The Sun.
London, England, 1848-03-09 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, THURS DAY EVENING, MARCH 9, 1848.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
ROUSE OF COMMONS, Match 8.
ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
The amendment having been withdrawn,
Mr. HENLEY then moved the omission of a num-
ber of words beginning at the 17th line with the
words "so much," and ending with the word,
"mainprise."
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL stated the opi-
nions which he had formed with respect to the powers
of some of the Acts proposed to be repealed. He thought
that in consequence of the ambiguity of the words,
in the 9th and 10th Victoria, c. 27, repealing the
penalties of Elizabeth, it might be open to a question
whether the violation of the statute was not still an
offence at common law.

Mr. LAW seconded the motion of the Honourable
Member for Oxford, for the omission of the words.
He differed with the Learned Attorney-General as
to the effect of the words of the 9th and 10th Vic.
These words had been introduced upon the most
serious consideration by Lord Lyndhurst, and their
object was to keep alive, as it were, the offence, by
removing the penalty which had previously attached
to it, and making the violation of the Act an offence
at common law, indictable under the form of a viola-
tion of the statute.
After a few words from MI-. GOULBURN and Mr.
NEWDEGATE,
Mr. HILDYARD wished to know from the At-
torney-General what offence at common law the vio-
lation of the statute of the Ist of Elizabeth would be,
the 9th and 10th Vic. being considered as repealing
the penalties contained in the original statute.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that a denial
of the temporal supremacy of the Crown was treason
at common law.
Mr. LAW wished to know from the Attorney-
General whether it was his opinion that a denial in the
terms of the Ist of Elizabeth of " the spiritual and ec-
clesiastical supremacy of the Crown" would or would
not be an offence at common law?
The ATTORNEY- GENERAL said that in answer
the question of the Hon. and Learned Member he
would state that an Act which should assert the
ecclesiastical and spiritual supremacy of any other
party in opposition to the Crown, which was de-
slared by statute " pre-eminent in this realm "
would be an offence at common law.
After a few words from Sir R. Inglis, Mr. Goul-
burn, Mr. Henley, and Mr. C. Anstey.
Mr. SHELL said the question in this case was
whether they would keep an inoperative statute upon
the book. The pains and penalties of the statute of
Elizabeth had been abrogated, its sting had been
withdrawn. What was then the use of keeping
it upon the statute-book ? The statute it-
self contained a direct falsehood, and why was
not this false and offensive statute to be repealed ?
(Hear, hear.) That statute states that the Pope had
no authority in this country ; the Pope had a spiritual
authority—he had the appointment of bishops in this
country. Mr. Justice Coleridge had said " that the
Pope was the rightful head of the Christian
world"—(Cries of " No, no")—at least, before
the Reformation.—(Laughter.) He had collected
this to be the opinion of that Learned Judge from
remarks he had made in a judgment recently de-
livered by him. The words he had put into his
mouth were not the precise words that his
Lordship had used.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.)
If the Pope, then, was the head of the
Christian world before the Reformation, he
still exercised de facto a spiritual authority in this
country. The bishops of the Roman Catholic
Church nad been recognised by various Acts of this
country ; they had been appointed upon commissions
of trust; they had been given precedence to by
various Acts.—(Cries of " No, no.") He insisted
that they had been so appointed ; the title of Roman
Catholic archbishops and bishops had been recognised.
[An Hon. Member, "Not Roman Catholic."] The titles
of archbishops and bishops had been introduced into
various Acts. Those technical expressions intimated
the spiritual authority of the Pope. The statute
stated what was not true ; it states that the Pope had
no authority; he (Mr. Sheil) maintained that he had,
and that the statute spoke a direct falsehood.—( Hear.)
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said that the
fact of the recognition of the Roman Catholic
bishops could not be denied. The 9 and 10 Vict.,
which had been alluded to, was brought in by the
Government of which he had the honour of being a
member. That measure had been introduced by the
then Government, upon the recommendation of the
Criminal Law Commissioners, to whom had been re-
ferred the whole question of obsolete statutes affecting
the religious opinions of the people of this country.
It was the intention of her Majesty's Government upon
the fullest consideration to propose by that Bill the
entire repeal of the Ist of Elizabeth, the statute now
under discussion. Lord Lyndhurst, who was at that
time the High Steward of the University of Cam-
bridge, apprehended no danger from the measure, and
he introduced that Bill into the House of Lords.
The Hon. Member fur Dungarvan (Mr. Sheil) had
said that the sting had been withdrawn from this
statute ; then in such case the common law would not
be in the least degree affected. If, however, the
sting be not withdrawn, then he, for one, certainly
thought that, in good faith and honour, he was bound
to see that the sting was withdrawn.—(llear, hear.)
If the common law be inoperative to punish a party
in this country for denying the supremacy of her
Majesty, he would be quite content that the common
law should not create that an offence which affected
the liberty of conscience of more than one-third of
her Majesty's loyal subjects. He saw no danger in
leaving the common law inoperative in such matters,
for any attempt to enforce that law would be per-
fectly inconsistent with the peace and liberty of the
people of this country.—(Hear.) With respect to an
opinion of the Learned Attorney General, that the
denial of the supremacy of the Crown amounted in
common law to treason, he must say that he felt
considerably surprised by the announcement of such an
opinion.—(Hear, hear.) He had a perfect horror of
such an opinion, because if every denial of the su-
premacy of the Crown could be construed into treason,
then would a toast which was very fre-
quently given, viz., " The Sovereignty of the People,"
place the persons proposing that toast in danger of
an indictment for high treason.—(Laughter.) He
had no hesitation whatever in giving his most cordial
support to the repeal of the clause recited in the Bill
as it now stood.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. NEWDEGATE supported the amendment
Mr. 11. DRUMMOND recollected the time when
a Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland was ejected from his
office for proposing the sovereignty of the people. The
motto of the Qtieen was Dieu et mon droit, and he could
not allow the Roman Catholics to be the only legal-
ised traitors in the country.—(Hear, and laughter.)
After some observations from Mr. Spooner, the
Earl of Arundel and Surrey, Sir R. Inglis, Mr. Sheil,
and Mr. Gardner,
The Committee divided, when there appeared—
For amendment ll9
Against it
_ _ .

