The Sun.
London, England, 1846-08-13 00:00:00

four who had destroyed themselves in their cells since
the present governor had gone there. But that was not
all, he was prepared to prove that twelve others had
made the attempt to commit suicide, and were only
saved by the vigilance of the officer.
The inspectors have examined the records of the pri-
son relating both to the suicides and the attempts at sui-
cide, and have ascertained that of the four prisoners
who have committed suicide, only one had been sub-
jected to punishment of any kind, namely, William
Pearson, who had been confined in a dark cell for
three days on bread and water, for violent and muti-
nous conduct, and for disobedience of orders in refu-
sing, with an oath, to repiek oakum, and for using
insolent and offensive language towards Supervisor
Lawrence. There had been no case of corporal punish-
ment during the time he was in the prison, and up to
that period there had not been a single case of corporal
punishment during the time that Captain Groves was
governor.
With reference to this prisoner, the court before which
he was tried, in passing sentence, observed that they
would not be responsible for the consequences if they
allowed such a hardened offender, nursed in crime, ever
to return to this country.
Charles Shipwerth, twenty-two years of age, sentenced
for life for arson, was received into this prison on the
10th of June, 1845, and destroyed himself by hanging
four days afterwards. This man, during the four days
that he was in prison, between his reception and the act
which terminated his life, was under great depression of
spirits, and strongly protested his innocence of the crime
with which he was charged, having said that he was
going to suffer for a crime that he had never committed.
The prisoner never was subjected to punishment of any
kind.

Thomas Bentley, thirty-two years of age, was re-
ceived into the prison on the 12th of August, 1844,
under sentence of L even years' transportation for stealing
rabbits, and destroyed himself on the following day; on
the night of the 13th, or the morning of the 14th
August ; he never was subject to punishment of any
kind, or cognisant of it in the case of others.
Thomas Perry, twenty-five years of age, convicted of
burglary, and sentenced for fifteen years, was received
on the 25th of August, 1845 ; he destroyed him Self on
the 29th of October in the same year. Ho was never
subjected to punishment of any kind himself, or wit-
nessed corporal punishment in others.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
PRIVY COUNCIL, August 12.
The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council sat to-day
in the Council Chamber, Whitehall. The Lords present were
the Lord President, the Lord Privy Seal, the Lord Chief
Justice of England, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancas-
ter the Vice-Chancellor of England, and the Judge of the
Aimiralty Court. The Attorney and Solicitor-General also
sat with their Lordships as assessors.
IN THE MATTER OF TUE PETITION OF THE PROVOST OF
ETON COLLEGE.
The arguments in this part-heard case were resumed this
morning. The case came before their Lordships upon a pe-
tition presented to her Majesty, by the Provost and Fellows
of the College Royal of Eton, against a scheme proposed to
her Majesty with respect to the College by the Ecclesiastical
Commissioners of England. The following are the more im-
portant facts of the case
" The College Royal of the Blessed Mary of Eten, otherwise
called 'The Kyng's College cf our Ladye of Eton besyde
Wyndsore,' was founded by Henry VL, in 1440, and by
him incorporated and endowed, and invested with many
privileges, by letters patent and charter incorporated into
and confirmed by Act of Parliament, the 20th of Henry VI.
The perpetual advowson of the parish church of Eton was
purchased by the King, and granted to the college in
frankalmoin, and the church was changed into a collegiate
church, and appropriated, united, and annexed to and in-
corporated with the college, with the consent of the then
Bishop of the diocese (Lincoln), in 1443. At the request of
the King, the college was expressly exempted from the
jurisdiction of the archdeaconry of Bucks, and the archi-
diaconal jurisdiction within the parish and collegiate church
of Eton was conferred upon the provost and his successors
by the Bishop of Lincoln, with the consent of the Arch-
deacon, to whom an indemnity was assigned of 225. 6d. per
annum, charged upon an estate belonging to the college,
which has ever since been regularly paid. In 1445 or 1446
a body of statutes was granted by the King to the college,
and all collegiate persons are sworn to obey these statutes.
