The Sun.
London, England, 1846-03-14 00:00:00

(Before the LORD CIDF,I, BARON.)
. . - - -•

George Hilt was indicted for stealing a gelding, one curt,
and a set of harness, the property of William Hill.
Mr. Huddlestone conducted the case for the prosecution,
and Mr. Selfe defended the prisoner.
It appeared by the evidence for the prosecution, that there
had been some negotiation between a person of the name of
Southwell, and the prosecutor, for the purchase of this horse,
but as they did not agree about price the treaty was broken
off. A short time afterwards the prisoner, who was a ser-
vant of the prosecutor, drove the prosecutor's son to Stam-
ford, and returned with the horse and cart safe, having re-
ceived instructions from the prosecutor's son to return to
Stamford the following day, for the purpose of bringing him
home. Accordingly, the prisoner on the following morning
left the house of the prosecutor at an early hoar with the
horse and cart, but instead of proceeding to Stamford, as
directed, he took the horse to Bridgenorth, having previously
left the cart at a half-way house. At Bridgenorth he dis-
posed of the horse to Dlr. Southwell, who had been iu treaty
for him before, and appropriated the money to his own use.
Mr SELFE addressed the jury for the prisoner, contending
that if, when the prisoner left home in obedience to the di-
rections of the prosecutor's son, he had no intention of steal-
ing the horse, whatever subsequent dishonestyle might have
been guilty of, he could not be convicted on the present in-
dictment.

The LORD CHIEF BARON having summed up,
The jurt• returned a verdict of Guilty.
There was another indictment of a like nature against the
prisoner.—Sentence deferred.
Worcester, March 13.

CROWN COURT.—(Before the LORD CHIEF BARAN.)
Emma Cranmore, aged 29, was charged with having, on
the 19th of February last, at Alvechurch, concealed the birth
of her female child.
Mr. Huddlestone conducted the prosecution.

The prisoner, who was defended by Mr. Beadon, was a
dress-maker, and the body of the child was discovered in a
state of putrefaction by her mistress, under the bed, wrapped
in a piece of black cloth and an old petticoat.
The Learned JUDGE being of opinion that this fact did not
constitute a concealment within the meaning of the Act
stopped the case, and the jury, under his direction, returned
a verdict of Not Guilty.
Daniel Wars, aged 25, a man of remarkably muscular
frame and ruffianly appearance, was placed at the bar,
charged with highway robbery, at Chaddesley Corbett, in
this county.
The prosecutor, an infirm old labourer, bad met the pri-
soner at a public-house, where he paid for his beer; and, in
return for his hospitality, was the same night waylaid by
him, thrown down, and robbed of his purse, containing
two half-crowns and a sixpence. The prisoner nearly
strangled him, and knelt upon his chest till the blood
gushed from.his .ears ; after which, leaving him in an in-
sensible state, he made off, taking also a stick and tobacco-
bax belonging to the man who but an hour before had en-
tertained him.

These facts having been proved by the counsel for the
Crown (Mr. Whitmore), his Lordship summed up, and the
jury returned a verdict of Guilty.
The prisoner, who bad been previously convicted, and
against whom there were two other indictments, was sen-
tenced to ten years' transportation.

HOME ClRCUlT.—Maidstone, March 12.

