The Sun.
London, England, 1848-06-27 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON,_ .T_UESRAY EVENING, JUNE 27, 1818.

length upon the present and past position of the bank,
as well as its future prospects, and after some con-
siderable discussion the report was agreed to.
The directors that went out by rotation were then re-
elected, and the meeting separated.

February or March, 1846, there was an attempt to carry
out a portion of the line. I cannot say that I have made
my fortune out of this company, although I should like
to have done so.

Re-examined.—There were meetings held, one for the
purpose of getting in the money, if they could, and pay-
ing the debts.
Beale—l am an attorney in Gray's-inn, and was
one of the attorneys to this company. The defendant
was one of the managing committee from the early com-
mencement of the affair. In the month of November,
1845, the liabilities of the company were about 15,0001.
The managing committee passed a resolution calling
on the managing committee to contribute 1001. each, and
the provisional committee 50/. each, towards the liquida-
tion of the claims upon the company. This witness also
proved that he was directed by the managing committee
to employ the plaintiff to sue the defaulting members of
the provisional committee for the recovery of their con-
tributions of 501. each.
Cress-examined—I was introduced into the concern,
but was not one of the promoters, by Mr. Burdett, a
gentleman in the country.
Mr. WATSON submitted, on behalf of the defendant,
that the bill of costs had not been delivered to the de-
fendant within the meaning and intent of the Act of
Parliament. By the 6th and 7th of Victoria, chap. 73,
sec. 37, /proof must be given in order to maintain an
action for any costs or expenses that the bill of such costs
or expenses had been delivered to the party who was
chargeable therewith, or that it had been sent by post,
or left at his place of residence, or ordinary place of
business, and signed by the attorney. Now, the party
chargeable must be stated. But what was the fact ?
Here the plaintiff, who now, by his declaration, said
that the defendant was the person chargeable, had
sent his bill to the defendant's home, addressed to
the " Committee of the Midland Grand Junction
Railway Company." It was quite clear that
was not the proper address of the defendant,
to whom, if he was to be made chargeable,
the account ought to have been addressed. Then,
there were two committees, the committee of manage-
ment and the provisional committee. It did not
appear in which capacity, according to the address of
Bill, it was sought to make the defendant chargeable,
whether as a member of the one or the other of those
Committees. The truth was, that the charges were here
made against a certain individual who was a member of
a certain committee, which committee had given in-
structions for certain actions to be brought against some
of their own body, or against the members of another
committee of the same company.
Mr. Crompton followed on the same side.
The LORD CHIEF BARON said he would, if the
Learned Counsel wished it, reserve the points.
Mr. MARTIN then said he should apply to amend.
The LORD CHIEF BARON thought the plaintiff was
entitled to do that. The plaintiff could, and ought
to amend. The verdict would therefore be taken for the
sum claimed, subject to the taxation of the Master.
Verdict for the plaintiff—damages 325/. 17s. 4d., sub-
ject to the taxation of the Master.
(Before a Special Jury.)

SMITH V. THE NORTH-WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.
This was an action really for the assessment of the
damages sustained by the plaintiff, the administratrix of
her late husband, Henry Smith, and her infant child,
by means of the death of the said H. Smith, which was
caused by the negligence of ono of the servants of the
North-Western Railway Company. The defendants
plead that they were not guilty.
The Attorney-General, Mr. W. H. Watson, and Mr.
Cowling conducted the case for the plaintiffs; and Sir
F. Kelly and Mr. Bramwell appeared for the defend-
ants.

The action was brought for compensation i❑ con-
sequence of the pecuniary loss sustained by the plaintiffs
by the death of Mr. Smith, by means of the negligence
of the servants of the defendants. Mr. Smith
was, on the sth of June, in the last year, a pas-
senger in a second class carriage bound for Bir-
mingham. On the arrival of the train near Wolverton,
the man who had the care of the " points" placed them
so as to cause the train to run on to a" siding," where a
collision occurred, the result of which was, that Mr.
Smith and six others received such injuries as to cause
death. Mr. Smith, at the period of the accident, was
in the enjoyment of art income amounting to between
1,300/. and 1,4001. a year, the whole of which bad been
thus lost to his widow and infant child. The present
action was now, therefore, brought for compensation.
The damages were laid at 10,0001.
The jury eventually gave a verdict for the plaintiffs—
damages 2,000/., of which they apportioned 8001. to the
widow, and 1,200/. to the infant.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
BOW-STREET.

