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

Rinds very little was doing. Beef from 2s 4d to 3s 6d ; Mutton,
2s Bcl to 4s ; Lamb, 4s 8d to 53 8d ; Veal, Zs 6d to 43 4d ; and Pork,
38 6d to 4s 8d per 81bs, by the carcase.

CORN AVERAGES.
GENERAL AVERAGE PRICES OF BRITISH CORN
For the Week ended !Aug. 8, 1846, made up from the Returns of the
Inspectors in the different Cities and Towns in England and Walt s
per Imperial Quarter.

PRICE .•:, 45 I WHEs
d 2AT- I 2 ALLET.
6s 8d 1
24s OATS.
Od i
295 RTE 1
8d 39s 8d 355. BEANS. I PEAS.
3d
DUTY... 8$ Oa 4s Od Is 6d 4s Od 4s Od 4s Od

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

(THIS DAY.)

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at Twelve o'clock.
The following reports were brought up and agreed to :
—Booth's Charities (or Clowes') Estate Bill ; Duke of
Cleveland's (Bathwick and Wrington) Estate Bill ; Duke
of Cleveland's (Hardwick Hart, &c.) Estate Bill ; Horne's
(Ferguson's) Estate Bill ; Lord Kenyon's (Congreve's)
Estate Bill ; Scott's Estate Bill.

ALL SOULS' COLLEGE ESTATE.
This Bill was read a third time and passed.
FARQUARSON'S DIVORCE.
This Bill was read a second time.
CORK AND WATERFORD RAILWAY.
Mr. T. S. DUNCOMBE presented a petition from
Waterford against the Bill for this line, and stated that
the Member for Kerry had presented a petition from
the shareholders in favour of the Bill, which was to be
referred to the Committee which meets to-morrow. That
petition complained of the allegation that the cer-
tificate was invalid. Now he held in his hand a
scrip certificate numbered 48,600, while the whole of
the shares in the company, according to the company's
regulations, were only 41,000, so that on the very face
of it there was sufficient to justify the assertion, that the
certificate of the company was falsified. He thorefore
moved that the petition of subscribers and holders of
scrip in the Cork and Waterford Railway Company,
against the validity of the sessional meeting held on the
25th day of May, and the certificate of the chairman
grounded thereon, presented August 12, be referred to
the Committee on the Bill, together with said certificate,
with liberty for the petitioners to be heard, pursuant to
the prayer of the petition, and for the Committee to re-
port specially thereon.
CORRESPONDING SOCIETY.
Mr. WARBURTON presented a petition from a per-
son named Lemaitre, who had been a member of the
Corresponding Society, and complaining that he had
been the victim of conspiracy. The petition stated that
in 1794 he was, when in his eighteenth year, living with
his parents, his father being a watchmaker. That while
a member of the Corresponding Society he had sub-
scribed to the fund for the defence of John Horne Tooke,
Thelwall, and Hardy. These funds were partly
raid into the hands of a person named Upton,
who kept a small shop in Bell-yard, whom
it was discovered had been prosecuted by the
Phoenix Assurance Office for setting fire to his
own house. On finding this out, on the motion of
Lemaitre, this man Upton was expelled from the society.
Upton declared that he would be revenged, and soon
found an opportunity for his resentment. This was in
August, 1794, and in that very month he made a com-
munication to the Privy Council accusing himself,
with Lemaitre and another, of a conspiracy to
shoot the King with a poisoned arrow from
a frame which he had himself seen that morning.
On this charge he was apprehended and com-
mitted to Newgate, where he was confined for nine
months, without any connexion or communication what-
ever with his friends. At the end of this period he was
released on his own recognizances. Upton went over to
France, from which place he returned on an exchange
of prisoners of war, and on his arrival again renewed
his charges. Upon these Mr Lemaitre surren
dered himself, and was brought to trial. On
the morning of the trial the wife of Upton
appeared in widow's weeds, and took oath that her
husband was dead. It was in vain that a testimony was
tendered that Upton had been seen alive at his own
house that morning. The trial was interrupted, and Mr.
Lemaitre was remanded to prison where he remained
for five months. He was released at the end of that
term, and abstained from any connexion with the
Corresponding Society. But then came the time of the
Irish rebellion,l797, and he was applied to to give his adhe-
sion to thatmovement through the Corresponding Society.
In an evil moment he consented to attend the meeting of the
Society, to give his advice against any such connexion.
He went there, having had nothing whatever to do with
public affairs since his last imprisonment. The Bow-
street officers rushed in, and all the party were appre-
hended. He was committed to Newgate, and, at the
end of a twelvemonth, his health failing, he was removed
to Reading gaol,where he passed two years more. He was
then released, and again after a few months apprehended
and confined in Tothill-fields Prison. His attorney had ap-
plied for a writ of habeas corpus, but in vain, Lord
Kenyon refusing it, as he said, on his own responsibility.
After another twelvemonth Mr. Lemaitre was released,
and thus had suffered, between 1818 and
1826, an imprisonment of not less than
six years without trial. He had applied repeatedly
to the several Whig Governments for redress, but
had been constantly refused, till at last Mr. Canning
promised to do something for him, and through the in-
tercession of Lord Grey, Mr. Lemaitre was appointed a
protector of slaves in Demerara. He set sail in 1829,
but his usual ill-luck attended him, for, shortly after
leaving the coast, the vessel was wrecked, and all his
effects were lost. He had hardly time to recover
himself before the Government passed the Act for the
abolition of slavery, and thus his salary of 8001. a year
was entirely lost. This was a fair subject
for consideration and compensation, and with a hope
that now, as the injury had been suffered for more than
fifty years, it would be properly entertained by the
Government, he would move that the petition be printed
with the votes.

