the roads, their cottages unroofed,
and their cattle driven away. He had seen them working by
the roadside in the hopes of obtaining redress, not from the
middleman who had turned them out, but from that sup-rior
landlord. These landlords were, no doubt, willing to redress
the wrongs of their tenants, hut they had it not in their
power, under the peculiar systems on which their estates were
managed. There was in Ireland a most singular feeling with
regard to being galled by unnecessary interference ; and the
p-actice of offering money to obtain evidence was one of the
most mischievous character. The man who was induced to come
forward by such motives was not unnaturally regarded as a degra-
ded man. This Bill would not, in his opinion, answer the ends
for which it was intended. It would produce a temporary
lull, but its permanent effect would be to increase the evils
for the abolition of which it was created. Let them not at-
tempt coercion, but give fair play to those laws calculated to
inspire a confidence in the legislature on the part of the people.
Mr. ROEBUCK said, he had well considered the effect of
this measure now before the consideration of the House, and

without referring to the recent vote he gave in that House,
he would speak of the vote which he should give in accord-
ance with those principles which had always directed his
political career. In accordance with all those principles which
he had derived from a careful study of the business, the science,
and the art of legislation and Government, he was inclined
strongly to believe that ail tho:e modes of legis-
lation in all those sorts of Bills and Acts
of the present description were mischievous ; because, in
the first place, they were inefficacious. in a great measure for
good. They were in as strong a measure ilfiitielous for
evil. It he looked at the situation of the people of Ireland.
and at their pale history, still stronger was his feeling that it
was folly and injustice ;..o carry such a measure. He wanted
to know, before he made up his mind how he should vote
upon that occasion, what it was that aci uated the protec-
icnist rirty, headed by the Noble Lord the Member for Lynn,
and the Whig party, led on by the Noble Lord the Member for
the city of London, in ivfng their opposition to this mea-
sure. In the first place, then, the Noble Lord the Member
tor Lynn, in his speech upon the first reading of the Bill—
which, by the way, he supported—remarked that murders com-
mitted in Ireland would rest upon the heads of those
who delayed the passing of that measure, and yet
he was now opposing it himself,—(Cries of " Hear, hear.")
What was it, then, that had induced the Noble Lord to change
his course? Why, it was because—to take the Noble Lord's own
sew iments—beeause he had no confidence in the Right Hon.
Baronet the First Lord of the Treasury. The Noble Lord op-
posed the second reading of the Bill, because the Rieht Hon.
Baronet had done one great thing—because he had relieved

free trade from the shackles of monopoly—because he had car-
ried the Corn-law Bill—because he had done that which the
country desired.—(Hear, hear.) Well, thee, if the Noble
Lord succeeded in hoisting the Right Hon. Baronet from
(Ace, his opposition would be at an end, and he would no doubt
be prepared to support the same measure if it were brought
forward by a monopolist party.—( Hear, hear.) Well, but what
was it, he wanted to know, that induced the Liberals to suept.rt
it ? Before he could make up his mind as to the vote he should
give, he must satisfy himself that it was dictated by no vindic-
tive or party spirit.—( Hear, hear.) Now, then, let him recall
to the recollection of the House, that in 1832 a
certain Bill, which literally was a disgrace to the
statute-book, was brought in and passed by a Liberal ad-
w inistration. What was it that had worked so great a change
in the opinion of the Noble Lord since that period.—( Hear,
hear.) Again in the year 1832, a very rigorous measure of
the sort, which contained the well-known domiciliary visita-
tion clause was passed by an overwhelming majority, acting
under the advice of the Noble Lord ; and in 1835, Lord Mor-
peth, who was then Secretary for Ireland,introduced another
Coercion Bill for Ireland, though, as compared with the Bill of
1832, it was an exceedingly modified measure. Now. Lord
Morpeth on introducing that Bill made some remarkable de-
clarations. The Noble Lord, for instance, admitted that
crime was on the decrease in Ireland, but nevertheless the
country was in such a state that it could not be governed with-
out the aid 01 a Coercion Bill, with far more stringent provi-
sions than were to be found in the Bill then.
under discussion.—(Hear; hear.) The Hon. and Learned
Member for Cork (Mr. O'Connell) one would have supposed,
after listening to his speech against the present Bill, must have
opposed the Bill of 1835. But what did Mr. O'Connell say,
while the measure of 1835 was under discussion?—( Hear, hear. )
Why, the Hon. and Learned Gentlemanl after admitting that
the measure was highly calculated to reduce the amount of
agrarian outrage in Ireland, went on to say, " The present
measure, if he rightly understood it, was to prevent parties
being out at night without being able to give an account of
themselves, or for unlawful purposes ; and, if so, he could only
add that he was convinced its operation would produce the
greatest benefits in Ireland. He only wished, in fact, that its
provisions had gone a little further." Mr. Grattan, who was
another member of the Irish party, on the same occasion, ob-
served, " That it was imposs.ble to lot things go on in Ireland
with; ut something being done." True, the observation was rather
ambiguous, but there was no mistaking the speech of the Hon.
and Learned Member for Cork.—( Hear, hear.) He wanted
to know what ac'u.ited the Noble and Learned Nl.mber for
Cork, in his present opposition to a measure of a much more
mettifiett character than the one of 1835.—( Hear, hear.) lie
new came to the Noble Lord the Member for the City of
London, and before he could make up his mind as to the vote
tic should give, he wanted to know what it %ves that had pro-
et.e.ed so ex ensive a change in his opinions neon the .object
of C'oerc:onlslas.—(Hear, hear.) He knr,k Hier when
the Neble Lord ret urne.l -to power, in 1435, Lout Boshseeugh
as to have been sent to Ireland upon the exp(essed ureter-
standing that the C..ercioa Bill should be preeeeoen with with-
teat --( Hear, hear, )
Lord J. Rti `E L— i hat is not true.—( Hear, bear. )
Mr. ROEBUCK continued. He must take the Nettle
Lord's dental, but still ho gathered this fact, from the history
14 Coercion Bills, that this was the first time the Noble Lord
ever opposed one. Now, ureter alt these circumstances,
before he could make up his mind to oppose the Bill, he
must be sati,tied those who oppose I it were crt,istent
their opposition. From the extraordinary combination
circumstances in the oppositton. he found the votes of G,n-
71emon voting against the Bill who never voted in that way
before. He found that the object of the one was to throw
out the Administration, while the other was actuated partly
by the same object, but principally with the view oi facilitating
their return to office. He could not bait looking at bo:h their
oppo=itions in a similar light; and he thought the opposition
of the Noble Lord the Member for Lyndon was most. unfair.