One of these statutes (49th), "Of the Metropolitan Visita-
tion of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the ordinary Visi-
tation of the Bishop of Lincoln," contains the following
passage :—" Also, we have it much at heart that all and sin-
gular the ordinances and statutes of our said Royal College
by us made and to be made may for ever be fully and
efficiently observed, and all the property of the same faith-
fully preserved and discreetly controlled, and we firmly
hope that the most Reverend Father in Christ the Arch-
bishop of Canterbury, the Metropolitan of the said college,
the Rev. Father in Christ the Bishop of Lincoln, the
Diocesan of the same, who, for the time being, as they
ought to be the visitors and ordinaries of our said college
( sicut dicti nostri Colleyii Visatores et Ordinarii esse debebunt )
so they will be favourable conservators and chief protectors
of the same college, and of all and singular persons and
possessions spiritual and temporal, and of the rights,
liberties, and privileges of the same; and especially of
our statutes and ordinances aforesaid; on account of which
our singular confidence in them, we have not cared to make
our said college exempt from the same (non curavimus exemp-
turn fiseere ab eisdem) by the authority of the Apostolic See ; '
and it wills that the Archbishop, as often as he shall visit
the diocese of Lincoln as metropolitical, by himself, or his
(suns), and the Bishop of Lincoln, when they shall have been
required by the Provost, Vice Provost, Bursars, or Fellows,
also without requisition, every three years, when he
should ordinarily visit his cathedral church and diocese,
shall once freely come to the college by themselves or their
commissaries (except the Provost of Eaton), and others
named in the statute, and shall call together the Fellows
and other persons of the college; " which same most reve-
rend and reverend fathers and such their commissaries afore-
said, by force of this, our present ordinance and statute, we
will more fully to have power of inquiry most rigidly concern-
ing all and singular the articles contained in our ordinances
and statutes by the Provost, &c. ; also, if it befit under the
oath of the same to be administered to them to speak the
full and simple truth (to wit), if our ordinances and statutes
aforesaid had been duly executed and also observed by all of
them," &c. ; " and concerning any excesses, negligences,
crimes, and faults whatsoever of our said royal college, ac-
cording to the full force, form and effect of the ordinances
and statutes for the correction and punishment thereof,"
&c. In short, this statute confers the most ample
visitatorial powers upon the Archbishop of Canterbury
and the Bishop of Lincoln, extending to deprivation;
but expressly takes away from them, " any other
power in our said college, as over the persons of the same, or
to other matters than those contained in our present statute,
and our other statutes and ordinances, or that they may be
able, or that any of them can, by reason of the jurisdiction
which he or they have in the same, or over any of the persons
thereof, cite, or cause to be cited, summon, or cause to be
summoned, out of the said college, the Provost, or any fellow,
or any other collegiate person, whatsoever in the same; but
we, as much as is in us, entirely deprive them, and each of
them, of such power by force of this our present statute
(sed potestatem hujusmodi eis et eorum culiibet prcesentis
statuti nosti i vigore in quantum in nobis est adimimus omni
mod)). The Archbishop of Canterbury, in 1446,by deed under
seal, accepted, ratified, and approved all these statutes,
especially the 49th, as did also the Bishop of Lincoln
By virtue of the premises, the Provost and college had
claimed and exercised exclusive and peculiar ecclesiastical
jurisdiction within the parish of Eton. The Bishop of Lin-
coln (within which diocese Eton was localy situate) never
exercised, or attempted to exercise, any diocesan jurisdic-
tion in the parish or collegiate ;church of Eton. Marriage
licenses are granted by the Provost, and no churchwardens
have ever been elected or appointed by the parish, which
has been wholly exempted from church-rates, repairs and
other expenses, ordinarily the subject of a church-rate,
having been defrayed by the college. The visitatorial
power has been constantly exercised by the Bishops of Lin-
coln, and occasionally by the Archbishops of Canterbury.