Majority against the amendment ..-32
The amendment was consequently lost.
On our admission to the gallery, we found
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL on his legs, mov-
ing the omission of certain words in the clause, for
the purpose of acknowledging the authority of the
Pope on certain matters.
Mr. C. ANSTEY supported the omission of the
snords.
Mr. NEWDEGATE opposed the omission of the
words.
Colonel SIBTHORP also opposed the motion.
After some observations from the ATTORNEY-
GENERAL,
Mr. LAW, in supporting the amendment of the
Hon. Member for the county of Warwick, warned the
Committee of the danger they were running in legal-
ising the introduction of bulls into this country,
-which might ultimately lead to the subversion of the
honour of the country. In a few days they
would, no doubt, be called upon to consider
a Bill to establish diplomatic relations with
the Court of Rome, and what the end of
this mischievous system of legislation would
be he was really at a loss to say. There was every
prospect, however, of our being mixed up with the
disputes of half-revolutionized states of Europe, and
it therefore behoved every Member of the Committee,
who valued the peace of his country or the safety
of his Sovereign, to take care not hastily to pass
these pernicious measures.
After a few words from the CHANCELLOR of
the EXCHEQUER, who suggested that they should
only repeal so much of the Act of Elizabeth as re-
lated to the bulls mentioned in the preamble, .
Lord MAHON sail the suggestion of the Right
Hon. Gentleman would certainlyiremove his objection
to the clause.
Mr. LAW said it was much too grave a subject to
be dealt with in so inartificially a manner as sug-
gested by the Right Hon. Baronet; and, in order to
avoid all future doubt upon the question, they ought
to recite and re-enact so much of the Act of Elisabeth
as the House wished to continue on the statute-book.
Mr. C. ANSTEY had no objection to adopt the
proposal of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman the
Recorder, but the Acts of Elizabeth were so compli-
cated that it would be difficult in the present day to
re-enact them.—(llear, and laughter.)
'Mr. STEWART said there were bulls both of a
dangerous or treasonable and of an innocent charac-
ter; and if he understood the Right Hon. the Attor-
ney-General, he proposed by his amendment to legalise
the introduction into this country of bulls of the
...SEW" latter,flenription. Now, would it not be safer to leave
~...------ this clattge as it stood, and legalize the introduction
,y`,`
'';•'
",. of innocent bulls by a separate and distinct enactment ?
~ , After a few words from the Earl of MARCH,
" 1f.,":_±114,.,- Mr. SHELL said, in the course of this discussion
14:7 the Hon. Baronet the Member for the University of
Oxford had attributed falsehood to him in connexion
7:-'-1....__ :With a statement which he (Mr. Sheil) had repre-

Ar. a

sented Mr. Justice Coleridge to hate trade relating
to the Pope. Had such an imputation come from any
other Hon. Gentleman he should have felt himself
called upon to ask for an explanation.—(Oh, oh.) But,
in order to justify the Hon. Baronet, he had been
out and copied the exact words Mr. Justice Coleridge
used, which were these :—" If the Pope had been con-
tent with his power as patriarch, he might have re
tamed his appellate jurisdiction, which rightly be-
longed to him as the universal head of the whole
Christian church."
Sir R. H. INGLIS doubted whether the Right
Hon. Gentleman had acted wisely in reviving this
discussion, but notwithstanding the insinuation of the
Right Hon. Baronet, he trusted he knew well enough
how to behave himself as a gentleman, and a Christian
one too.—(Hear, hear.) He doubted much whether
even the words the Right Hon. Gentleman had just
used would justify the statement he had made, but
he thought, as it might be asked the Right Hon.
Gentleman whether it was customary to take the
opinions of a Learned Judge from a newspaper report
or from the accredited reports of Adolphus and Ellis?—
(Hear, hear.) He could, however, assure the Right
Hon. Gentlemen that he never intended to impute
falsehood to him, but what he did mean to convey to
the Committee was, that the Right Hon. Gentleman
had drawn a conclusion from a statement which was
not consistent with the fact.—(Hear, hear.)
After a few words from Mr. SHEIL,
Sir J. GRAHAM wished to know exactly how
they stood with regard to the clause ? If the proviso
proposed by Government was insisted upon, he should
feel it to be bis duty to vote against the clause.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
Government proposed to add the proviso now.
Mr. LAW said, then he would move as an amend-
ment that the Chairman do report progress, and ask
leave to sit again.
The Committee then divided, when there appeared,
'Noes