It was urged at an inopportune time, but with opportune ef-
fect—urged with the view of unseating the present Admi-
nistration, while there was not the remotest hope of a la,: ter
coming in.—(Hear, hear.) But he could tell the Nnbie
Lord that he was not in a position to govern this coun,ry,
and if he succeeded in obtaining office, it would prove the de-
struction of the Liberal party.—( Hear, hear.) He believed,
in fact, that it would produce a recu7rence of the events of
1410, 1811, and 1842, when the Whig party continued in
power for no beneficial purpose—brought in measures ,nly to he
rejected—a party in fact with the minority for its support, and
a Government losing credit wi'..h every other nation and country.
—( Hear hear.) Now before he could join the Noble Lord, he
must have his assurance that he had abandoned Coercion Mils
for ever.—( Hear, hear.) Let him declare his intention to apply
wise and conciliatory measures to that unfortunate country, and
he alight rely upon it he would then, in the event of his taking
oTce, be able to govern with credit to himself and honour to the
nation.—( Hear, hear. )
Lord J. MANNERS said his objection to the measure was
one of principle, and if he asked himself how such men as Wind-
ham, and Swift, and ailingbrok # would have voted upon such a
mea4ure, he could not fail to receive an answer that they would
have voted against such a Whig proposition.—(Hear, hear. )
A case of paramount necessity had not been proved for its
introduction, either by the statistical reformation placed before
the House, or by the conduct of the Government in pressing
the measure through the House. The clauses of the Bill did
not reach the evil. The offences complained of were coin-
mitted for the most part during the day, and the provisions of
the Act dial not give any protection during that period. It was
therefore inapplicable even if there was a case of paramount
necessity made out or proved to the House, and he would,
therefore, vote against the Bill.
Sir J. GRAHAM said, he did not ri a to address the ,
H use immediately after the Hon. Member for Ba h, as he
considered that there might be some Member on th.. same side
or the House, who would have wished to have spoken to the
question. He aim tted at once, that the , resent was no a
constitutional m'asure, an i he did not agree with the m xiin
of the Hon. Membe-, that desperate diseases shouli have
desperate remedies; for he considered, that they could nit, nor
tight not, to pass such a measure as the
eudept
ar.eitns present, unless
Hinoduisee,
indictment
could be a case shown of paramount necessity; and it would be
on these 'rounds alone, that he would ask Orin. Members to
vote with him in support of the Bib. A-.d, with reference to
the charge of delay, he would observe, that the
Honourable Member for Lambeth was the only one who
hadrthatei
:idonelyo,t. justice to the Government upon the occasion ; for he
had said that, reviewing the whole conduct of the Government,
he did not consider that they could have introduced it at an ,
earlier period. He must say that the Noble Lord reproached
tsenhnerz?ciev4erahnrimemhe..nta withnTdh delay,
aenii Bill .
n.
came is e
downcircumstancesna erm fromov ed
the
eatthLat,hredsosemoinenswidht
hea..et
Lon-
further toatnhodeb
~I°n. suPparted •
13,heeirn.:ib should
owirweensatltillioenv...edt the Noble Lord the Member for Lon-
the measure which
especially
to decide likewise that
importance, and that which, that
but secondary. Now the state of
question of primary importance. of
fhaety motion.— (Hear, cons had
thei Gioverirnent, having to Acr
alteration in the corn-laws, and
whichrivr discussing, it had
tbouah imporwtaanst also,'fprimary
Ireland, the necessitywas 'till
destitution of the people made anmadaglmtetiort7ion in the t orn.lawasnda
eescnchenhraweerged against the Government in
before i f
them.th e,
a;t
he
ThusP wouldr i
mms seam,
h . i moh on
the been laid before '
said,port a
thatnce no
of
delay that
fiqaccit
eesial
which t
could
: bnr
was unwind'
the repetition of it ;
been made to show, that wi
hut an attempt had . .iatever might be
ee-
tthhee ptirresgtr.epssoionft.th
rence to the whole of Ireland, crime the increase.
the case in reference to certain partswoafslnreolanodn, yet,'in r
d but
whole of Ireland ; . certainly, though
against the
increase of crime in 1845, still, •
there had not been an ts was
not
tt to prefer an
on the increase. in
The Bill
viz. ;--Tipperary, Roscommon,
Clare, Irwelaasnd cnroitme
and he knew there in certain;
wasfo
Leitrim,und ed on
and
de
Lciomuenrtiiceks:
these counties with the
been spreading. de would compve
of Ireland was
whole of Ireland. The population of the whole.
1 500 000
circumstances crime, unless checked, would spread,. and.ithadas 20.000,000 of
one-sixth of the whole. The area of Ireland w
The total of
8,400,000 ; the population of these five counties, ,‘ , , or
aeres, and of the five counties, 3,500,000 acres.
crime in the five counties for five months of the year 1845 was