The Act 6 and 7 William IV., c. 77, which created the body
politic and corporate, called " the Ecclesiastical Commis-
sioners for England," enacted (sec. 10) that the Commis-
sioners shall from time to time prepare and lay before his
Majesty in Council such schemes as shall appear to them
best adapted to carry into effect the recommendations
therein mentioned, and shall prepare such measures as may
appear necessary for that purpose, and they are empowered
to propose in any such scheme, " that all parishes,
churches, or chapelries, which are locally situate in any
diocese, but subject to any peculiar jurisAic•ion other than
the jurisdiction of the bishop of the diocese in which the
same are locally situate, shall be only subject to the jurisdic-
tion of the bishop of the diocese within which such parishes,
churches, or chapelries are locally situated." In July, 1837,
the Commissioners proposed to her Majesty, with the con-
sent of the Bishop of Lincoln, that upon the first avoidance
of the see of Oxford, the county of Bucks (forming the arch-
deaconry of Bucks), then part of the diocese of Lincoln, should
be detached therefrom, and annexed to the see of Oxford.
This scheme was ratified by her Majesty, and in November,
1845, the see of Oxford becoming void by the translation
of the then Bishop of Bath and Wells, the county of
Bucks became parcel of the see of Oxford. Meanwhile
.t to
the e
the Ecclesiatical Commissioners, in August, 1845,
lye
c situatet
pro-
posed to her Majesty, inter alia, that, after the Ist of
January, 1846, all parishes and places local
within the diocese of Lincoln, and all churches and chapels,
and
locally situate
whole
withinc ergy andte
limitsothers
ofo of
such herela parishes
be i
i Majesty'ssubjects
and places,
should, notwithstanding ary peculiar jurisdiction or exemp-
tion from jurisdiction they might claim,
jurisdiction of the bishop of the diocese within which they
were locally situate, and to no other eclesiastical jurisdiction
whatever. This scheme was likewise ratified by her
Majesty. The county of Bucks having, by its transfer to
the see of Oxford, in November, 1845, ceased to form part
of the diocese of Lincoln, whet the aforegoing scheme took
effect (Ist of January, 1846), it had no operation upon the
peculiar or exempt jurisdictions in that county. On the
29th of April last the Commissioners laid before her Ma-
jesty another scheme, proposing that all parishes aril places
locally situate within the diocese of Oxford, and all churches
and chapels and the whole clergy and others, her Majesty's
subjects, locally situate within such parishes and places shall,
notwithstanding any peculiar or other ecclesiastical jurisdic-
tion or exemption claimed by them, be subject only to the
jurisdiction and authority of the Bishop of Oxford; " pro-
vided that nothing herein contained shall deprive the colle-
giatei church and parish of Eton of their present exemption,
if any, from the jurisdiction of the Archdeacon of Bucking-
ham." The Provost and fellows of Eton objected to this scheme
on several grounds :-1. Because, Eton being a royal foun-
dation, and having hitherto enjoyed an exemption from
ecclesiastical jurisdiction, no evil consequences have arisen
2. Because
pariah and college is in all respects satisfactory.no
een
sug_
no particular or peculiar benefit or advantagel b
or diocese,
therefrom ; on the contrary, the ecclesiastical state of the
gested as likely to accrue to the college, parish,
the immediate and necessary consequence w o
"fellows, and
from the abolition of this peculiar jurisdiction..3e; Because
the
the Bishop of Lincoln, as visitor, the Provost,
fellows,
collegiate persons amenable in the samo capacity, and all
in collision ; and to render the Provost,
acit to two
Because the
collegiate clerks, and the Bishop of Oxford, as ordinar.)
different and possibly conflicting tribunals. 4.