Charles Thorpe, clerk in the Chancery-office, was
charged with assaulting police-constable E 57 in the
execution of his duty.
The constable said that he was clearing a mob caused
by a drunken woman in New Oxford-street, when the
defendant came upon him suddenly, and pushed or struck
him in the breast, alleging that he had shamefully ill
used a boy in the street, which he denied.
The boy, who seemed about twelve years old, and was
dreadfully cut and bruised in the face and arm, was here
shown to the Magistrate.
The defendant expressed his regret that ho had offered
any ♦iolence to the policeman, but he was unable to re-
strain himself after what he saw. The child was stand-
ing quietly by the side of the pavement, doing nothing
and causing no obstruction, when the policeman, to his
surprise and disgust, ran up and kicked the boy in so
cowardly and ferocious a manner that he was thrown
upon the pavement with great violence, and almost
covered with blood from the injuries he had sustained.
He had no other intention at the time than to ascertain
the name and number of the policeman, for the informa-
tion of the boy's parents. He was sorry for what had
happened, although he wished the conduct of the police-
man to be represented to the Court.
Several very respectable persons, by-passers at the
moment, corroborated the defendant's statement as to
the ill treatment of the child, and proved that the police-
man was pushed and not struck.
Mr. HALL was bound, from the evidence of the wit-
nesses, to believe that the policeman's conduct to the
child was most abominable. He could not, for this
reason, dismiss from his mind the impression that the
defendant might have felt greatly provoked to resent
such conduct on the part of the officer; or else he should
certainly have committed him to prison w ithout the
option of paying a tine. Still, his interference in the
way admitted by himself and his witnesses, was not jus-
tifiable and must not pass unnoticed. His Worship then
fined the defendant 11.

The Policeman declared that the child fell by acci-
dent, and that he did not kick him.
Constable 24 E confirmed this.

Mr. HALL stilt believed what had been represented by
all the witnesses, and asked the constable, if he was
prepared to make the pour boy any compensation for
the injuries he had evidently suffered from his violence?
The Constable replied, that he would gfve tho boy's
mother (who was in Court) is. !
His Wousufp finally recommended him to give 75.;
telling him that if such conduct was repeated he would
be punished in another way.
The Constable, after offering 55., at length paid the
7s. as suggested.
MARLBOROUGH-STREET.
_ _

James Simmons, a master tailor; was brought before
Mr. Hardwick, charged with cutting flowers in Kensing-
ton-gardens.
Thomas Clayton, No. 5 park-keeper, said on Sunday
morning, about half-past seven o'clock, he was walking
in Kensington-gardens, when he saw the prisoner in the
act of cutting the flowers. He went up to him, and
found that defendant had cut a large bunch of sweet-
william. Notices were placed up every twenty yards,
requesting the public not to touch the flowers, and if the
defendant had taken the trouble to have read them he
would have known that he was acting wrong.
In reply to the charge defendant said when ho went
into the gardens he had not the least intention of
plucking the flowers, but unfortunately, at the impulse
of the moment, he so far forgot himself as to commit the
act described by last witness. He was now very sorry
for what ho had done, and deeply felt his degraded
position.
Mr. HARDWICK said it was ♦ery singular that persons
could not walk in the gardens and enjoy the beauty of
the flowers without destroying them. If every one was
allowed to cut such flowers as pleased his fancy there
would soon be none for the public to admire. As a
warning for the future he (Mr. Hardwick) fined him ss.
over and above the value of the flowers.
The money was immediately paid.
WESTMINSTER.