Ayes

Majority against reporting progress . —5l
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER then
moved the insertion of several words, limiting the
prohibition pertaining to the introduction of bulls
into this country.
Colonel SIBTIIORP then moved as an amend-
ment that Mr. Bernal do now leave the chair.
Mr. MILES seconded the amendment. _ _

After a few words from the Attorney-General,
Mr. M. J. O'Connell, Mr. Law, and the Earl of
Arundel and Surrey,
Colonel SIBTIIORP said, that when he found
the House disposed to adopt every trick, even treason-
able ones--(Laughter)—to carry them through the
Rouse, he should always feel it his duty to stand up
for the rights, the liberties, and the throne of his
country. He was responsible for his conduct not only
in the House but out of it.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
suggested that the most proper course, considering
the lateness of the hour, would be for the Chairman to
report progress.
Mr. C. ANSTEY said that after the unfair man-
ner in which it had been endeavoured to get rid of
the Bill, he should feel it his duty to take the sense
of the House upon the motion.
Sir G. GREY said that he did not see what good
could result from dividing on the motion.
Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL said that, as the Learned
Recorder, who was a judge of the land, had stated
that he could not understand the clause, perhaps it
would be better to allow him three weeks to under-
stand it, and by that time, with the assistance of the
Gallant Colonel (Sibthorp), he would no doubt be
prepared with a clause on the subject.—(Hear.)
Colonel SIBTHORP said that he would have no
objection to withdraw his amendment, if the pro-
posal of the Chancellor of the' Exchequer were ac-
ceded to.

Mr. HUDSON thought the better course would
be to allow a little time for fully understanding the
proposition before the House.
Mr. C. AN6TEY said that he should certainly
persist in pressing the House to a division. The
result of the division would, he had no doubt, prove a
warning to Hon. Members not to propose a similar
motion in the future discussion of the Bill.

Mr. WOOD said that at an early stage of the dis-
cussion on this Bill it was stated that the statutes
sought to be repealed were mere waste paper. He could
not now comprehend the reason for wishing for further
time, in order to be able to digest the nature of a
proposed clause for the repeal of these very Acts.
The Hon. Member had completely turned round, and
seemed now to 'imagine that the throne and the reli-
gion of the country were in perfect danger from the
repeal of those inoperative clauses. For himself, he
had so deep-rooted an opinion as to the truth of the
religion that he professed, that he feared but little bow
many bulls were brought into this country. He de-
precated strongly the attitude taken by those Hon.
Members Rho styled themselves the defenders of
Protestantism, representing as they did their religion in
the light of a decrepid old female, unable to support
herself hut by the retention of these obsolete statutes
upon the book.—(llear, hear.)
Mr. STAFFORD was in favour of the postpone-
ment of tke further consideration of the measure, that
they might not be forced to a premature decision on
a subject of such great importance.
After a few words from Mr. Wood in explanation,
and from Mr. Law, strangers were again ordered to
withdraw, but upon the request of Sir George Grey
and Mr. Colvile, Mr. C. Anstey declined to press the
motion to a division.

The CHAIRMAN then reported progress, and
obtained leave to sit again.

The House resumed.
GAME CERTIFICATES BILL.

Mr. COLVILE moved the second reading of
this Bill.

Mr. G. BERKELEY thought that this Bill would
be the means of placing fire arms in the hands of a
larger number of persons than were at present en-
titled to carry them, and gave notice of several
amendments which he should propose in Committee.
Colonel SIBTHORP supported the second reading,
reserving to himself the right of opposing nearly
every clause in the Bill while in Committee.
As he had thus promised his support to the second
reading of the Bill, he hoped the Hon. Member
(Mr. Colrile) who had charge of it would assist him
in opposing the.'" monster motion," he would call it,
of the Hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright),
on the subject of the game-laws, that Hon. Member
not knowing, as he be lieved, "a pointer from a pig."
—(Laughter.)
The Bill was then read a second time.

EXEMPTIONS OF SMALL TENEMENTS.
This Bill was read a second thud.
The other orders of the day were then disposed of,
and the House adjourned.

FMECTION COMMITTEES.
BE `V DLEY.

(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
A number of voters were then called to prove that an
extensive system of treating prevailed at the last elec-
tion. They were all of them plentifully supplied with
drink and edibles, both during and after the election,
free of expense, but it was only upon the condition that
they voted for Mr. Ireland.
The Committee adjourned at four o'clock till eleven
to-morrow.