charter, privileges, and statutes of the college having been
• e
lawfully granted, confirmed and recognised, and found
impolitic in
highly beneficial, it is unjust in principle, and
practice, to interfere in the manner proposed withoutsay that the
a ainsturgent the
cause, or proposed advantage, or charge made g
college. The Commissioners, on the other hand,
time f-
does not appear to them to have at any
exemption from episcopal jurisdiction, claimed hyp
in e coactllegeex,
isted ; that the parish of Eton, and the site of the Royal
College, were, at the date of the foundation of the college,
and continued to be till November last, within the diocese
of Lincoln, the Bishops of which see having been, under the
statutes of? the college, ordinaryivisitors, filled tho twofold
character of diocesan and visitor, which had given rise to
the supposition of an exemption from episcopal jurisdiction;
whereas the episcopal authority could not merge in the
visitatorial authority; and there is no evidence of any act or

a Bishop of Lincoln, by which the collegiate church of Eton
was exempted from the diocesan authority, whilst confirma-
tion and other rites performed there by Bishops of Lincoln
could only have been performed by them as ordinaries of the
diocese. But should the petitioners be able to establish the
exemption they claimed, then the Commissioners submit that
that exemption ought not to be continued, one of the objects
of the Act of 6th and 7th William IV., c. 77, being to put an
end to such anomalies. If, therefore, the collegiate church
and parish of Eton are not exempt from episcopal jurisdic-
tion, they are not affected by the scheme; and if they are
exempt, that church and parish will under the proposed
scheme be placed under the episcopal jurisdiction of the
bishop in whose diocese they are locally situate, according to
the spirit and intent of the Act.
➢lr. BETHELL resunled his arguments in behalf of the pe
titiontrs, and the case appears likely to occupy several days.

SECONDARIES, COURT, August 12.
(Before Mr. Secondary POTT-ER.)
ASSAULT.-NEYLAND V. PEARSON.

This was an action to recover damages for an assault. Mr.
Ryland appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Sergeant Jones for
the defendant, who suffered judgment to go by default.
The facts of the case, as elicited from the plaintiff's wit-
nesses, were these : —The plaintiff is a dealer in Bass's Indian
ales, and the defendant a licensed victualler, keeping the
Mitre. in Chancery-lane. On the 6th of July last the
plaintiff took six dozen of ale, and charged it at six
shillings a dozen, which the defendant objected to, and
said that it was agreed when the dozen was sent as a
sample that it should be only ss. 6d. per dozen, and he
would not pay any more, and plaintiff might take it away
again, on which plaintiff called him a d—d humbug, &c., &c.,
and said he would not do so. Defendant told him not to
repeat the offensive words, which, however, he did, and
defendant then went round the corner and struck him in
the face. It was net pretended that the injury was severe,
but plaintiff went to an attorney a short distance
away, who immediately sent a letter requiring com-
pensation for the injury and an apology, also
payment for the beer and the next day writs were issued.
Defendant paid for the beer, but determined to take the
opinion of the jury as to the assault.
Mr. Sergeant JONES contended, that although the de-
fendant could not justify the assault, yet that, if the jury
sanctioned such conduct by their verdict, they would be
encouraging actions of this kind, and no tradesman would be
safe from insults and imposition.
The jury retired for two hours, and at three o'clock gave
51. damages.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.
Numerous complaints have been lately made against
persons to whom bills have been entrusted by individuals
desirous of obtaining cash for them. One case, which
came before Alderman Gibbs three times, and which
shows the tenacity with which a certain class of bill-
discounters grasp what they have not the least claim to,
will serve as a sample, and, probably, operate as a
warning.
On Thursday last John Singer Sydserff was brought
up in the custody of a policeman, charged with having
stolen the acceptance of Mr. Lewis, one of the Society of
Friends, for 1271.
It appeared that Mr. Lewis gave the bill to a Mr.
Dixon to get discounted. Mr. Dixon applied to the
prisoner, who said he could get it cashed after having
seen a copy of it, and obtained the original upon the un-
derstanding that he would produce the amount or the bill
itself within a certain time. The prisoner laughed at
the repeated demands made by Mr. Dixon, who, of
course, informed the acceptor of the difficulties in which
he was placed. Mr. Lewis, apprehensive that a danger-
ous use might be made of the instrument, gave the pri-
soner into custody. The prisoner voluntarily entered
into his recognizances to appear next day, to answer the
accusation, Alderman Gibbs advising him, at the same
time, to settle the business by delivering up the bill to
the person from he had received it, there not being the
shadow of excuse for its detention.