Eugene Vernach, a Frenchman with a moustache, de-
scribed as a hatter, carrying on business in Oakley-
street, Lambeth, Thomas Slater, of the same place,
pianoforte-maker, and Edward Slater, a printer, all of
whom were well dressed, were charged with committing
a gross outrage in Cremorne-gardens.
Evidence having been committed to show that they
had committed assaults upon various persons of a most
violent and outrageous character, having struck right
and left at the company with their sticks, and made use
of the most disgraceful language,
Mr. BRODERIP said he considered the case of too
serious a nature for him to deal with summarily, and
ordered defendants to find bail to answer the complaint
at the sessions.
Mr. Ballantine appeared on behalf of Colonel Blayre,
against whom a charge had been made by Barbe Sophia
Mertz, a young Frenchwoman, of not supporting her il-
legitimate child, of which he was the father.
Mr. Ballantine intimated that if there was a child
there would be no objection on the part of his client to
maketshueTffirThe
oieeftn;heteonpmorurops
ouil
nafaidltnhepaeanrdtot :so
ui
of its
hhot
son
w,a
was
tsul tsraelagatelr
xl
eypresentthe
set
ehi
.teerdTe,
hwe a
cs
hni not
was said to
.be in France; but there was no legal proof
said it
would cost her 8/. to go for the child.
Mr. BRoDErtir said it would be impossible for him to
make an order upon the gallant Colonel, unless sufficient
proof should be given that the child was in existence.
A S 1V -

TTEMPTED _ UICIDE AT ATRLOO-BRIDGE.
On
Saturday morning another attempt was made to commit
suicide at this bridge. At about 11 o'clock a young woman,
fashionably dressed, mounted the stone spat in the recess
the nearest to the foot toll on the Middlesex side, and,
though several persons saw her and suspected her in-
tention, she had sufficient time to throw off her bonnet
and shawl and leap into the river. In her descent she
struck the abutment with great force, and then rebound-
ing into the water, must have perished, if she had not
been seen by Stevens, a waterman, the only one near,
who rowed to the spot and rescued her. She was taken
in an insensible state to the King's Collego Hospital,
where the house-surgeon discovered that her hip was
dislocated. The operation of setting the joint was per-
formed by the aid of chloroform; and, though the inju-
ries are severe, hopes are entertained of her recovery.
She gave her name Clara Villiers, and her residence,
Cornwall-road, Lambeth.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

ROUSE OF LORDS, June 26.

Their Lordships assembled at Five o'clock.
Earl FITZHARDINGE presented a petition from
Bristol in favour of the Health of Towns Bill.
The Earl of EGLINTON presented a petition from
Ayr in favour of alteration in the Scotch law of entail;
also several petitions against the Scottish Registration
Bill.

Earl FITZ WILLIAM presented a petition from Sin-
gapore, complaining of the local arrangements made by
the Government of that colony.
LORD G. BENTINCK'S CHARGES AGAINST
THE COLONIAL. OFFICE.

Earl GREY gave notice that he should to-morrow
move for returns of certain dispatches from the Gover-
nors of the West India Colonies, and he should take the
opportunity of alluding to what was reported to have
occurred in another place on that subject.
PETITIONS.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE presented a petition
from the College of Surons, praying their Lordships
to withhold their sanction from any measure establish.
ing a college of general practitioners; also a petition
from Lancashire praying for the establishment of a
system of secular education.
EVICTED DESTITUTE POOR (IRELAND) BILL.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE, on the order of
the day for the third reading of the Evicted Destitute
Poor (Ireland) Bill, moved that the alterations intro-
duced into the Bill by the Committee on Thursday night
should be expunged, so as to leave the Bill in the same
state as it would have been left if those alterations had
never been introduced.

Lord MONTEAGLE supported the amendments,
and contended that they would cause the relief to be
more operative and efficient.

The Earl of ST. GERMANS did not see the utility of
the Bill. He objected both to the Bill in its original
state, and also to the amendments. There was no pro-
vision in the Bill for giving notice of the number of
persons to be evicted; and the seven days' notice of evic-
tion would only be calculated to excite angry feelings
against the landlord, and give time forisome oppositiox:to
be offered to the process when it was put in execution.
It appeared to him that it was more desirable that the
notice should be served on the relieving officer than the
clerk of the board of guardians, because the former
would be in the locality of the unfortunate persons to
be turned out ; and he might be ordered by the Poor-
law Commissioners, upon forty-eight hours' notice being
given to them, to repair to the spot and ascertain the
number of persons likely to be rendered destitute by the
execution of the process. He should,jherefore, move
as an amendment, that the notice should be given to the
relieving officer, instead of the clerk of the board of
guardians, and that it should be forty-eight hours instead
of seven days.
The Duke of LEINSTER supported the amend-
ments.