LINCOLN.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
John Shaw, a freeman, proved that he voted for Mr.
Seeley, and afterwards received from a Mr. Keely 305.,
which he presumed was for voting. Before the election
he received pecuniary assistance from Mr. Seeley'a book-
keeper, and was treated on several occasions.
Thomas Martin, a joiner, and freeman of Lincoln,
proved that he received a sovereign from one of Mr.
Secley's friends; but it did not appear that that was for
his vote

Joseph Talkes, another freeman, proved that Alderman
Graham, of Lincoln, induced him to vote for ;.vlr. Seeley,
and afterwards took him and another voter to the Green
Dragon, where they were treated and feasted most libe-
rally, free of expense. On the Saturday following the
election he went to Mr. Seeley's counting-house, arid
received 185. There were other voters there being paid,
and the money was taken from a bag. There were many
dishes with silver lying on the table. A man named
Lawton, who had also voted for Mr. Seeley, accompa-
nied him to the counting-house, and received 185. too.
Upon entering the counting-house nothing was said to
them. While waiting outside his name was called out,
and when he entered there were several people in the
room, and upon being paid they were directed to retire
immediately. The same amount was paid by Colonel
Sibthorp's party, and ho had received money at every
election when he voted.
Similar evidence was given by other freemen who had
lcen treated, and who had received money on the -iSa-
turday after the election.
The Committee adjourned, at four o'clock, till eleven
o'clock to morrow.

The Select Committeae,,aianpstoi
HARWICH
nted to try the merits of
the petition presented
for the borough of larwich the
otafinr
.the first
.time
return of Mr. Attwood
yesterday morning; Mr. Stuar'traNY
Sergeant
tinythe chair.
.in\gilake,.and
Mr. Sergeant Wrangham, Mr.pSeetitionnerg
; jiamr.esßrwigegres
Mr. Power appeared fur the
Andrews, :Mr. Alexander, and Mr. Edwin
counsel for the sitting Member.
Mr. Sergeant IVRANcuam opened the case for
the petitioners, stating that it was one of a rather
novel nature. Mr. Attwood, the evidence would
prove, obtained his election by the interposition of
a third party—namely, Sir Dudley Hill, who earns
forward, before the election, as an . independent
candidate, but who, in point of fact, was introduced to
the borough by Mr. Attwood as a sort of blind to enable
him to pick up the votes of parties who were susceptible
to bribery and treating. Before the election Sir Dudley
Hill carried on a joint canvass, and threw open a number
of puhlic-houses. These proceedings were conducted
by Sir Dudley Hill in his individual capacity ; but the
Committee would find that on the eve of the nomination-
day Sir Dudley Hill resigned, and the gentleman who
had acted with him in bribing and treating the electors,
became the managing committee forMr.Attwood, and after
the eleotien they paid all the expenses which hwi been

incurred on behalf of Mr; Attwood in the course of the I
election. There was, hoffeier, atiothlr feature in the
case, which was more immediately connected With the
sitting Member. Mr. Attwood, the Committee would
discover, had been in the habit of purchasing large num-
bers of houses in Harwich, and letting them to electors
at low rents, upon the condition that he should always
have the control of their votes, while in numerous other
instances it would bo shown that Mr. Attwood had from
time to time advanced money on loan to electors at a
low rate of interest upon the simple proviso that the
borrowers should at every election place their votes at
his disposal. But he should be able to prove beyond
all question that a number of voters were bribed with
presents of sums varying from 201. to 25/. to support Mr.
Attwood, and he was sure, after they had heard the
evidence proving these facts, the Committee would have
no hesitation in unseating that gentleman.
Mr. ANDREWS objected to the petition on the ground
that the petitioner was not an elector of Harwich.
The point was argued at great length both by Mr.
Andrews and Mr.:Alexander; but the Committee, with-
out hearing counsel in reply, overruled the objection,
on the ground that any party who claimed a right to
vote, which was so in this case, had the power of peti-
tioning.
John Baker was then called. He stated that he
was a voter of Harwich, and gave a description of the
secret meeting that was held in Harwich before the elec-
tion, in support of Mr. Attwood's interest. He refused to
promise his vote for Mr. Attwood, because it had come
to his knowledge that Mr. Attwood's private secretaries
had supplied a Mr. Mesham with means to bribe voters.
After the election of 1841, he told Mr. Attwood that
he never would have been returned had he not bought
the borough, whereupon Mr. Attwood told him that
he supplied his agents with 10,0001. previous
to the election, but they had since only
accounted to him for 6,0001. Mr. Attwood subsequently
promised, that ifile would vote for himself and Sir
Dudley Hill he would make some expenses which wit-
ness had incurred in connexion with a railway " all
right," but witness had no faith in these promises and
refused to pledge himself any way.
The Committee adjourned at four o'clock till eleven
o'clock to- morrow morning.

THE LIVERPOOL WILL FOR-
GERY CASE.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.

SIR,— Observing in your widely circulated paper of
the 23d instant, whilst in London, a paragraph headed
" The Liverpool Will Forgery Case," I beg leave on the
part of the friends and relatives of the late Peregrine
Bowen, Lieutenant in the Royal Navy, and also as a
decided and firm advocate in the cause of justice and
truth, to be allowed the privilege of publishing a few
facts with reference to the above case in your valuable
paper, in opposition to the untrue statements which are
circulated in the public prints.
F►rst—The executor did not, as is asserted, prove the
first will (made by the testator, the late William Mus-
grave Bowen, previous to his leaving England) until
after the second will was received from China by
Lieutenant P. Bowen, through Miss Bowen, of Pope-
bill, Pembrokeshire, the latter person receiving it first,
by mistake, and then transmitting it to the late Lieute-
nant Peregrine Bowen, to his own residence in Liver-
pool. This fact is proved in the most undoubted
manner by the circumstance of the solicitor of Haverford-
west, who received the last will from the surrogate of
that town, exhibiting it to the executor of the first
will. _ .