CIVIL SlDE—(Before Lord Chief Justice DENMAN and a
Special Jury.)
THE QUEEN WATKINS AND OTHERS.
This was a proceeding arising out of the dispute between
the proprietors of the Greenwich stone pier and the water-
men who have established the opposition floating pier at
that place. The defendants were indicted for a nuisance, in
having erected a pier or jetty in the river Thames, and by
that means prevented its free navigation by the public.
Mr. Sergeant Channel!, Mr. Sergeant C. Jones, Mr. Words-
worth, and Mr. Baddeley, conducted the case for the Crown;
and Mr. Sergeant Shee, with Mr. M. Chambers and Mr.
Peacock, appeared for the defendants.
The case occupied the Court for several hours, and was not
concluded until late in the evening; but as the circumstances
have so frequently been laid before the public, it will be un-
necessary to go into a detail of the evidence that was adduced
en the present occasion. The defendants named in the re-
cord were a portion of the owners of the watermen's or float-
iner pier, and the prosecution was instituted by Mr. Sutton
and Sir Richard Dobson, two of the principal proprietors or
directors of the stone pier. It was alleged that the floating
erection abutting in front of the river, near Garden-stairs, and
close to the stone pier at Greenwich, and which was used as
a pier by the watermen's steam -boats, was a hindrance to the
free navigation of the river, and prevented, particularly, any
access being had by wherries to Garden-stairs. In support
of this view of the case a number of witnesses were called,
all of whom expressed their opinion that the pier in question
was an obstruction to the river, and hindered the navigation.
It appeared pretty clear, however, that besides the alleged
inconvenience to the public, there was a very strong feeling
on the part of the proprietors of the stone pier that the rival
pier deprived them of a considerable portion of the pier dues
which they would otherwise receive it it were done away with.
Mr. Sergeant SHEE, on behalf of the defendants, made a
very able address to the jury, and urged with considerable
force that the object of the present indictment was not to
abate a nuisance, but that, in point of fact, it was merely a
struggle by the proprietors of the stone pier to get rid of
their rival, and thus increase their own profits. The
watermen had, by the change that had taken place in
the traffic upon the river, and the introduction of steam-
boats, been deprived of their original means of livelihood, and
they hid been compelled hi consequence to resort to the esta-
blishment of this pier, for landing upon which certain dues
were demanded, upon which alone they depended for sub-
, sistence ; but so far from this being any nuisance or incon-
venience to the public, he said he should show, by the evi-
dence of a number of witnesses, that it was the greatest pos-
sible accommodation.
A number of witnesses were then called, many of whom
expressed their opinion that the pier was no obstruction to
the navigation of the river, and they considered it a very
great accommodation to be able to land from steam-boats at
the pier at Garden-stairs.
Upon cross- examination, however, it was admitted that
before the establishment of the floating pier, persons yere
enabled to land from wherries at the Garden-stairs, that
barges and other craft could get to the adjoining houses and
unload their cargoes, if required, which they were now pre-
vented from doing. One of the witnesses, who had formerly
been a watermen, but who was now one of the proprietors of
the floating pier, also stated that they received three far-
things from each person who landed at their pier, that their
receipts during the year amounted to between twelve and
fifteen hundred pounds, but the whole amount had hitherto
bean expended in litigation.
Mr. Sergeant CHANNEL', in replying to the evidence ad-
duced on behalf of the defendants, urged upon the jury that
they had nothing whatever to do with the question whether
or not this pier was to a certain extent an accommodation to
the public, but whether in point of fact it impeded the na-
vigation of the river; and this, according to his view of the
law, was the only point they had to decide.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE then addressed the jury, and
having intimated it to be his opinion that there had been no
legal defence made out by the defendants, under his Lord-
ship's direction they returned a verdict for the Crown.

Maidstone, March 13.
In consequence of the pressure of the criminal business,
Mr. Sergeant Dowling, both yesterday and to-day, assisted
in disposing of the prisoners, and in consequence of the
valuable aid thu3 afforded by ie Learned Sergeant, the busi-
ness on the Crown side was concluded to-day; and Mr. Baron
Alderson then proceeded to try civil cases.
(Before Mr. Baron ALDERSON and a Common Jury.)

GROOMI3RIDGE V. GORHAM.