The Marquis of CLANRICARDE thought forty-
eight hours would be rather too short a notice; but if
sufficient notice was given to allow of the persons to be
evicted being provided for, he did not wish to adhere
pertinaciously to his opinion as to the seven days. He
had, therefore, no objection to consent to the period
being forty-eight hours ; and he would also agree to the
notice being given to the relieving officer instead of the
board of guardians.
After a few words from Lord MONTEAGLE their
Lordships divided, when the numbers were--
For the motion
Against it
Majority
The Bill was then read a third time and passed.
CERTIFICATES FOR KILLING HARES (SCOT-
LAND) BILL.
The House went into Committee on this Bill.

Clauses 1,2, and 3 were agreedfo.o
Lord REDESDALE moved a clause to limit the
authority from the owners or occupiers of land to kill
hares to one person only.
The Duke of RICHMOND opposed the clause.
The House then divided, v. hen there appeared—
For the clause 36
Against it 23
Majority —l3
The clause was then inserted.
On clause 4 being proposed,
The Earl of CARDIGAN moved an amendment, to
prevent the occupier of land from laying snares or wires
for the killing of hares.
The Duke of RICHMOND opposed the amendment,
on the ground that it would have the effect of preventing
the small occupier from preserving his crop. For his
part, he would give the farmer the power of killing
pheasants and other game, which he thought would have
the effect of preserving game more effectually than if a
whole army of gamekeepers were employed.—(llear.)
The Earl of YARBOROUGH and Earl GREY also op-
posed the amendment.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment 2O
Against it
_ _

_
Majority
The clause was then agreed to, as were those which
followed.

On the question that the preamble be agreed to,
The Earl of MALMESBURY objected to certain
words.

A short conversation ensued, but a division not being
insisted on, the preamble was agreed to, and the House
resumed.