LOU, The return for these counties during the same months
of 1845, gave 1,323. or an increase equal to 15 eel. eerie Of
ineur!ee"ionary and agrarian crime for five months, the return
gave 779 for 1845. and 933 for 1848, being an increase of 20
per cent. Taking these five counties, as compared with the whole
of Ireland, the following was the return of specific crime :
Homicides in those countries increased in 1846 at the rate of
33 ner cent as co :Tared with all Ireland ; firing at the person
at 68 it r cent.; aggravated assaults at 48 per cent.; assault,
with intent to injure life, at 38 per cent. ; demand and robbing
of arms at 72 per cent. ; murderous intention in the use of
arms at 80 per cent. ; administration of unlawful (wire at 39
per cent.. ; assaulting and taking dwelling hoe es at 79 isier
cent. The total, in 1845, was 665; in 1846, 072; and for
the whole of Ireland in 1846, 1,443; in those specified crimes
showing an inc, ease of the proportion of 69 per cent.
In opposing this Bill, it was observed by the Noble Lord the
Member for Newark, that this Bill was inefficacious, or only
efficacious as against crieee committed by night. The
Lord the Member fer Durham ha, moved for a return of all the
murdt rscemmitted in Ireland during the present year, and with
all the circumstances attending it, together with tl,e hour by day
or by night. With respect to these returns, the facts he was
about to state were well worthy of the attention of the House,
as it was directly against the argument that the Bill would be
ineffisiacious with reference to crime, and they were mostly com-
mitted by day. The returns showed that the numbers of mur-
ders committed between sunrise and sunset was 27, and 4's be-
tween sunset and sunrise, shooing a majority of one
half, or nearly so. The attempts at murder be-
tween sunrise and sunset were only 13, while b•-
tt.veen sunset and sunrise they numbered 45. It was
necessary to state to the House something with reference to
the comparisons drawn between the murders committed in
England and those committed in Ireland. Between the years
1841 and 1845 the average number of murders committed in
England was 110,- including infanticides, which made up a pro-
portion of more than half of them ; and during the same periods
the number of homicides committed in Ireland was, exclusive
of infanticides, ;28 ; being a proportion of one homicide to
64.000 of the population ; while in England, exclusive of in-
fanticide. the population was one to 100.000 The proportion
of convictions in England was one to 32 3%ths of the criminals,
and in Ireland one to 8 He had received accounts of the
most hide.als murders in Clare and other counties ;
and it was very evident, from all accounts, that
the number of crimes was not at all on the decrease,
The number of homicides comi-nitted in Ireland during the last
four years amounted to 446, and he had ascertained that most
of the parties the offence was committed against belonged to the
labouring classes. 261 of the number were labourers and
servants, while others were night workers and baliffs. The same
might he said with regard to attempts at murder. The number
was 436, while of parties against whom the offence was com-
mitted 94 were farmers, and 39 were labourers, and the rest
wood-rangers, stewards, and servants. —( Hear, hear.)
The Honourable Member for Cockermouth had stated

I that Government brought forward this measure not
from a conviction of its necessity, but to satisfy their partisans
l in Ireland. So far, however, from this being so, he could
, assure the House that even last summer, from the accounts he
• received from disinterested parties, he had begun to he im-
pressed with the' conviction that some such measure as this
would have to be pissed.—( Hear, hear.) He admitted that
the position of land in Leland was originally the primary cause
of all the' crime in Ireland ; but then they must bear in mind
that although the immediate crimes themselves were connected
with no religious or political cause's, they had become so exten-
sive as to shake the very foundation of society itself. This
rendered it clear that something must be done to reduce the
amount of crime in Ireland, and it was the knowledge of this
feet which had induced the Government to bring torward this
Bill.— ( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentleman said that the
poor should receive retie. Why there were no lets than 14.000
able-bodied men receiving daily wages. in Ireland under the
Public Works Act ; and rs to schools for agriculture, they hail
been already established, and an Act for draining land hat re-
ceived the royal assent- He had, moreover, the satisfaction to
stete that children to the amount of 400.000 were
receiving education. The Secretary-at-War had al-0
laid a Bill upon the table of the H use for advancing a mil.
lion of money to the landed proprietors for the purpose of
encouraging them to drain and improve their estates, arid
these were all the measures which had been recommonded by
the Hon. Member. (The Night Hon. Baronet then read a
document for the purpose of showing thet the people in
Ireland were accustomed to conceal the criminal, and not to
bring him to justice. ) The Noble Lord had said that he (Sir
J. Graham) had not dealt fairly in changing his opinions en
these great questions, without apologising for language which
he had used in opt mita n. He would not be compelled to
nefend particular expressions, but he wou d remind the Noble
Lord of his having overthrown Sir Robert Peel's Government,
in 1e35, in a measure for the appropriation of the property of
the Irish Church ; and yet,: when in office, he had abandoned
that measure in a way which he would not characteri-e. lie
said there was this to be said for himself and his colleagues,
that whatever change of opinions they had adopted, they had
adopted them under circumstances of necessity, and had car-
ried those changes into effect, at a sacrifice to themselves, per-
haps, of their power. The Noble Lord opposite and those
with him had changed their opinions as often as circumstances
had made it appear necessary. The Bill before the House had
been contrasted with that oi the same nature which was intro-
duced in 1835. 'f tie contrast had been well depicted by the
Hon. Member for Bath. The present measure was very much
less stringent than that introduced in 1835. Now he begged
to draw their attention to the state of crime when that Bill was
introduced. In 1835 the sotal amount of crimes
was 10,225 ; in 1836 it had fallen to 8,167 ; and in 1837
when a motion was made for repeal of that coercive Act, crime
had fallen to 6,775. In the year 1835, his Noble Friend thought
that he was justified in passing a measure of a less stringent
character, and one more calculated to enlist the feelings of the
people on behalf of the Government. The Noble Lord said
that though he trusted he was justified in thinking that the as.
pest of affairs in Ireland was not so menacing as before, yet the
state of crime had not been sufficiently reduced as to call upon
the House to dispense with. the powers contain. d in the Act.
This was the onion of the Secretary for Ireland. Mr.
O'Connell said that the end for which such a measure should
be introduced should be to punish, and not to prevent
That was the object with which he had intro-
duced it to the Hou,e. He would observe that
during the whole of Lord Melbourne's Government, from its
first commencement to within nine months of its close, they
possessed a measure ruorr stringent in many respects than the
one he was then itatrodueing, and it received the concurrence of
Mr. O'Connell During its existence crime fell very much,
but when in 1840 it was at an end crime rose rapidly; and from
being about 4,003,:it in the course of the four following years
came up to B,COO. The first strong coercive measure was in-
troduced by Lord Grey, with Mr. Fox. The second was in-
troduced by Lord Melbourne, the Noble Lord tt e Member for
the city of London being then Home Secretary ; and
the state of crime then was not half so urgers,. there as
it seas now. That measure had received the sanction
of Lord Lansdowne, and Lord Melbourne had written a letter
to the Repeal Association, sratieg his opinion that this m. asu-e
had beer, tao long delayed. On the outset, he had admitted
that the Bill was unconstitutional and harsh in its provaioes
but such a measure was retie!, ed by the existing circumstances
add he agreed that no one Member of Parliament should vote
for such a mea-ure units- he believed in ite necessity. —( Hear,
fear.) qbe Hon. Gentlemen, the Member for Newcastle•
under- Lino, had, in the course of the debate: asked aim a ques-
tion with regetd to the Bid, which, like others, was pureiv
matter of d e
etail, and he culd answer that in Committee. Gr•--
vi rnatero would be glad to make the clauses as much recur,
saleable :see the views of Him. MentherF as they coot(' —( Heir.
!tear.) Before he sot down, he must remelt' the House that
for the lest five yes re they hal furtueately been (melded to go-
, vern Irelstad i hint having recourse to a measure of this sort ;
but he mus.: at the same 'itne, remind the Hoc,
that the time might come when sech an Act miehi b
required, anti on his cen-cience he declared that Ministers were
firmly convinced that that time hart already arrived, and ne
matter what Atlminis. ration might he in office, Ireland voted
not be geverned with ,ut the aid Of a measure like the one he
new es's; d the House to read a second time ( Hear.)
Mr. L SBOUCHERE would Lot detain the House for any
length of time at that late hour, but he could not allow a single
moment to pass wiihout answering the charge the Right Hon.
Baronet hsil thsown out against him, with regard to the sugar
duties.—( Hear, hear.) It was not the first time the Right
Hon. Baronet had made tile same attack, and he really, till
now, fancied that he had effectually silenced the Right Hon.
3aronet on that point. —(Hear, hear.) fhe Right Hon. Ba•
ronet, too, utieht to be she last man to make a charge of iii-
consistency aghast him, for he was not aware that he had ever
suddenly turned round and changed his opinions on particular
points. Nor had he ever attempted to persuade the House
that he attached considerable importance to principles and
opinions which he hart long before abandoned as being
im-
politic, unsound, and opposed to the best interests of the coun-
try —( Cheers.) low the Right Hon. Baronet had, for the
second time, charged him with having, a few years back,
while in office, argued in favour of the exclusion of slave-
grown sugar from the Briti 1 markets ; but he begged the
House to remember that this was the construction the Right
Hon. Baronet himself put upon his words, and not his own
meening. What he did say was, that slavery having been so
recently abolished, the colonies ought for a time to be protected
against all foreign-grown sugar, but not against any particular
class of sugars.—( Cheers. ) Now, with regard to the question
of Ireland, the Right Hon. Baronet had taunted them with
not being able to govern Ireland without having recourse to
Co 'rcion Bills. But who e fault was this?—( Hear, hear. )
Why, it was the fault of the Right Honourable
Baronet and his party, who were constantly raising
the cry of "No Popery" against them.—(Hear.)
But to make a compliment of the liberties of the reople would
be the best method of making repeaters of all the country
gentlemen in Ireland, and he, therefore, did hope that the
Members would give their votes upon the measure according
to their conscience. He was not pledged to support the Bill,
because he voted for its first reading every person was aware
that that was only a formal proceeding.
Mr. STAFFORD O'BRIEN moved the adjournment of
the debate.