This was an action brought by Elizabeth Groombridge to
recover compensation for the loss of her daughter Harriet, by
reason of her seduction by the defendant.
Mr. Sergeant Channell and Mr. Bovell were for the plain-
tiff; Mr. Russell Gurney and Mr. Locke for the defendant.
Mr. Sergeant CHANNELL, in opening the case to the jury,
said that the plaintiff was a widow, and since the death of
her husband she had carried on a respectable business as a
baker at Avlesford in this county. She had brought up a
large family respectably, and Harriet, the unfortunate object
of the present inquiry, was her vounest daughter, and at the
period of the transaction was about twenty-six years of age.
The defendant had previously occupied a cottage belonging
to the plaintiff, and he subsequently set up in business as a
butcher in a shop opposite to the plaintiff's, and they dealt
together, and were on terms of some intimacy, and the result
was, that the plaintiff's daughter was seduced by the de-
fendant. There was not the aggravation in this case, that
the seduction took place under a promise of marriage, but
still there was no doubt that a grievous injury had been in-
flicted by the defendant, and it would be for the jury to say
what damages he ought to pay for his misconduct.
Harriet Groombridge, a good looking young woman, was
then called as a witness. She deposed that the plaintiff was
her mother. There were eleven of them in the family, and she
was the youngest daughter, and was now 26 years old. Her
father died thirteen years ago, and since then her mother
had carried on the business, and she assisted her in it. The
defendant, Ambrose Gorham, was a butcher, and lived oppo-
site to her mother, and they were in the habit of dealing
with each other. In the autumn of 1844 she went to the
shop of the defendant for some meat, and he laid hold of her
and forced her into the parlour, and then committed the act
imputed to him. In the December following she found that
she was in the family way, and on her informing the defen-
dant of the fact, he at first said he knew nothing about it,
but afterwards sent her a letter (produced), in which he ad-
vised her to go away from Aylesford for two or three weeks
before she was brought to bed, and he would pay the expense.
In consequence of this she engaged a lodging at Maidstone,
where she was delivered of a child in June last. The de-
fendant subsequently sent her, at different times, 51. 103.
Cross-examined-:The defendant had never paid any atten-
tion to her, and she had nut spoken to him more than three
or four times when this happened. It was between eight and
nine o'clock in the evening when she went into the defen-
dant's shop. and be laid hold of her directly, and forced her
into the parlour, and acted in the way described. She did
not go to the shop again for a fortnight, and the saint thing
then happened again.
Thomas Groonibridge, the brother of the last witness,
proved that upon his being informed of what had happened,
be went to the defendant, who told him he was very sorry
for what had happened, as it made it " so very unpleasant"
for both parties.
A letter from the defendant, in which he offered to pay
half-a-crown for the support of the child, at the same tune

stating that many people only paid two shillings under simi-
lar circumstances, was then put in and read; and this closed
the case for the plaintiff.
Mr. RUSSELL GURNEY, in addressing the jury 6r the de •
fendant, characterised the action as a most trumpery and
unnecessary one, observing that if there had been any
seduction in the.matter, it was very probable that the de-
fendant himself was the party seduced. As, however, the
present course had been adopted, he could not deny that the
defendant had rendered himself liable, and the verdict must
pass against him, but he trusted that under the circum-
stances the jury would feel that the smallest possible damages
would amply meet the justice of the case.
Mr. Baron ALDERSON having summed up, the jury after
a short deliberation returned a verdict for the plaintiff.—
Damages, 301.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT.—York, March 12.
CROWN COURT.—(Before Mr. Justice COLERIDGE.)
Jacob Gregg, aged 29, who was said to be a Swede, and in
the sea-service, was charged with stabbing, cutting, and
wounding Thomas Rodgers at Hull, on the 7th of Jan. last.
Mr. Rains and Mr. Dears, ley conducted the prosecution.
The prisoner did not understand English, and an old lady,
who could speak the Swedish, was sworn to be interpreter.
The prisoner, on being called to plead, bad said that be
would like to have counsel ; but the case had proceeded some
time without his being defended, the evidence for the prose-
cution being translated to Gregg as it was delivered by the
witnesses. Finally, however, Mr. Sergeant Wilkins offered,
in order to save the time of the Court, to cross-examine the
witnesses of the prosecution, and to conduct the ease for the
prisoner.
Thomas Rodgers, of North Frodingham, the party injured,
stated that he is what is called a shopman. On the 7th of
January last witness was in Leadenhall-square, in Hull, at
about five minutes past twelve at night. He and another
man by the name of Joseph Lee, and some other young men,
were at Jackson's public-house in the square. The prisoner
and two other foreigners were seen coming along the square
at great speed, and apparently much excited. They stopped
in the street for a while, and prosecutor and Lee stood near
them, at about two or three yards off. The prisoner, and
those with them, then went towards Manners. street, leading
into Broadly-street.. Witness went in the same direction,
and on getting to Broadly-street, saw the prisoner and one
of the other foreigners near to a considerable crowd of per-
sons, where they seemed to be engaged in arguing with some
person. One of the foreigners (not the prisoner) held a
drinking glass, and an English sAilor told him that "he must
give the glass up, or, that he would make him." One of these
foreigners was Isaac Inman, another Swede, now to be tried
here upon a similar charge, that of wounding Charles
Saunderson. Prosecutor then rejoined his companion,
Joseph Lee, and in a minute or two, while they were stand-
ing talking at some distance from the crowd, a person said,
"Here are some foreigners coining, with their knives drawn."
Two of the foreigners then made their appearance, the pri-
soner and Inman. Gregg carried a knife. It was a sailor's
common clasp knife, with a string of leather tied to it. The
prisoner first struck Lee in the forehead, and directly after
struck prosecutor several blows, one on the ribs, near the
heart, one behind the ear, and another across the cheek. By
the latter blow a wound was inflicted; it was a wound of
some depth, and caused much blood to flow, though the cheek
was not cut through. The prosecutor stated that he had
been attended by a surgeon, and had suffered much illness in
consequence of that wound.
Other witnesses confirmed all these facts, and stated fur-
ther details of the transaction. One of them, however, proved