and representing that if the policy of the present Go-
vernment in reference to that question were persevered
in, it might lead to the annexation of Canada to the
United States. Seeing the Under-Secretary of
the Colonies in his place, he wished to ask whether
such a memorial had been received?
Mr. HAWES stated that the papers alluded to by
the Hon. Member would be laid on the table to-morrow.
ENCUMBERED ESTATES (IRELAND) BILL.
Mr. BRIGHT said the Noble Lord at the head of the
Government had stated last December that the Bill for
promoting the sale of encumbered estates in Ireland
was ready to be proceeded with, but up to the present
time no communication had been made to the
House with respect to it. It was a question of great
importance, and should, if possible, be disposed of this
session, and he wished, therefore, to know when the Bill
would be brought forward ?
Lord J. RUSSELL replied that the Bill would be
proceeded with before the other Irish business.
JAMAICA.—MR. HAWES' EXPLANATION.
On the order of the day being read for proceeding with
the adjourned debate,
Mr. HAWES said he was anxious to make a statement
in accordance with the pledge he made to the House on
Friday night last, so as to enable the House to judge of
the correctness or incorrectness of certain accusations
made by the Noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn.
/n the first place, he wished to put himself right with
the House, and to state that if in the course of Friday
evening he did use any expressions which were con-
sidered objectionable, he wished now to withdraw them.
lie could not allow the statements of the Noble
Lord and the imputations which he had cast
both upon the department which he had the honour to
serve, and upon his Noble Friend Lord Grey, to pass
without the most direct and positive denial
on his part. The Honourable Member then
went into an explanation relative to the dis-
patches of Governor Light and Lord Harris, which
the Noble Lord had alleged were suppressed, in order
to show that the Government had no intention what-
ever to withhold the documents from the Committee.
Tho dispatch was preparing for the House. On the
16th of June, Mr. Goulburn asked him in the House
(he was quoting from the Times of the following morn-
ing), if he had yet received from Jamaica any account
of the state and prospects of the island; to which
he (Mr. Hawes) replied that he was sorry to say
the Government had not yet received these papers,
which were usually published in a blue book, and
that the accounts he had received were only of a
general character At a later period he put a similar
question, to which he gave a similar reply, This
was the explanation he had to give with respect
to the first part of the charge, and he asked the
lion. Gentleman and the House to put that generous
interpretation upon it to which he believed his con-
duct in the matter entitled him. He now came to the
matter which was entirely personal to himself, and
though labouring under strong feelings in relation to
the charges which had been made against him, yet, as
his 'public character was entirely unsullied, he would
not allow himself to be betrayed into the use of heated
and intemperate language; he had so keen
-'a sense
of the impropriety of the altercations which had recently
taken place in that House, and of their effect
elsewhere, that he should not use any expressions cal-
culated to give the slightest offence. Having read the
charge made against him by the Noble Lord in the very
words he used, the Hon. Gentleman proceeded to say
that he declared at the time he did not recollect that
any important dispatches had been received from the
Governor of Jamaica, and in the Committee (a portion
of the evidence he gave before, which he read), he stated
in reply to the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goulburn), that
dispatches of an important character had been received
from other colonies, bat that he could not find any-
thing which could bear that interpretation from
Jamaica, adding, that whatever had arrived should
he laid before the Committee. He asked, therefore,
whether his conduct in the matter justified the accusa-
tion of the Noble Lord ? The dispatch alleged to have
been withheld occupied a single page of the blue book,
in which the Governor suggested a protective duty
of 2d. upon foreign sugar as against colonial sugar—
giving, in fact, an opinion in favour of protection. Now he
confessed he did not attach that importance to the do-
cument which the Noble Lord did; but at the same time
the Governor stated that the representatives of the
colonial planters, with respect to the cost of the pro-
duction of sugar must be treated with great caution by
the Noble Earl at the head of the Colonial Department.
Taking, therefore, the view he took of that document,
there could be no motive for withholding it. He would
now come to the other horns of dilemma, the other dis-
patch which the Noble Lord had alluded to. That dispatch
came first to the Colonial-office on the 27th of March.
It went first to Mr. Cox, who was in that office, after-
wards to Mr. Elliott, then to himself, and then to Earl
Grey, all of whom had made different statements
upon them; and Earl Grey directed that they should
be laid before the Committee ; but Mr. Cox had ne-
glected to do so. If the error had taken place on his
(Mr. Hawes') part, he would be most ready to have
borne all the blame.—(Hear, hear.) Now, having
made this statement, he called upon the Noble
Lord to state whether he meant to adhere
to the charge he had made against him, because if
the Noble Lord did adhere to that charge,
he should ask the House to institute the most
searching inquiry into the subject, as ho was
determined either to be convicted of the charge imputed
to him or stand fair before the House and the country
upon the serious charge that had been thrown upon him
by the Noble Lord.—(Hear, hear.)
Lord G. BENTINCK was sure that every Member
who had listened to the statements of the lion. Gentle-
man would be satisfied of the perfect correctness of
these statements.—(Hear, hear.) But he thought that
the Hon. Gentleman had not made out any case to show
that the Colonial-office did not withhold the in-
formation from the Committee.—(Hear, hear.) He
(Lord George Bentinck) had made two distinct charges,
the one was that the Colonial-office had systematically
kept back the information which Parliament in February
ought to have been in possession of; and which the Com-
mittee, of which he was Chairman, ought to have been
made acquainted with. He had made another charge
against the Honourable Gentleman, which was, that
in his evidence before the Committee on the sth
of April he had displayed a very short memory
until matters were recalled to his recollection.
He confessed he was still lost in surprise that the lion.
Gentleman should have given the answer he gave
before the Committee after the statement he had
made to-day ; because, though it was true that
in the course of that evidence he said that he
was not aware of any important dispatch that
had been withheld from the Committee, yet the
Right Hon. Gentleman, a Member of the Committee
(Mr. Goulburn) went distinctly to the character of this
very dispatch, which the Hon. Gentleman, in answer to
his (Lord G. Bentinck's) last question, distinctly stated
was not the character of the dispatch which was
then preparing. But let there be no mistake,
and whilst first he reminded the Home of the evidence
before the Committee he should take leave to ask the
attention of the House whilst he showed to them
that there had been the greatest _ anxiety about
the dispatch from Jamaica both before the sth of April
and after the sth April. Repeated inquires were made
relative to this information from Jamaica, but on every
occasion the representative of the Government, were he
the Right Hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of
Trade, in the absence of the Hon. Under-Secretary for
the Colonies, or the Hon. Under-Secretary himself,
distinctly denied that there was any information of this
nature. Now, then, let them weigh well the spirit of
the questions and the spirit of the answers given by
the Hon. Gentleman opposite. The Hon. Gentleman
was asked for a particular blue-book, and he replied,
" You allude to the blue-book containing an annual
account of the state of Jamaica, and the fact is, we
have not received it." The Right Honourable Gen-
tleman who put the question was not satisfied
with this answer, and he said—" Does not the
Governor write dispatches on the subject of the state of
the island, besides that one particular paper, in the
course of the year?" The Under-Secretary of State
answered, " Yes, certainly; but I am not aware of
any dispatch from him of any importance, which
had been withheld from the Committee." Well then,
now they were to understand the lion. Gentleman to
say that he had intended this dispatch to be laid before
the Committee.