The following Bills were adjourned until Monday next:—
Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Bill ( Second reading); Eject.
menti, Ireland, Bill (Second reading) ; Lea es, Ireland,
(Second reading).
The Joint Stock Banks (Scotland and Ireland) Bill, was
pos'poned until Thursday next.
The Coroner's (Ireland) Bill was adjourned till Wednesday
next.

Service of Heirs (Scotland) Bill, Crown Charters (Scotland)
Bill, went through Committee.
County Works Presentments (Ireland) Hi!' was read a third
time and passed,
. .

Colonel PEEL moved for leave to bring in a Bill to continue
the Act to authorise and facilitate the completion of a survey of
Great Britain, Berwick-upon-Tweed, and the Isle of Man. to
31st December, 1851.—Agreed to.
The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the
House adjourned at a Quarter-past One o'clock.

George Clarke, a pedestrian, has succeeded in walk-
', „ •,: mile in 1,000 successive hours, at Norwich.
SinclDE OF S,
'St
an ingaest was held at the Cathedral Hotel, .
' Mr. Payne, City coroner, on
churchyard, beIoreBUTLER.-011 Sis
of Mr. S.mmel Butler, aged twenty-three,
view of the body
the son of Mr. 'Butler, chemist, St. Paul',,-cLurchyard, who
turdav evening
poisoned himself with prussic acid. Mr. John Harding said
that about eleven o'cif;ck that morning he was informed that
the deceased, who was in his room, had been called, and
that no admission could be obtained. Witness went to the
room, and white he was there his father came up. The
door was forced open, upon which the deceased was found
lying on his bed, with a phial grasped in his hand. Was not
aware of anything that was likely to disturb his mind. • Mr.
Thomas Bu der, deceased's father, said that his unfortunate
son had formed a strong attachment to a young lady, to whom
he had propostd that he should be married. Deceased came
to witness, a few days ago, who was at Brighton, to get his
consent, when he advised a delay for a short time. On Mon-
day last, he (deceased) saw the father of the young lady, and
stated to him what had been his (witness's) propositions, to
which the father of the young lady expressed himself agree-
able. He wrote to the young lady, wishing her to see him
that evening. Deceased received her answer on Friday, but
which has been torn into very minute parts. That letter
contained no syllable of an unpleasant nature. Witness is of
opinion that the thought of the delay may have produced a
temporary excitement. Deceased was of a placid disposition.
Witness thought he was rather too young, and the lady was
much under his years. Witness and the
young lady's father
were to have met about noon that day, and deceased was to
have seen the young lady upon the subject that evening.—
Verdict, "Temporary insanity.",

LA.W INTEL:LH-3,1.1N cE.
coui-T OF QUEE:VS BEA Cll. June 22

DONALDSON AND tortmits SMIT if.
This was an action founded upon one which, was decided
on Saturday, entitled Donaldson, &c., v. Bird, brought by
the Westinins,er Commissioners of Sewers against a con-
tract,_ r for the imperfect cor,truction of a sewer P,rtugni-
piace, Pathiingtnn, when. A trial which lasted tlie whole
day, a, verdict was given for thus piairtiff—eitun,ges
231/. 105..13. The verdict was accompanied with the inti-
mation that the jury were of opinion the whole, work had
been executed to the satist,letion of the theii acting Corn-
missienert of Sewers. The plaintiff, having succeeded in
that case, proceeded to-day against the contrae:-ors' surety.
and several witnesses were examired on the ;Joint at issue.
The case cloyed by a long and able address by 1-i for
the, drtenilant, when the jury and titter en absence
of about two boor,: tliey retarneit a verdict for the defendant.