Secondly—l deny most positively and in toto this
statement, that " the forgery of the second will was
substantiated," on these grounds, viz., that there is not
a particle of evidence to prove it being a forgery, and
that the evidence of several persons, including that of
the testator's legal adviser, which affirms the hand-
writing of the second and last will to be that of the tes-
tator; also the evidence of the witnesses, who saw the
testator execute the said last will on the 15th March,
1846, in China, together with the fact of the said will
being received six months afterwards by the pre-
sent tenant of Pope-hill, near Haverfordwest, Pem-
brokeshire. These I look upon as most convincing and
undeniable proofs of the genuine nature of the last will,
and also of the innocence of the late Lieutenant P.
Bowen of the charge which has been so unjustly and
cruelly preferred against him, thereby causing his ruin,
and bringing affliction and misery upon his unfortunate
and bereaved family.
With urgent and earnest hope that you will give this
letter a corner in your valuable paper, for the satisfac-
tion of the late Lieutenant Peregrine Bowen's numerous
friends, and fur the ends of justice and truth.
I am, Sir, your most obedient servant.
HENRY SANDERSON, jun.
Hope-street, St. Jude's, Liverpool, Feb. 27, 1848.

COURT MARTIAL ON LIEUT.
CROVirTHER.

CHATHAM, MARCH 6.—This day was promulgated to
the 63d Regiment, now lying at these barracks, the sen-
tence of a General Court-martial, held on the 14th of
December last, and which continued by adjournment to
the 21st of the same month, for the trial of Lieut. Wm.
George L. Crowther, of the same corps, who was ar-
raigned on the undermentioned charges :-
1. For having on the 14th November, 1847, at Chat-
ham, absented himself without permission from the bar-
rack room of his company when it was visited by his
commanding officer, according to the notification in
regimental orders, dated 15th November.
2. For having at the same time and place stated that
he was present at the barrack-room when visited by the
commanding officer, knowing it the time that such
statement was false.

3. For having, on the 15th of November, at Chatham,
he then being subaltern officer of the day, disobey.d
the regimental orders, dated the 15th of November,
requiring him, as such officer of the day, to inspect the
issue of brand and meat of the different messes of the
63d Regiment.
4. For having, on the 16th of November, made a false
report as subaltern officer of the day preceding, as fol.
lewa :—" I inspected the bread and meat yesterday
morning, which appeared to me of a good and whole •
some quality, and I also saw the same issued to the dif-
ferent messes of the regiment at the proper time," which
report was signed by the said Lieutenant Crowther; such
report and the statement contained therein, that he, the
said Lieutenant Crowther, inspected the bread and meat,
and saw the same issued to the different messes, being
wholly false, and known to the said Lieutenant Crowther
to be false at the time he made such report. _ .

Upon which charges the Court came to the following
decision :—That Lieutenant Crowther is guilty of the
fir,t charge; second charge, not guilty; of the third
charge, that he is guilty, with the exception of that part
of the mkr which relates to the inspection and issuo of
meat to the different messes of the 63d Regiment, of
which the Court acquits him; of the fourth charge, that
he is guilty, with the exception of the word " ;holly,"
and that part of the report and statement contained
therein, which regards the meat and bread, of both of
which portions of the charge the Court acquits him.
The Court having found the prisoner guilty of the
first charge, not guilty of the second, and guilty of so
much of the third as is above expressed, and guilty of so
much of the above charge as is above repeated, which
being in breach of the Articles of War, does in virtue
thereof sentence him the said prisoner, Lieutenant W.
G. L. Crowther, of the 63d Regiment, to be severely
reprimanded. The Court having pronounced sentence
upon the prisoner, Lieutenant Crowther, cannot close its
proceedings without most respectfully remarking upon
the circumstance, that he, the prisoner, was employed
upon certain duties subsequent to the commission of the
charges for which the prisoner has been tried, and
which circumstance came only to light during the pro-
ceedings.
The proceedings of this trial having been laid before
her Majesty the Queen, by Field-Marshal the Com-
mander-in-Chief, her Majesty was pleased to approve
and confirm the finding and sentence of the Court.—
Signed J. Macdonald, Adjutant-General.
Lieutenant Crowther, having been reprimanded ac-
cordingly, was released from arrest, to the satisfaction of
his brother officers.

FRENCH NATIONAL ASSEMBLY.