that the prisoner and the other foreigner, Inman, had been
attacked with sticks before the prisoner wounded Rodgers.
just
before was shown to have had a stick handed to him
before the assault complained of ; but it was not shown who
it was that had attacked the prisoner and his companion,
and there was nothing to indicate from what motive the pri-
soner could have inflicted the wound upon ikalgers.
Mr. WILKINS, in his address to the jury, remarked upon
the want of practical charity prevailing among some people
towards any who happened to be called " foreigners." He
said it was clear these men must themselves have been
aggrieved before they would have deemed it necessary to
use their knives. It was proved that they had been the
object of an attack, snd that they had been beaten with
sticks only just before the assault was committed; and,
under these circumstances, there was nothing to justify the
supposition that the act of the prisoner was done with any
other intent than that of insuring self-defence.
The jury-, after hearing his Lordship's summing up, agreed
with the Learned Counsel in their view of the case. They
left the box to deliberate, but ultimately found the prisoner
guilty of the common assault only.

NORFOLK ClRCUlT—Huntingdon, March 12.
The commission for this county was opened to-day at nine
o'clock by Mr. Baron Parke, who arrived at that hour from
Bedford, the scene of his exertions yesterday. The calendar,
though it contains the names of twenty-two prisoners, is not
of a heavy character. It embraces one case of arson, one of
burglary, one of housebreaking, one of assault on a woman,
one charge of sheepstealing, and a few of common larcenies.
Of the contents of the cause list it is rather difficult to
speak just now, for it has not made its appearance
yet. Perhaps it awaits the arrival of Mr. Justice
Maule, who has been detained at Bedford trying pri-
soners ; but it is whispered that it can only contain
that fabulous animal, the " single case at Huntingdon," un-
less indeed it be referred before the arrival of the Learned Judge.
CROWN COURT.— (Before Mr. Baron PARKE.)
Eliza Haycock, aged 22, was charged with maliciously
setting fire to one stack of corn, one stack of hay, and one of
straw, on the 2d of January last, in this county.
Mr. Gunning conducted the prosecution, and Mr. Prender-
gast the defence.
The prosecutor in this case was Mr. Bridgfoot, a farmer,
residing in Ramsey Fen, and at the time of the plum's:non
of the offence the prisoner was in his service, having entered
it at last Michaelmas. In consequence of her misconduct
it
would appear that the prosecutor soon had reason to find
fault with her, and to threaten to summon her before the
justices. This occurred twice, the last time being a week
before the day named in the indictment. About five o'clock
on that afternoon the prisoner was out of the house, and in-
stead of attending to her duties, remained absent for half an
hour. About six she came into the parlour where her master
was sitting, and told him in a very excited and alarmed
tone that there was a light in the stack-yard. On this the
prosecutor rushed out and found that the property named in
the indictment was all in flames. There being no help at
hand the three stacks were entirely consumed, and, there
being no possible ground for imputing the act to any stranger,
suspicion fell on the prisoner, whose manner had of llte at-
tracted the notice of her master and his family, but espe-
cially on the previous day, when she was very ditferent from
what she had been before. She was accordingly questioned,
and her answers lent strength to those suspicions, for they
were contradictory in themselves, and opposed to facts within
the knowledge of the family. At one time she said she had
been busy making her master's tea at the critical period just
before the lire burst out, but his sister had herself performed
that office for him in her absence. She then said she had
been out to fetch some sticks for the lire with a lantern, and
that in passing between the stacks she fell down and let fall
the light, and set fire to the stacks, after which she was too
frightened to stop and pick up the lantern, and ran away.
This, however, was no better than the other account, for it
was well known that there was not a stick on the premises,
the farm being a thorough fen one, and supplied with turf
alone for fuel. After this she burst out into tears, and said
she did it because her master threatened to summon he: ;
and when taken before the magistrate she finally admitted
" the job" and said that "it would not have happened if
her master had not threatened to prison' her."
Mr. PRENDERGAST addressed the jury for the prisoner,
contending that the conflagration was not malicious, as it
was the result of accident, arising from the nervous and