COURT OF 13,1AKRUP-i-C .Tune 22.
(Before M:. G,nutlissiuner SnErifERD.)
IN ILE HUMPHREY.
. . _

This bankrupt, who hal carried on business as an hotel
keener in the Haymarket, cane up for his certificate.
The bankrupt having been strongly opposyd at his last
examination. the Learned COMMISSIONER asked what the
assignees intended to do on the present occasion?
Mr. LEWIS. the solicitor to the assignees, said that as his
Honour had considered the bankrupt was entitled on the
accounts furnished to pass his last examination, they did not
think it right they should press the opposition further, but
leave the case• entirely in the hands of his Honour to deal
with the whole case.

The Learned ComxttasioNEß—Then I am to understand the
assignees' are satisfied.

Mr. LEWIS—They are quite satisfied the bankrupt has
rendered all the assistance in his power to make up the ac-
coitus, but they were not kept properly.
The Learned COMMISSIONER said that there could be no
doubt that the opposition was founded on good grounds, as
regards the accounts, which were not at first satisfactory,
nor properly kept ; vet, as the assignees themselves did not
oppose, he did not think it was a case in which he ought to
ex-rcise his power to refuse the certificate. The bat krupt
had answered, without reserve, all the questions put to him,
and he had been very much illuNed by some ef his creditors,
and under the several executions his property had been
shamefully sold. He, theref,re, considered the bankrupt
ought to have his •certificate, and he should grant it
accordingly.

IN RE J. AND C. HILL.
INTEREST ON BOOR DEnTs.—Today was appointed for
the choice of assignees of these bankrupts, who had carried
on business as grocers at Reading.
The choice of assignees passed without opposition, but in
the cottre of the proofs a point of some importance arose,
Messrs. Ridgway and Co., of King William-street, claiming
ter a large sum and interest on an over-due acc.,unt.

Mr. TURQUAND, the official assignee, coukl not allow the
proor unless there was a F pedal agreement.
Mr. Ilti)Gwar said it was the custom of the trade.

Mr. LEwts, the solicitor to the fiat, said he must leave
Mr. Ridgway to smport his own case, as he, Mr. Lewis,
merely prepared the proof:
After a brief conversation, Mr. IZIDGWAY saki he would
not press his claim tbr interest, :IA the proof was talum ,hart
the amount.