The Monzleur publishes textually the decree respect.
ing the elections and the convocation of the National
Assembly. It is as follows:
" The Provisional Government of the Republic, desir
ing to remit as soon as possible to a definitive govern-
ment the powers which it exercises on behalf and by the
command of the people, decrees:—
" Art. 1. The electoral assemblies of cantons are con-
voked for the 9th April next, to elect representatives of
the people to the National Assembly, which is to decree
the Constitution.
" Art. 2. The election shall be on the basis of popu-
lation.
" Art. 3. The total number of representatives of the
people shall be nine hundred, including Algeria and the
French Colonies.
" Art. 4. They shall be divided between the depart-
ments in the proportion set forth in the following table.
" Art. 5. The suffrage shall be direct and universal.
" Art. 6. All Frenchman aged twenty-one years, resi-
dents in the commune for six months, and not deprived
of or suspended from the exercise of civic rights by a
judicial decision are electors.
" Art. 7. All Frenchmen aged twenty-five years,
and not deprived of or suspended from the exer-
cise of civic rights are qualified to be elected re-
presentatives.
" Art. I. The ballot shall be secret.
"Art. 9. All the electors shall vote at the chief place
of their cantons, by ballotting lists. Each list shall
contain as many names as there aro representatives to
be elected in the department.
"The examination of the votes shall take place at the
chief place in the canton, and the declaration of them at
the chief town of the department. No person can be
nominated a representative of the people if he have not
2,000 votes.
" Art. 10. Each representative of the people shall re-
ceive an indemnity of 25 fr. a day fur the duration of the
session. . .

" Art. 11. An instruction of the Provisional Govern-
ment shall regulate the details of the execution of the
present decree.
" Art. 12. The National Constituent Assembly shall
open on the 20RI1 of April.
" Art. 13. The present decree shall be immediately
sent to all the departments, and published and placarded
in all the communes of the Republic.
" Done at Paris, in the Government Council, the sth
of March." (Signed)

By the Members allie; Provisional Government.
The schedule annexed to the decree gives the following
as the number of representatives to bo chosen in each
department, there being one representative for every
40,000 inhabitants, viz, the departments de I'Ain 9.
Aisne 14, Allier 8, Alpes (Basses) 4, Alpes (Hautes) 3,
Ardeche 9, Ardennes 8, Ariko 7, Aube 7, Aude 7, Avey-
ron 10, Botkches-du-Rhone 10, Calvados 12, Cantal 7,
Charente 9, Ch,xreute-infArieure 12, Cher 7, Corr2ze 8,

Corsica 6, Cote-d'Or 10, Cotes-du-Nord 16, Creuse 7,
Dordogne 13, Doubs 7, Drome 8, Eure 14, Eure-et-Loir
7, Finistare 15, Gard 10, Garonne (Haute) 12, Indre 7,
I are 15, Indre et-Loire 8, Jura 8, Landes 7, Loir-et
Cher 6, Loire 14, Loire (Haute) 8, Loire Infitrieure 13,
Leiret 9, Lot 7, Lot-et-Garonne 9, Lozere 4, Main-et-
Loire 13, Manche 15, Marna 9, Marne (Haute) 7, May-
enne 9, Meurth 14, Meuse 8, Morbihan 12, Moselle 11,
Niarre 8, Nord 28, Oise 10, Orne 14, Pas-de-Calais 17,
Puy-de-Dome 15, Pyrenees (Basses) 14, Pyril-6es
(Hautes) 6, Pp 6nees•Orientales 6, Rhin, (Bas) 15, Rhin
(Haute) 12, Rhone 14, Saone (Haute) 9, Saone-et-
Loire 14, Sarthe, 12, Seine 34, Seine-Inferiture 19,
Seine-et Marne 9, Seine• et-Oise, 12, Sevres (Deux) 8,
Somme 14, Tarn 9, Tarn- et-Garone 6, Var 9, Van-
clusa 6, Vendife 9, Vienne 9, Vienne (Haute) 8, Vosges
7, Yonne 9-in all 885;-Algeria and Colonies, 15.-
Total, 900.

man, predisposed as he was to oppression on the brain by
anger and intoxication.
Verdict—Not Guilty.
Mr. Baron ROLFE was engaged the greater part of
the day with the cause of Jackson v. Oates, an action
for a malicious prosecution. It arose out of a transac-
tion dating so far back as 1845; when the plaintiff be-
came the purchaser of some portions of the wreck of a
vessel which bad been driven ashore at Sunderland. The
defendant also purchased some other portions, and the
plaintiff, in removing those he had purchased, took, it
was said, some of those belonging to the defendant. A
search-warrant was accordingly obtained, and the plain-
tiff taken before the magistrate, and the complaint dis-
missed, as being, in fact, a question of property. He
commenced an action against the defendant, after which
the defendant indicted him for larceny at the sessions,
where he was acquitted. This action was delayed by
various circumstances, and finally discontinued, and the
present one commenced.
The jury had not returned their verdict when the re-
port came away.
Mr. Knowles and Mr. Heath for the plaintiff, and Mr.
Martin and Mr Atherton for the defence.

WESTERN ClRCUlT.—Salisbury, March 7.
CROWN COURT.—(Before Mr. Justice WIGHTM 104.)
STEALING A LETTER.— Reuben Waite and Thomas
Haywood were placed at the bar, the former charged
with having, whilst employed under the Post- officn,
stolen a certain post letter containing a 10/. note of the
Bristol branch of the Bank of England, and a half-
sovt•reign, the property of the Postmaster-General, and
Hayward was charged with having received the said 10/.
note, well knowing it to have been stolen.
Mr. Rogers, Q.C., and Mr. Poulden, conducted the
prosecution.