IRISH ARMS BILL.
In reply to Mr. T. Duncombe, Lord J. RUSSELL
stated that it was the intention of Government to pro-
ceed with the Bill in Committee, pro forma on Monday,
and to take the discussion on the following evening.
Mr LABOUCHERE stated that the amendments of
the Government would be printed, and placed in
the hands of Members before the discussion came on.
CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN THE ARMY.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE wished to know whether the
Noble Lord at the head of the Treasury bad any objec-
tion to lay the new regulations for corporal punishment
in the army on the table?
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that there were no new
regulations, but that flogging would hereafter be in-
flicted according to the provisions of the Bill which had
already been introduced.
CONTAGIOUS DISEASES PREVENTION BILL.
This Bill went through Committee, and was ordered
to be reported to-morrow.

LUNATIC ASYLUMS AND PAUPER LUNATICS

BILL.

This Bill also went through Committee, and the re
port was ordered to be brought up.
DRAINAGE OF LANDS BILL.
This Bill was read a third time and passed.
SMALL DEBTS (SALARIES AND COMPEN

SA:TIONS) BILL. - This Bill went through Committee, and the repor
was ordered to be brought up on Monday.

WRECK AND SALVAGE BILL.
The further consideration of the third reading of this
Bill was resumed, and after the introduction of several
amendments, was read a third time and passed, after
considerable opposition on the part of Mr. HENLEY,
who protested against the insertion of amendments on
the third reading which materially altered the nature of
the measure.

RELIGIOUS OPINIONS BILL.
On the motion of Lord J. RUSSELL, this Bill was
read a third time.

COUNTY WORKS PRESENTMENT (IRELAND:

BILL.

The House then went icto Committee on this Bill.

The clauses were all agreed to, and Mr. GREENE
having reported progress, the House resumed, and the
Bill was ordered to be read a third time to-morrow.
The Committee on the Naval and Military Depart-
ments Bill was postponed until to-morrow at twelve.
THE PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSIONERS (IRE-

LAND) BILL.

The House then went into Committee on this Bill.

The clauses having been agreed to
The CHAIRMAN reported progress, and the House re-
sumed, and the Bill was ordered to be read a third time
to-morrow.

The Report of the Public Works and Fisheries Bill
was then read and received, and the Bill was ordered to
be engrossed.

PUBLIC WORKS, FISHERIES, &c.,

The House then went into Committee on this Bill.
The several clauses of the Bill were agreed to, and
the report was ordered to be received to-morrow.
PUBLIC WORKS (IRELAND, No 3) BILL.
The House next resolved itself into Committee on
this Bill. The clauses were read and agreed to, and the
report ordered to be brought up to-morrow.
WEFT arrrma.)

HOUSE OF LORDS.-(THIS DAY)
The House sat to-day to hear appeals. The Peers in at-
tendance were the Lord Chancellor, Lord Brougham, and
Lord Campbell.

ROBERTSON V. PATTINSON.
The arguments in this part•heard appeal were resumed
to-day, and
Their LORDSHIPS gave judgment, affirming the judgment
of the Court below, with costs.

CUNNINGHAME V. M‘LEOD.
Their LORDSIIIPS gave judgment in this case to-day,
affirming the decision of the Court below, with costs.
MACPHERSON V• cRAIa/E.
Their LORDSHIPS also gave judgment in this case, affirm-
ing the decision of the Court below, with costs.
MURRAY V. PINKETT.—JUDGMENT.
Their LORDSHIPS also gave judgment in this case, affirm-
ing the judgment of the Vice-Chancellor Wigram, with costs.
PATRICK v. KING.
The arguments in this case occupied their Lordships the
remainder of the morning.

SHERIFFS' COURT.—(THIS DAY).
(Before Mr. Under-Sheriff BURCHELL.)
DAVIS AND ANOTHER V. TUNE.
The plaintiffs in this case are bankers in Shoreditch, and
the action was brought to recover the sum of 201., on a bill
of exchange discounted by them. The defendant pleaded
that he did not accept the bill.
A clerk to the plaintiffs was called, and proved that the
defendant had admitted to him that he had accepted the bill
for the accommodation of a person named Ward. The de-
fendant's solicitor put one or two immaterial questipns, and
the jury gave a verdict for the amount claimed.
WHESSEN V. RAND.
The plaintiff in this action is a pianoforte key maker, and
the defendant a pianoforte maker, and the action was
brought to recover the sum of 91. 155., for some keys
made.
The question wee simply whethez the keys were well aria