ARCHES' CU 1: RT, June 20.
(before Sir H. J. Fusee)
TUE OFFICE OF TILE JUDGE intomoTED BY BARNES sti,B.E.
ThiA is a cause of office. promoted by Mr. Barnes, the
reeistrar of the dioeese of Exeter, against tee Rev. Jenit
Soi.e. of Bridgetewe, hi the perish of Berry 1'o1!leroy, in
th, county of Devon, citing hen to answer to certein articles
aeeiret hoe, touching hie soave jeedre, and the
refirmation of' his manners; bet, more especially, for haying
puldiely read prayers. preached, and aemieietared the holy
sacrament of the Lord's Supper in an unconsecrated building.
without any license or authority f. r so doing, and contrary to
and in spite of the injunction or monition of the Lend Bishop
of Exeter. Letters of request were presented in the usual
way, a decree issued, and Mr. Shore in the first instance
appeared under protest, but which was overruled, and the
Court directed hint to appear absolutely. Articles were then
brought in and admitted witheut. opposition. Witnieaee
hayieie been examined upon diem, an :111,:gAt On %Va., as.-erted
en behalf of Snore, and a debate on hs
having taken place the Court rejected it. When the cause
was about to be heard, the proceedings of ti)hi C urt-, were tied
up by a rule for a prohibition, but that rule has afterwards
diecharged. and the cause now cerne on for hearing.
ADDAMS (with whin was Dr. ih appeared lift
b-email of the promoter of the suit. All the articles, he said,
except the seventh, were of a technical and formal nature,
end their truth was admitted by Mr. Shore. That article
was to the following effect :—" That, on Sunday, the 14th
of April, 1844, and on Sunday, the 28'h of July, 1844, Mr.
Shore took upon himself publicly to read prayers, preach,
and, on the last-mentioned day, to administer the holy
sacrament of the Lord's Supper, and perform ecclesiastical
duties and divine offices according to the rites and ceremo-
nies of the United Church of England_ and Ireland, in the
unconsecrated chapel at Berry Pomeroy, without and
license or authority for so doing, and contrary to and
in spite of the injunction or monition of the Bishop of
Exeter." Three witnesses had been examined ou that
article, two of whom were clerks to Me. Barnes, and he sub-
mitted that their testimony clearly proved that Mr. Shore
ministered in the chapel on the clays alleged. The third
witness examined was the pew-opener, who declared his in-
ability to state who preached on those occa-ions. He (Dr.
Addams) admitted that there was no proof that Mr. Shore
had administered the sacrament on the day charged, but one
of the witnesses deposed to the table being spread, which
was a near approach to it. The only rear question in the
case was, as to the penalty to be inflicted on Mr. Shore. The
article concluded with a prayer, that the Rev. Gentleman
• might be admonished not to be guilty of such offimces in the
future, and that he be condemned in the costs of the proceed-
ings. The Court, however, would remember that in the
course of the proceedings Mr. Slime had made an affidavit,
in which he swore that he had on conscientious grounds se-
ceded from the Church of England, and that be was a Pro •
testant Dissenter in holy orders. He (Dr. Addams) contended
that Mr. Shore was willing to remain a minister of the Church
of England as long as he could set his bishop at defiance;
but within a short time after being served with the citeticn,
Mr. Shore seceded from the Church. That being so, be
prayed time Court not to admonish the rev. gentleman, but to
pronounce a sentence of dl.rmsition. He apprehended that his
Learned Friends who were opposed to him would raise no ob.
jection to that prayer. It would be the most convenient mode
of disposing of the en tire question.
Dr. RometsoN submitted, .that, unless the rev gentleman
were deposed, there would be nothing to preve.,t him taking
a donative.
The QUEEN'S ADVOCATE (with whom was Dr. Twiss)
appeared on behalf of Mr. Shore. He submittal that the
evidence was insufficient to convict Mr. Shore of the charges
brought against him. It was stated that he had offended
against the laws ecclesiastical, but it was not stated what.
oarticular law or canon he had violated. Tao witnesses
had been examined to prove that he had publicly read
.wayers on the days referred to, and that on the first on-
.eeeen, though not nn the last, he had preached a sermon.
\either of those pti bee however, were meinbere trf the
rev. gentletean's congregation, who alma u the proper
trains to be called to prove the truth of the el Ha don. It
seemed that. in these days, when a cha!*g9 we-' brought
.4-aiiist a clergyman, the whole preeumptioe flee- was to be
revers-d: Every other man Was to be pßstl, innocent
eetil he were found but the Thome,' a elereymen
ehargee with eny deliequency, it we, said that he must
'et punished severely by his bishop. He was sure, however,
. hat it' that Court justice would be done. He contended
Otat reading the prayers was not an offence in a miuieter of
the Chur..th eif England ; on the contrary, he wee boned by
nbric to rovi them either privately or o,_-nly.
l'he charges, against. Mr. Shore were all put conjunctively;
it was admitted that, a part was nit proved, the whole
therefore must fall to the grotuld. lie rested that statement
upon the common and ordirerry proceedings with reference
to indictments. His Learned Friend had suegested that the
punishment should be increased, in consequeeee of the course
which Mr. Share hail pursued. The prayer for a monition,
however, had been made after. the rev. gentleman had
avowed himself a seceder free: the Established Church. IL:
was quite sure :hat the mr ek and mild Prelate, in whose
diocese Mr. Shore had beet' minister:ng, would be surprised
at the sentence which hail now been prayed. On the whole,
Se submitted that Mr. Shure ought to be dismissed from
the suit.
Dr. TWISS argued that there was no proof that there was
a congregation present at the time the rev. gentleman read
the prayers in the chapel. As the chapel was not conse-
crated, it was, according to the 71st canon, equivalent to a
private house, and consequently Mr. Shore had committed
no eceesiastical offence.
Dr. ADDAMS and Dr. ROBINSON having been heard in'
reply,
The Learned JUDGE said that it would be a waste of time
to attempt to show that Mr. Shore was the gentleman who
officiated on the days stated in the libel. The two witnesses
examined had had ample opportunities of knowing Mre
Shore. He trusted that he should be the last person in the
world to debar an accosed party a fair opportunity of making
his defence, but he was surprised to hear the Queen's Ad-
vocate argue that the reading of the prayers on the occasions
charged was a compliance with the rubric. There was no
occasion to specify any particular law which Mr. Shore had
violated, it was sufficient, that the common law of the church
had been transgressed. It was abundantly clear that Mr.
Shore, as a minister in holy orders, did, after the revocation
of his license, perform divine offices in the chapel of Berry
Pomeroy; and the question was, whether it was an ecclsias-
tical offence or not. It could not be contended that reading
the prayers under the circumstances stated was not contrary
to the ecclesiastical law of the land, and the offence here
was increased by the fact of the building having been taken
away front the *Established Church of England. What was
necessary to constitute a congregation had not been speci
deafly defined ; but it was usually considered, according to
ienguage used in the prayers, that when two or three were
eseembled together it was sufficient to form a congregation.
The pew-opener, who had been examined, proved that he
had put the other witnesses in a seat; it was, therefore, evi-
dent there was a congregation on those occasions. It never
was the intentiereof the 71st canon to regard unconsecrated
chapels ae private houses; the term, as employed in that canon,
reant a dwelling-house. It had been said that time charges in
rids case having been lump,4l together, if any ene of them
died the whole fell to theground. 110 was of opinion that there
was no authority on which such a position could be 'mitt-
; lined ; on the contrary, cases had occurred over and over
gain in which parties had been convicted of part of the
charges brought against them. He eves satisfied that theft,
was a sufliciency.proved ageing Mr. Shore to render him
!table to ecclesiastical punishment; time only question was its
deeree. He was not prepared to go beyond the sentence
firit prayed, and to admonish him to refrain from publicly
reading prayers or preaching in an unconsecrated chapel
again. if Air. Shore were guilty of a repetition of his former
eenduct, be would not only be amenable to the bishop, bat
he would be liable to be punished for contempt of court.
He heing a minister of the Church of England, he could not
of his own authority secede from it. He was not a Dissemtt-
ntinistcr, but a minister in from that be
eti 1'..4.1ttl il time articles were fully eredao I:nd eeldires,and
a d,Judge)nonpirseht,i:an nActd.
Shore front efihnding i.t like limner in future, and con-
demned him in the costs of these proceedings. The admo-
nition was to extend to every parish in the diocese of Exeter
or province of Canterbury.
At a
,craved that )ofnthnetigdha3t'
Time Court granted the prayer.
subsequent tai
dt t
not
te
go proctoroat
fofor. rll.lslrd.aSyl..ll-e

T.

ir'eeasboitl:abblead be
11.
ckse
CENTRAL CIIIIOIINA C COTTR
OLD Cu UR T.
(adore the IlEconmat. and Alderman Gums.)
Application WAS made on Saturday to the Court, by
Ballantyno, on the part of falaand and Fabiag, w„.
iu cu~aal.• Mr the ti)rgery of railway scrip, to have the
t tAosbet
opaotsitc:-.oonae:pl
etaitlel ud
teox tt
the
session.
before the grand jury only so late as Friday ni,lit l''und
, the appli.•
absence of the prosecutors, the Court wishe ditto ; but, in the
be in,fntioned

who, with Mr. ClarL H
on and Mr. uddle-
astgollnciin;,: an in
redrketained fore he prosectr.in, app,!ared Li:is mornjng
to consent to the application for postponement.
The RECORDER, after considerable hesitation ordered it to
be placed Drat on the judge's for next session,