On the following day Sydserff appeared before the
Alderman, accompanied by Mr. Woolfe, of the offices of
Mr. Flower, to make his defence.
Mr. Lewis having represented the particulars,
Alderman GIBBS asked whether the prisoner had re-
ceived instructions in writing to get the bill discounted?
Mr. Lewis replied in the negative, but areceipt, signed
by the prisoner, for the bill was produced; and it was
argued that the receipt was quite argument enough of
the obligation of the prisoner to return it.
Alderman GIBBS said that on no point could a felony
be proved against the prisoner ; but if the aceeptor had
taken care to deliver written instructions with the bill
when he gave it to be discounted, it would be in the
power of the magistrate to commit the party detaining it
for misdemeanour.
Mr. Woolfe said that his client hal beet, apprehended
as a common thief in the street and was very ignomi.
niousls treated.
Alderman Gmets—Why does he not give the man his
bill ? Mr. Woolfe—My client does not know Mr. Lewis,
the acceptor, at all. The only person who had any deal-
ing with him is Mr. Dixon, and how would be be justi-
fied in handing ever the bill to .a stranger ? It is most
monstrous that a person should be seized upon in the
street as a robber by a man whom he never saw before,
and in a case in which there is not the slightest testi-
mony that an offence has been committed.
Alderman GIBBS asked whether Mr. Dixon, who had
handed the bill to the prisoner to get it dis.tounted, was
present, and was informed that he was not in the jus-
tice room.
Alderman Geniis read the section of the Act which
directs that written instructions are necessary in cases
where persons are employed to get bills discounted, and
said he regretted that he could render no assistance to
the prosecutor, who must bring an action as the only
means of procuring restitution. He again advised the
prisoner to restore the bill to the owner
The prisoner was then, very much to his satisfaction,
discharged, but made no promise.
On Monday last, however, Mr. Dixon, who bad been
accidentally abFent on Saturday, and who considered
that he was called upon to make every effort in his
power to get back the bill, caused Sydserff to be appre-
hended in the county of Middlesex, on the supposition
that the magistrates at Wosship-street Police Court
would find out some Act of Parliament better adapted to
his taste. He was, however, mistaken. The Worship-
street magistrates sent the prisoner back to the Man-
sion-house, where Mr. Dixon, in: teed of Mr. Lewis, ap-
peared as prosecutor.
Alderman GIBBS again heard the evidence, which
presented no new feature, and again recommended that
the bill should be given up to the owner.
Mr. Woolfe, for the prisoner, said that his client had
committed no offence, and called upon the Alderman to
discharge him.
Alderman GIBBS (to the prosecutor)—You have no
remedy except by action. The omission of the written
instructions to the person intrusted with the bill has
put you out of Court. I discharge the prisoner for
want of evidence.
The prisoner was then, evidently to the regret of the
respectable persons present, discharged.
TRAVELLING THROUGH THE CITY.—The Lord Mayor
has for a considerable length of time dedicated the in-
terval between nine and twelve o'clock on every Satur-
day to the hearing of cases of complaint against omni-
bus drivers and conductors, and his Lordship's activity
in causing the removal of obstructions has obtained for
him the warm thanks of the inhabitants of the leading
streets in his extensive district. His Lordship some-
times hears from fifty to seventy complaints on the ap-
pointed day.
The plan adopted by his Lordship has been exceed-
ingly efficacious. Instead of fining the violators of the
law the largest amount of penalty, he inflicts no higher
fine than 10s., with the alternative of 14 days' imprison-
ment for each offence. That sentence subjects a delin •
quent to very low diet, so that if he refuse to pay in
pocket, he must pay dearly in person, and he cannot
upon leaving prison boast of a triumph over the Beak.