Mr. Hodges defended the prisoner Waite—Hayward
was undefended.

It appeared from the evidence adduced on the part of
the prosecution, that the Rev. Mr. Frampton, the Rec-
tor of Coomb Floy, in Somersetahire, had occasion to
remit ten guineas to the Rev. T. Frampton, who lived
at Tetbury, in Gloucestershire, and accordingly, on the
11th of November, 1847, enclosed a 10/. note of the
Branch Bank of England at Bristol, of which he took
the date and number, together with a half-sovereign.
This letter was ,directed to Mr. Frampton, and posted
at Gore Inn, at Bishops Sideard, which was the
nearest post office. This was forwarded to Tiverton
in a post bag, and then on to Chippenham, where it
was the course of business for the letters sent in
that bag to be sorted, and those for Tetbury put in
the Tetbury bag and forwarded to Tetbury. The letter
however, never reached its destination. Inquiry was
then made, and the note traced to the possession of a
Mr. Broad, a clerk in the Chippenham station of the
Great Western Railway. He was enabled to trace it,
having received it from Woodman, another clerk in the
station, and having taken down, in the company's book,
the number and date of the note. Woodman, however,
could not remember from whom he received the note, but
believed he did so in the ordinary course of business at
the station, and here for the time all further trace of
the note or the person stealing the letter was lost. On
the 26th of January following, the prisoner Waite, who,
it was shewn, was occasionally employed as a clerk in
the post-office at Chippenham, was in a public•house at
Chippenham, with a man named Swaine, who is a porter
employed at the railway station there, and asked him if
anything had been found out about the note which had
been stolen. Swaine said " No," upon which Waite said
I had the bill—l gave it to a man called Hayward, to
get it changed for me, which he did, and I gave him two
sovereigns for doing it. Swaine, upon this, told the pri
soner that he should give information to the police of
what he had said. He begged him not to do so, but
Swaine persisted that he should, and accordingly he did
so. Search was made for Waite and Hayward, but it
was found that they had absconded, and ultimately they
were both found at a brother of Hayward's at Ciren-
cester. Waite had shaved off his whiskers, and otherwise
disguised himself. Upon being taken into custody,
Waite made a similar statement to the policeman to that
which he had to Swaine.

Evidence was given to show that, at the time the let-
ter was posted. the prisoner Waite was employed in the
Chippenham Post-office as a sorter of letters, and had
been so for about a fortnight, and in the ordinary course
the letter which had been stolen would hare passed
through his hands.
On his cross. examination by Mr. HODGES, it was
elicited that the prisoner was only occasionally em-
ployed in the service of :the Post-office, and on this oc-
casion was so owing to the illness of one of the ordinary
clerks.

Mr. lIoDGEs said the prisoner was not a servant to
the Post-office within the meaning of the Act of Parlia-
ment, but merely a temporary servant. There were
several cases on the subject cited in Fossil and Simins,
2d vol., p. 213.
Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN said that the cases there cited
were before the statute under which the present indict-
ment was prepared, Ist Vic., cap. 36. In that Act the
word office is used, but the interpretation alone enacts
that that word shall include any person emplyed in any
business of the Post-office. The simple employment by the
Post-office of any person would bring him within the
meaning of the Act. _ _ _

Mr. Hodges then addressed the jury for Waito, and
Mr. Justice Wightman having summed up,
The jury found both tho prisoners Guilty.
Waite was then sentenced to be transported for
seven years, and Hayward to twelve months' impri-
sonment.

Riehard Newport and Ann Barer were indicted for
having, on the Ist of September, assaulted George
Church, and robbed him of 371. 10s. at Swindon, in this
county.
Air. Slade conducted the prosecution, and Mr. Chap-
man Smith defended Baker; the male prisoner was un-
defended.

It appeared that Mr. Church, a farmer, wont to Swin-
don, on the Ist of September last, to attend the market.
At about eight o'clock in the evening he had occasion
to go down to what is called the New Town of Swindon,
when he came near to a place called the Gas House, he
was knocked down by a man by a blow on the side of
the head. The man came so softly, that the prosecutor
stated that he had no doubt that the man had no shoes
on. On the prosecutor falling to the ground, three men
came round him and two women, one of whom kneeled
on his breast, and the other two held his legs. While
on the ground the prosecutor was able to distinguish the
features of the men, and clearly identified the prisoner
Newport as the man who knocked him down, and the
woman who held his legs he identified as Ann Baker.
While the prosecutor was thus held on the ground, one
of the men turned out his pockets, and robbed him of his
purse, containing bank-notes, gold, and silver to the
amount of 37/. 10i. They then all ran away. Ile
(prosecutor) pursued them for some little distance, but
lost sight of them by a turn in the road, near a lone
house.