Joseph Mortimer, whose atrocious case came on before the
Recorder on Friday, when he was found guilty on two
charges of bigamy and ore of larceny, and when he was
sentenced by the Court on the charge of larceny to seven 1
years' transportation, sentence on the other indictments
being reserved, was this morning placed at the bar to receive
sentence on the charges of bigamy.
The RECORDES said, he thought it right to inform the
prisoner, before pronouncing sentence On the two cases of
bigamy on which he had been convicted, and to give him clearly
to understand that inquiry had been made by the Court,
and information had been received front most respectable
sources, and that according to that his case bore the worst
possible aspect which any case could bear, and that it was
clearly aggravated by his cruel and disgraceful conduct.
The Recorder held in his hand a letter from Mr. George
O'Malley Irwin, a gentleman of the Irish bar, who
wished to have the prisoner transferred to Ireland
to take his trial there if the charges should
have failed here, on a further charge of bigamy, in the case
of Miss Baker, the daughter of Andrew Thker, of Red Hill,
near Boyle, in the county of Roscommon. With regard to
his marriage, the Recorder thought it right to infirm the
prisoner that a respectable surgeon in Liverpool had drawn
the attention of the committing magistrate to the case of
Miss Lovejoy by the following letter:—
" Liverpool, 111, Dale-street, June, 1846.
"Sir,—From the newspaper reports. I perceive that a man,
or rather a monster in human Balm, of the name of A. Morti-
mer, has been brought before you, charged with bigamy, &c.,
and I am happy to find that he is committed for trial, where
I trust his heartless villany will meet its deserts.
"One of his unfortunate victims, Miss Lovejoy, was for
several years a patient of mine, and a more confiding, kind,
or amiable creature never existed. Before she took the un-
fortunate step'which, I have no hesitation in saying, con-
signed her to an untimely grave, she mentioned the circum-
stance to me. I advised her strongly against the union, until
she knew something more of her future partner; but she,
poor creature, too soon gave way, and became the victim of
the scoundrel's machinations. She had not been married
twenty-four hours before she bitterly repented the irrevo-
cable act. In a few days she again sent for me, as a con-
fidential friend.' As soon as she saw me she burst into
tears, and said,' I am a murdered woman ; he has taken every-
thing I possess in the world from me, except the clothes in which
I stand; and to-day (it was then afternoon) I have not
been allowed anything to eat' rhe monster was in
an adjoining room, and I went and remonstrated with him ;
but he maintained a dogged silence. Callous as the fellow
seemed, I think he will not forget that when I left the room
I told him, ' that if that woman died, her blood would be on
his head.' I once more saw her, viz., on the day before they
left. England ; she called on me, she said, for the
purpose of bidding me good-bye for ever.' She
again mentioned to me his brutal treatment, the details of
which were so atrociously revolting that I almost recoil
when I think of them. I wished her, even at the ~eleventh
hour, to reconsider her determination of accompany-
ing him, but she said, that ' although she believed
she should never cross the Atlantic alive, yet that she
had cast her lot with his, and it was her duty to
submit.' I do solemnly declare that I could most conscien-
tiously have accepted her expressions of the conviction that
she could not recover as her dying declaration;' those con-
victions were realised,
,and her husband's object effected.
" I have the honour to remain, Sir, yours, very respectfully,
(Signed) "FREDERICK CRIPPS."
"Mr. Ald. Farebrother.
This letter was accompanied by the following note :
" Sir,—As a matter of public duty, I have taken the liberty
of sending you the enclosed communication as it may tend
to corroborate the testimony (which is already very strong)
that Mortimer's brutal conduct to his wife accelerated her
death; if it is of any service in forwarding the ends of
justice, my object in addressing you will be accomplished.
As the value of testimony depends upon the source whence
it is derived, and as you know nothing of me, allow me to
refer you to Mr. Alderman Sidney, with whom I have the
pleasure of being acquainted, .

" i am, Sir, yours truly,

" F. CRIPPS.

"Liverpool, June, 1846.
" Mr. Alderman Farebrother."
The Recorder proceeded to say that the law regarded
bigamy in its ordinary forms with a determination to deter
heartless vagabonds from committing it; but this case of
kiss Lovejoy stood out alone, for within a day of her mar-
riage all that she possessed in the world was taken from her,
except the clothes in which she stood; she was
even disallowed anything to eat, and hardly
had the prisoner got her body cast into the sea when he re
turned to England, to repeat the cruelty on another. It had,
moreover, been proved upon the trial that he had robbed
his first wife of her property and deserted her ; his object,
therefore, was evidently plunder, and that he pursued
by means the most cruel and inhuman that ever had
been &used. He thought that this was the worst
case that had been recorded in the Court in
which they were; all the mischiefs which attended false
marriages had been more strongly brought out in this in-
stance than in any case he had ever known. The death of his
victim, if it was not absolutely caused by what had occurred,
was, in the opinion of a respectable surgeon, cer-
tainly accelerated by the treatment she had received.
The poor unhappy woman before she embarked
from England expressed her strong conviction that she
would never reach the shores of America alive, and this was
her conviction after she had been dispossessed of all that she
had, and disallowed even the use of the necessaries of life.
(The prisoner here interposed, and denied the truth of all
that was vouched for by Mr. Cripps.)
The RECORDER said that the prisoner would have the
opportunity of an appeal, if he thought proper, to the
Secretary of State ; as for himself, however, he would
do his duty to the public and act in this matter up
to the law—for nothing so heartless, nothing so cruel had
ever reached his knowledge as that. which the prisoner had
perpetrated on his victims, to their perpetual degrada-
tion. (Ti-.e prisoner here reiterated his charge that his
victims were women of bad character.) The Recorder
continued to say that, in addition to robbing them of their
last shilling, antl wronging them by false pretences of mar-
riage, he now spared not their character, but despoiled them
even of that. But were it true as he had said, and if he had
picked them off the street, yet even such must and would be
protected by the law.
Tee COURT then sentenced him to transportation for seven
years on each of the two indictments, the one period to com-
mence at the expiration of the other. He was sentenced to
seven years' transportation on Friday, on the charge of
larceny; but this sentence will commence and expire with
the first of the two sentences pronounced to-day, making in
all only fourteen years' transportation.
Nillram lianfield was indicted for feloniously robbing and
throwing Elizabeth Pullen upon a certain stone pavement,
with intent to do her some bodily injury, dangerous to iife;
with intent to murder her.