excited state of mind into which she had been thrown by
some unknown cause, perhaps the threats of her master ;
while he endeavoured to explain away the effect of her ad-
missions and contradictory accounts by reference to the
same all-powerful cause.
Mr. Baron PARSE told the jury, that unless they thought
the prisoner absolutely insane, they ought not to pay any
attention to the accounts of her manner which had been ex-
tracted on cross-examination from the witnesses. These ac-
counts did not amount to anything like proof of such a state
of mind as would admit of -the prisoner being irresponsible
fur her acts, and if the jury saw nothing in the case to raise
any rational doubt of her having tired her master's property
maliciously, they ought to say that she was guilty of the
charge imputed to her.
The jury, without much hesitation, found the prisoner
Guilty, and she was thereupon sentenced to fifteen years'
transportation.
Mr. Justice Maule reached this place at two o'clock, and
immediately preceeded to try prisoners, the assizes having
turned out a maiden one on his side.

The cases brought under the cognizance of his Lordship
were not of a character to call for any detailed notice.

WESTERN CIRCUIT.— Salisbury, March 12.
CROWN COURT.—(Before Mr. Baron ROLFE. )
Elizabeth Butcher was placed at the bar, and charged, upon
the coroner's inquisition, with the wilful murder of her in-
fant child. An indictment had been preferred against her,
but the grand jury ignored the bill, at which some surprise
has been expressed.
Mr. Hodges appeared on behalf of the prosecution, and
stated the facts of the case to the jury.
By the statement of the Learned Counsel, it appeared that
the prisoner had been a pauper in the Cricklade and Wootten-
Bassett workhouse, and in December last was delivered there
of an illegitimate female child. In the course of the next
month Elie wished to leave the house, and accordingly gave
notice of her intention, as was required by the regulations
of the house on her leaving. The unfortunate baby "'as
stripped of the clothes it had worn in the workhouse sin7olll
birth, and the mother was obliged to take it away
any covering except a shawl, which the mothuert
have when she left. The child was quite wh 11, h eaatkif teet
dor
the mother had left the workhouse,
and dead in a brook of water. ths,etcherldefT'o7raes, ffo(triPnlP. ttwdhel)nne jary
here,tohrer the mother had
thrown into the stream by
whether the child
btoeesnay,
guiltyun de under
fa
et
crime
,n ci,n circumstances
,u
Liei.ddlstt
ow cs;
had died and had been afterwards
he
—klade Union, and was
jr. The Learned
anecook nmeaountitisresle tihnenthceacllerdie
so in December last. The prisoner was there at that time,
and was delivered there of a female child. She gave notice
on the 9th of January that she wished to leave the house,
and at that time she had no clothes to put ox the bady, and
I told the mistress of the workhouse so. She said that she
(the prisoner) had better not leave the house until she had
obtained some from her friends, and told her that by the rules
of the house if clothes were tot brought in none were allowed
to be taken away. The prisoner said that she could not stop
to get any clothes, but must go directly. I took the union
clothes off the baby, and it was then naked. The prisoner
wrapped it up in a shawl she had, and also put a handkerchief
on its head, and a pair of socks on its feet. The matron of
the union was present when I so stripped the child. The
prisoner left the house at about eleven o'clock in the morn-
ing. I was afterwards shown the dead body of a child. It
was the same child.
[At this stage of the case the gaoler stated that the pri-
soner had employed an attorney to instruct counsel to defend
her, but no learned gentleman had, it appeared, received
any brief. The trial then proceeded.'
Ann Coward—l remember meeting the pi isoner on the 9th
of January. She was going on the road from Wootton-
Bassett. She was carrying a child ; it was crying violently.
I spoke to her, taking her for a person I knew. I (lid not
know her before.
[ Here Mr. Slade, the attorney of Devizes, came into Court
anal stated he had been employed to defend the prisoner; but
as the grand jury had ignored the bill against her, be had no
idea she would be tried on the coroner's inquisition, and
therefore had not delivered any brief to counsel. Ile then
handed a brief to Mr. C. Saunders to defend the prisoner.]
Charles Brown—On Friday, the 9th of January, I was
going along the Trinity-road, which is a few miles from the
union-house, and met the prisoner, who had an umbrella
and a small bundle with her. About a mile after I passed
her I had to go over a little bridge, and saw something in
the water which looked like a child. I went back to a cot-
tage near. Mary Ann Longley lived there. She returned
with me, and brought a garden nice, and with it we drew
out cf the water the dead body of an infant child. It was
quite dead. The child was quite naked.
Mary Ann Longley confirmed the witness as to taking the
child out of the water.
John King— I am a policeman, and apprehended the pri-
soner on the 10th of February. She had the shawl and
handkerchief, the same: that had been wrapped round the
prisoner's child's body when she left the union.