Witnesses were then called, who proved that the pri-
soners had lodged at the house near which the prosecu•
for lost sight of them. That they came there a few
days before the robbery in company, having with them
two dog-carts and five dogs. Just before the robbery,
the two girls were standing outside the cottage, and
called to the two men, Newport and the other, who
were in the house, to come out ; that they did, and went
up the road together towards the spot where Mr. Church
was robbed. At this time Ann Baker had on a black
bonnet and a " whitish" shawl. In about twenty
minutes one of the women returned, and was observed to
put something into the dog-cart which had been owned
by Baker and Newport. Just before this the witness
had heard a noise as if some one had called out in the
direction of where Mr. Church was robbed. Shortly
after Ann Baker returned without a bonnet. Shortly
after, from information given by Mr. Church, the
prisoner Baker was taken into custody and fully identi-
fied by Mr. Church, and in the yard was found her
bonnet, and in the dog-cart the shawl she had worn
when she left the house. Newport was also appre-
hended. The other throe persons concerned in the
robbery absconded, but two of them were afterwards ap-
prehended on another charge for felony, and are waiting
their trial at Maidstone gaol.
Mr. SMITE having addressed the jury for Baker,
The Learned JUDGE summed up the case to the jury,
who immediately found both the prisoners Guilty.
Newport was then sentenced to be transported for ten
years, and Baker for seven years.
Mr. Baron Platt has been trying prisoners all day in
the Nisi Prius Court, but no case of public interest has
been taken.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
BOW-STREET.

CAUGET AT LAST.—Yesterday Andrei, Green and
Samuel Green, father and son, were brought before Mr.
Henry for re-examination, charged with stealing the
sum of 13s. 6d. from a servant girl, at a coffee-shop in
Drury-lane.
The prisoners were ordered to be remanded on Satur-
day last, in consequence of the elder prisoner having
mentioned the names of several respectable persons with
whom he pretended he was connected, as the proprietor
of the Parliamentary Chronicle, a weekly publication, in
order to give the officers an opportunity of making in-
quiries into the correctness of the representations, the
result of which was by no means satisfactory, several
gentlemen being in attendance to make disclosures of a
suspicious character against the prisoners.
In consequence of the elder prisoner having said that
he was occasionally employed in the gallery of the House
of Commons by Mr. Neilson, of the Times, that gen-
tleman came forward to disclaim all knowledge of him.
The prisoner attempted to deny having ever said he
he was in the habit of attending the Houses of Parlia-
ment for any morning paper.
Mr. Neilson, upon looking at the prisoner, said he re-
collected, some years back, -having seen the prisoner in
the gallery, and knowing he was not attached to any
public journal, he requested the messenger to put him
out which he did, but he never had any dealings with
him, and, as to the Parliamentary Chronicle, he believed
it had not been published for a great number of years.
Inspector Marsh, F. division, informed the court that
he had been :to Southend, where the prisoner said he
resided, but he could obtain no intelligence of them.
He had also been at the Pulpit office, in Glasshouse-
yard, with which he said he was connected, and he got
a very unfavourable account of the elder prisoner.
A gentleman came forward and said that the prisoner
was in the habit, for several years, of obtaining money
from different insurance-offices to insert their advertise
meats in his journal, although it had not appeared for
many years. He had obtained six guineas from the
Atlas Insurance Office to insert their prospectus, but it
never appeared ; nor could a single bookseller, from
whom he had obtained money under the same circum-
stances, say that their advertisements ever appeared.
The prisoner was then charged with obtaining money
under false pretences.
Mr. Thomas Johnson, solicitor, of Lincoln's Inn-fields,
stated that the elder prisoner came to him on Friday,
revesenting himself as Dr. Green, and mentioning the
name of his late father and Mr. Barry O'Meara, with

whom he had frequently dined, offered him orders to the
Opera and other theatres. Ile then gave his card, 3,
Curzon-street, Mayfair, and said that the sum of 161. 15s.
6d. was due to him by his father for the journal, and that
ho had been directed by his executors to get a cheque
from witness for the amount. Witness had since seen
his brother upon the subject, and they could find nothing
about the journal since 1836, when two volumes were
supplied by Mr. Norcroft, the original propribtor. On
Saturday he came again in the evening, and said
that he was obliged to take up a bill for 3001., which
had been dishonoured, and that he was in the habit of
paying to his workmen 250/. per week during the Par.
liamontary session. Witness, upon this representation,
not only gave him a cheque fur the amount, but also
cashed it ; and, on Tuesday, he discovered he had been
imposed upon. The prisoner gave a stamped receipt,
and said he would call again with orders for the Opera,
and other theatres.

Mr. Burton, ironmonger, of Oxford•street, identified
the prisoner as being the same who, some years ago,
obtained goods from him under falze representations, at
which time he drove up in a handsome tilbury, and gave
his address Curzon-street, Mayfair ; but in a short time
he was told, when demand was made for the amount,
that Dr. Green was dead.

Mr. Natali, a bookseller, also identifhd the prisoner,
to whom he was in the habit of paying five guineas
yearly for the insertion of advertisements in his journal,
which was not in existence.

Mr. Henry told the young female who had been
robbed i❑ Drury-lane that the evidence did not press
against the younger prisoner, and he was discharged
upon the same recognisances to appear again if zlices-
sary ; hut the elder prisoner should be again remanded
without bail for a week, and then be committed on the
two separate charges.
After the deputy bailiff of the County Court at Graves-
end came forward to say something to the disadvantage
of the prisoner, he was removed from the bar.