The circumstances of this case will be in the recollections
of our readers. The prisoner and the pro4ecutrix cohabited
together, and on the day in que:gion it appeared that they
were quarrelling, and the prisoner beat the prosecntrix in a
most cruel manner; and he was heard to say he would throw
her out of the window; and almost at the same instant the
unfortunate woman was seen to fall from the window, and
she was picked up in an insensible state and covered with
blood. She was taken to the hospital, where she remained
for some time in a most dangerous state ; and upon the ma-
gistrate taking her deposition, she, to the astonishment, of
every one declared that she had thrown herself out of the
window.

The unfortunate woman was called as a witness, and she
repeated this statement; but from the manner in which she
gave her evidence, it appeared very evident that she was
actuated by a desire to screen the prisoner from the conse-
quences of his brutality.
The RECORDER inquired whether a surgeon was in at-
tendance to spoak to the nature of the injury received by
the prosecutrix ?—The Police constable that Mr. Bur-
rell, the magistrate who committed the prisoner, considered
the evidence of a surgeon was unnecessary.
The RECORDER said he was very much surprised that the
magistrate had given such an opinion. The prisoner was
charged with inflicting a bodily injury dangerous to life, and
they had no evidence of a surgeon to show the character of
the injury.
Directions were then given that the constables should go
to the hospital and procure the attendance of thesurgeon ; and
in a short time he entered, and seated that the gentleman
who had attended upon the prosecutrix had gone out, and it
was uncertain when he would return.
In answer to further questions put by the RECORDER, the
constable stated that the prosecutrix was found lying upon
the ground perfectly insensible, covered with blood; and a
portion of her hair and some blood was also found on
a brick upon which she had fallen. He also.stated that she
was three weeks in the hospital before she could be removed.
The prisoner in his defence said that the woman threw
herself out of the window, because he would not let her go
out of the door.

The RECORDER, in summing up, said that it would have
been more satisfactory to have had the evidence of a surgeon;
but still it would be a question for the jury, supposing they
should consider the facts to be proved, whether they could
entertain any reasonable doubt that the injury received was
calculated to endanger the life of the prosecutrix.
The jury returned a verdict of Guilty.
The RECORDER told the prisoner he had been convicted of
a capital offence, and judgment of death would be recorded
against him. The sentence of death would not, however, be
carried out, but, taking into consideration the brutal charac-
ter of the offence, he should teel it his duty to recommend
that he be transported for the term of his natural life.

POLIC INTELLIGENCE.
MARLBOROUGH-STREET.
EXTENSIVE EMBEZZLEMENT BY • SERVANT.— Wm
Grocers, a young man of respectable connexions, was
charged with embezzling various sums of money, received by
him for and on account of his employer, Mr. George Malik-
son, of No. 60, Tottenham-Court-road, confectioner.
The prisoner for the last three months bad been acting as
agent and collector to the prosecutor, and it was his duty to
pay over all moneys that came into his hands on his em-
ployer's account on the same day he received them. Vithin
the last few days the prosecutor accidentally discovered that
the prisoner had received different balances of accounts from
the customers of which he had made no mention. He was
in consequence apprehended at his lodgings in Portugal-
street, Lincoln's Inn-fields, on Sunday morning last, by
Sergeant Fowler, No. 111 of the E

The prisoner was folly committed on two charges of em-
bezzlement, one of 2/., and the other for 10s.
The prosecutor said there was another case against the
prisoner.
Mr. MALTBY sail it might be brought forward against him
at the trial.
The prisoner admitted having kept back the 21., but s3id
he meant to make it good. The 10s. he had paid over to the
prosecutor.

Mr. Mallison denied 1113 having clone so.
The prisoner's defalcations are said to amount to 'between
30/. and 401.

oEs —On -Friday a
PINE APPLES AND Nirruirt, PoTAT •
being the third for the pre-
sale of 1,000 of the former
prey occasions. Al
place inMonument-yard. The prices which
rdmisuetaslaes,
- ong
sent season, took
potatoesp from
they realised werleslecsasstkhsa,n,f theonnew
prevalent disease'
with them were
which did not appetharerteowbaesinafneeitmedpobr3Lttlitoen
of
orchida
At the same tiTe.
Rio ee°"B
phiotp, for the first
.time, from Janeiro, and through the
introduction of which the luxuriant paints, as well as the
fruits of the tropics, are likely to be added extensively to our
rooms and gardens.
ALA.amozo FlRE.—Shortly before eight o'clock on
Saturday night, an alarming fire was discovered raging upon
the premises in the occupation of Mr. Piridgeway, a pianoforte
manufacturer, Noel-street, Soho. The flames originated,
from some cause at present unknown, in the first floor,
in which a deal of work was deposited. The stock being of
an easily ignitable character, the fire .progressed most fear-
fully, and very speedily the flames were to be perceived
rushing out of the windows, both front and hack, with the
greatest impetuosity. The adjoining premises were the
warehouses of Mr. Aldous, a pawnbroker, and for some time
the greatest excitement prevailed amongst the poor inhabi-
tants lest the flame: should extend to that hulPing a,id de-
stroy the pled•ies. The fire was ,xtinguislied by half-past
nine o'clock. The damage dune t..., trio stuck upon the pre-
mises must he considerable, for the flames passed completely
round both floors. The same premises were destroyed-by a I
fire twelve or eighteen mouths since; they
as a coach factory. Were then used