Mr. lIAWES—It had been ordered to be laid before
the Committee.

Lord G. BENTINCK wished now to draw attention
to the next answer, which was, " Wo have received

from other colonies very considerable details as to the
state of the colonies and the prospects of agriculture, but
from Jamaica I can find nothing of the kind. Except
until very recently, I think there has been no such
general dispatch received. That dispatch is now pre-
paring for this Committee. I ought, however, to state
that the Governor has been in the island a very
short time." That next answer placed the matter
beyond all doubt, for it represented the dispatch
which had been received to be not of the nature
of that one to which the Right Hon. Gentleman alluded,
but still the Hon. Gentleman said it should be
furnished to the Committee.—(Hear, hear.) Not
of the nature to which the Right Hon. Gentleman
alluded! Why, now it turned out to be exclusively of
that nature, and of all the dispatches which had been
laid before the House or the Committee, it was
the most important that could have been laid before
the Committee at that critical moment.—(Hear, hear.)
Before that Committee the Under• Secretary for the
Colonies (Mr. Hawes) stated that up to the sth of
April no dispatch had been received with regard to the
state of the island. The President of the Board of
Trade (Mr. Labouchere) had also officially declared
in the House of Commons that the Government had
received no dispatches from the Governor of Jamaica
explanatory of the political and social condition of the
colony. On the Bth of February the Member for the
University of Cambridge (Mr. Goulburn) inquired why
Jamaica had been omitted in the statement of the affairs
of the several West India colonies, which had been
laid before the House; and also if the Government
had any objection to lay the last dispatch upon the table
of the House? In reply to that inquiry, the President
of the Board of Trade stated that no dispatch had been
received giving any account of the state of the island,
but as soon as such a document was received it was
the intention of the Secretary of State for the Colo-
nies to communicate it to the House without delay.
—(Hear, hear.) Now he (Lord George Bentinck)
was in a condition to show that a dispatch had been
received at that time.—(Hear, hear.) On the 7th of
February, which was the day previous to that to
which ho had alluded, Earl Grey stated that
out of the many documents which passed
through his hands connected with his department there
. .

was one which very much struck his attention, from a

number of planters in the western part of Jamaica, who
had invested 142,000/. in their estates, which

they had purchased since the Act of Emancipation.
The speech of Earl Grey at that time concluded by