Cross-examined—The child was quite healthy when it left
the workhouse. The child had no clothes but those belong-
ing to the tnion.house. It is the custom of the house to
take away the clothes from the children when they are taken
out of the house, even although they have no other clothes,
and were left naked. The child was called Ann Botches.

Henry Dixon—l am a surgeon, residing at Parton. I made
an examination of the body of the child found in the brook
by Brown. I opened the body. The appearance of the
viscera was healthy, and there was nothing which was likely
to cause sudden death.. I even now cannot say what was the
immediate cause of the child's death. I cannot say it was
by suffocation by drowning. There is nothing to enable me
to say it died from suffocation, or that it did not die of suffo-
cation.

This was the case for the prosecution.
Mr. C. SAUNDERS then addressed the jury for the prisoner,
and contended that there was no evidence to show that the
child died from drowning, which was the cause of death
charged by the inquisition, of which they must be perfectly
convinced before they could convict the prisoner. The child
might have died on the road, and as it was illegitimate, might
then have been thrown into the water by the prisoner to pre-
vent her shame being known.
Mr. Baron ROLFE, in summing up, told the jury to take all
the circumstances of the case into their consideration, and
then say whether they thought the death of the child was
from natural causes, or from drowning by the band of the
prisoner. It was not because the surgeon could not dis-
tinctly say whether
.the child died from drowning or not that
they were to acquit her, but they were to decide that ques-
tion looking at all the facts.
The jury, after a few minutes' consultation, acquitted the
prisoner.