The offt•nder, on the contrary, upon whom a large
penalty is inflicted, with the alternative of a longer period
of confinement, is not subjected to the pinching diet which
is measured out to the former, so that he willingly ac-
cepts the imprisonnient, at the end of which he resumes
his occupation, after having escaped the pecuniary inflic-
tion, and been supported at the expense of the City. In
most of the former instances the masters pay the ten
shillings for the misbehaviour of the servants, and com-
pel them to pay back the amount by instalments, so
that the efficacy of the law is by such experiments most
completely tested.

ROYAL VISIT TO THE CITY BARGE.—On Monday,
a, the floating monster of the Thames, the City barge, so
much famed for fun and festivity, was lying under the broad
shadows of the trees at Kew, about three o'clock, having just
received on board the Committee of the London Bridge Ap-
proaches and their wives and daughters, and several other
members of the Corporation and their ladies, the party was
honoured in a manner they little expected. Sir Peter Laurie,
casting his searching eye around to fled some new matter of
entertainment, espied his Royal Highness the Duke of Cam-
bridge calmly surveying the civic preparations for dinner.
Overjoyed at the discovery, the Knight, with true corporatic
hospitality, proposed to ISIr. Jones, the Chairman, to invite
his Royal Highness to partake of the good things provided in
the barge. The Duke accepted the invitation in the spirit of
a gentleman, and accompanied Mr. Jones and Sir Peter
Laurie in the shallop to the barge, where his Royal Highness
was received with the most respectful greetings of the com -
pany assembled on the deck, to do him honour. His Royal
Highness remained for some time on board, and expressed
ment, his Royal H
d
• ness was obliged to take leave of the
wmausc ha g, , rrai
et ihfl ctartei oa nt , , a tt
at hhei
me n t elrnt a
ci no mn
seencitu, a
nwche 1
oc
fh ha
ne de encgl
aa
gr eed.
igh
civic brethren long before he wished to make his departure.
The company, it is needless to say, were delighted with such
an accession to their enjoyments. "The citizens and their
ladies"—to use the poetical language of one of the party—
"were highly charmed with the scene," and after the depar-
ture of his Royal Highness, were beautifully brought together
lbiyghtthfeamntuassitei,c
COMMISSION OF ESCHEAT, LONDON.—SEIZITIIE OF THE
wtoheisc.l';
ESTATE or AN ALIEN.—Yesterday afternoon a Commission of
played to the elegant display of "their
Essheat was opened by. Messrs. Waddington, Pollock, and
Maule, at the Secondaries' Office, Basinghall-street, to ascer-
tain whether Mrs. Amelia Susan Maria Mayes was or was
not an alien, and if she was, of what property she was
t o lier
1.1 for a
pos-
sessed in the City of London. The facts were these :—The lady
i 3 the natural daughter of Mr. Jens Wolff, who was formerly
the Danish Consul in London, and was born at Paris of a Mrs.
Tovey, whom Mr. Wolff afterwards married. Mr. Wolff
British
subject.
T he having
Crown,made a will, bequeathing property in London, Midllesex, and
Surrey, to his son, and after his death to his daughter, Mrs.
Mayes, who resided abroad, and was married to an officer in
athberoaßdewlgasiannota su
army.
The property
her life, the Learned Commissioner said it became escheatedr
to the Crown, as Mrs. Mayes being illegitimate and born
a right to take to it; and would no doubt, as fallen
it therefore,
al ways did,
act with liberality and justice to the parties interested,
p ies
these proceedings being chiefly for the protecti)n of the pro-
perty. The jury found that the property was of the value of
401. per annum, within the jurisdi • ction of the Sheriffs of
London.

BRIGHTON, Auo. 12.—The Countess de Bruce, Earl
of Templetown, and Captain Maccan arrived here yesterday
by the Magnet steamer from Dieppe.
THE POTATO DISEASE IN WALEs.—We have hitherto
abstained from noticing the spread of this disease in our own
immediate neighbourhood, hoping the accounts that reached
us were premature and unfounded, but we are now reluc-
tantly compelled to admit their accuracy, and also that there
is every reason to expect that the calamity will be worse than
that of lad year.—Cambrian, Aug. 7.