ADDRESS FROM THE DUKE OF
NEWCASTLE.
" To MY COUNTRYMEN,
" Encouraged by your former kindness and consideration,
I trust that it may not be mistimed nor unacceptable that I
now again venture to intrude upon your attention.
" About this time last year I presumed to address you
upon a subject of intense national interest then in progress.
I then hazarded an opinion that the same ruthless hand
which planned the elevation of Popery would not scruple to
work the downfall of our agricultural system. You have
now too much cause to lament with me, that my words have
not proved untrue. You have witnessed with astoniehmeet
and detestation the hideous treachery and tergiversation of
public men, which burst forth suddenly upon your incredu-
lous view in the full blaze of its triumphant deformity, sup-
ported by a shameless effrontery unexampled in the annals
of well-regulated states.
"As virtue is proverbially said to be its own reward, so
treachery may be said to be its own perdition,—and thus it
is in this case. The Prime Minister expected that he had so
contrived and so securely plotted his arrangements that suc-
cess Iva certain, failure impossible. No man was ever more
mietaken in his calculations, no Minister ever more deceived
in an estimate of his own controlling (if not despotic) power,
and individual essentiality. Instead of dismay from the fear
of losing him, lie finds that no one desires to retain his
services; and where he thought to raise entreaty, he has
only raised a pitiless storm of scoffs and indignation. Faith
and confidence in hien have ceased, and his political sun is set.
Under protective laws we have flourished, under
them and by them observe well, not in spite of them
Groat Britain has grown into an empire of the first rank for
wealth and power in the universe. Who, in truth, can deny
this fact? Not the merchant, the manufacturer, the trades-
manethe shopkeeper, the artisan, or that humbler but most
deeerving class upon whose industry and labour the wealthiest
merchants and producers depend, as in turn the work-
man depends upon his employer for ample remuneration in
the shape f liberal wages—all of these must perceive that
without protection their prosperity will decline into abject
poverty, and that a full protection is as indispensably neces-
sary to them, as to the British farmers and labourers in
husbandry.
"Now, then, gentlemen of Enaland, stand forward. The
clergy, bold yeomen, trusty farmers, worthy labourers—
all those interested in the cultivation of the soil-stand
forward. Must I stop here ? No; general protection is a
question of vital interest to you also, and you cannot, must
not, shall not, be excluded from the appeal. Without the
grossest injustice to your high national feelings, and an un-
pardonable insult to your patriotism, to your acknowledged
intellect, and comprehensive understanding, I cannot
omit you. I call upon you, merchants, manufactu-
rers. and traders of England, to come forth frankly, boldly,
nobly, as an essentially component part of our great English
brotherhood—stand forward, join us freely, without any
mental reservation whatsoever, and unite with us, your
British brothers, with all your heart and all your soul, in de-
fence and preservation of our Church and State, for involved
in and most intimately connected with them, is the all ab-
sorbing question of general protection to British industry.
" I confidently call upon you, all and each, for your assist-
ance. By your timely aid and determined support you may
bring into power men who, I trust, think like yourselves—
men who have no party but their country, no aspirations
but for its solid and permanent welfare—who are identified
with you and your interests, and who, by their plain deal-
ing, honesty, and English uprightness, will score all crooked
ways, and will undeviatingly pursue those of equity and
truth.
' "You must be prompt and energetic. A general election
may be near at hand. 1 have just witnessed in my own
county a most extraordinary result of British virtue and
moral courage, emanating from and conducted by the awl-
cultural interest alone, which may well be a model of action
and an example to the whole country.
" Believing, as I confidently believe, that we all most
earnestly desire, the peace, welfare, order, and prosperity of
our loved native soil, allow me to entreat you to adopt the
measures so successfully employed in Nottinghamshire.
"Then lose not a day or an hour ; instantly and
busily set to work to form and organise Protec-
tion Societies in every county in England—especially
make choice of a good and influential chairman and a
working committee—associate with you all the fri rids
of protection to British industry, whether farmers or
others—make yourselves acquainted with all your brother
electors—pay the closest and most minute attention to
the registers, and select and communicate with fit, and none
but • the fittest men, to represent you in Parliament ;
have nothing undone ; let your preparations be com-
plete at the earliest period ; and, this done, calmly, but
most determinedly, await the hour of trial, and, when-
ever it does arrive, take into your own hands what is
your own business ; regulate. execute everything for
yourselves, with the energy, the intelligence, the just
and fair, but mil/ending determination of Englishmen,
and you may reasonably hope that, by God's blessing,
you may be enabled to save your insulted and injured coun-
try from the most fearful perils which the machinations or
infatuation of false men and treacherous statesmen ever de-
vised for the degradation and ruin of the land of their birth—
a land whose natives are worthy of all protection, and deserv-
ing of the most ardent exercise of your purest and most
exalted patriotism.
" Believe me to be
" Your ever faithful friend,
" NEWCASTLE.
" P.S. I can scarcely anticipate that this revolutionary
measure, now under discussion, can ever become the law of
the land ; but if, most unfortunately, it should be so, as-
suredly a future national majority will at once decide that an
enactment so atrocious shall no longer continue on the Statute-
book.
" London, March, 1846."