saying that he knew of no place which appeared so va-
luable an investment for capital, or where a man was so
likely to realise a fortune, as in Jamaica.—(llear, hear.)
But the House should see what information that Noble
Lord was in possession of at the time when he lamented
the deplorable condition of the colony, arid instanced
absenteeism as the real cause of that condition. The
colonists had intimated to him that if the same state
of things existed, the production of sugar could not be
carried on for another year. This was a remarkable and
an important document, yet it was altogether withheld
from the Committee.—(Hear. hear.) But more,
at the time the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hume) stated,
that the Colonial, office came only into possession
of general information as to the condition of the
colony, lie should read a dispatch to the House which
was dated on the 24th of September, and reached the
Colonial-office on the 22d October, three weeks before
he (Lord G. Bentinek) moved for a return with respect
to the island of Trinidad. He alluded to a dispatch
from Governor Grey, and stated that he felt it his duty
to state that the low price of sugar in London, without
any corresponding reduction of duty, really threa-
tened to ruin many planters who were strug-
gling hard to keep their heads above water,
and he beheld the germs of a movement
towards supporting the party in the ensuing session
who advocated the principle of protection. He said he
should do his best to persuade them to a temperate
course of action, but he could not deny that the low
rate at NS hich cotton was imported, and the duty of 14s.
on Muscovado sugar, together with other anomalies,
tended much to aggravate discontent in the colony.
This was not the only instance of concealment; he
alluded to the case of the Trinidad papers, which were
moved for on the 20th of November, and were not pro-
duced until the night on which the debate was concluded.
Returning to the month of April, he would make it
clear to the House that there was a guilty keeping back
of this dispatch. The Committee closed its sitting on
the sth of April, and then adjourned. They met again
on Monday the Ist of May, and on the 2d of that month
he summoned them to receive the draft of the report.
On the 3d he circulated copies among the members of
the Government. They met again on the 4th of May,
at three o'clock. It was a meeting pro forma, to pre-
sent the report. There were but a few Members pre-
sent. The Right Hon. Gentleman then said he wished
to know what impression the evidence had made upon
the Committee, and that although the Government
would not be bound by it, still that the opinion of the
Committee would have great weight with them. On
Thursday, the 4th, the Committee adjourned to the
Tuesday following, that Government might have the
opportunity of ascertaining what that opinion was.
On the 4th he received manuscript dispatches and
extracts from that of stipendiary Magistrate Sturt.
Why, then, were those dispatches alludtd to by Go-
vernor Light kept back, and that of Lord Harris, not
that of the sth May, but another of the 24th April, with-
held, which came to hand simultaneously with that of
Mr. Sturt? That was dated (the 23d March. That
dispatch showed the bankrupt state of the treasury of
Trinidad, and contained other important information
with regard to immigration and the loan. There were
other dispatches kept back. The Committee got from
the Foreign Office dispatches of the 11th May and of
the 10th March, from Rio Janeiro. All these were laid
before the Committee, by the Foreign Office, as soon as
they were ireceived, and why had not the same thing
been done by the Colonial Office—(Hear, from the Op-
position benches)—as late as the sth May? The blue
book from Montserrat was of the sth April. Why was
that withheld? That contained an account of the agri-
culture of the island, and details of the condition of several
of the estates. Wages were reduced to 5 1-sd. per
day. There were thirty-nine estates in the island, and
seventeen of these were either broken up or the culti-
vation greatly reduced. The House was, no doubt, tired
of these details. Now, although wages were reduced to
sd. and the one-fifth of a penny per day, President
Baines said that they approached the cost of cultivation
of the slave-growing countries, " longo intervallo," and
that they could not bring it to the same cost until wages
were reduced to the cost of the sustenance of a slave.
Now, how could any one wish wages to be reduced lower
than they were stated to be in that colony? Well, that
dispatch was kept back. The Right Hon. Gentleman
seemed to think that the struggle in the Committee was
between two political parties, careless of the case of the
patients under their charge. Could he say that the Com-
mittee had not met him fairly—could he say that of the
Member for Droitwich, the Member for Cambridge, and
Lord John Manners? They had no mental reservation.
They frankly laid the evidence before him, to satisfy the
demand of the Government that they might be made
acquainted with their opinions. They opened their
breasts to the Government; but the great interests in-
volved in the question had not been fairly treated by
the Government, when such information had been with-
held from the Committee.—(Hear, hear.) The Com-
mittee met again on the 9th of May, and agreed to ad-
journ for nine days. They then met o❑ the 4th of
June, and on Friday, the sth, he moved for more papers.
The Hon. Gentleman was not then in his place, and he
asked leave of the Secretary of the India Board to move
for them. The Hon. Gentleman afterwards apologised
for his absence on that occasion, and promised to move
fur those papers, and would decide what should be
copies and what extracts of dispatches from the Mau-
ritius. The lion. Gentleman, however, forgot to move
the address for those returns, though Mr. Miles asked
on that day whether the Government were ready to
bring forward the dispatches. Mr. Hawes replied that
every important dispatch would be laid before them before
the debate came on.—(" Hear," from Mr. Hawes.) The
Committee were then deliberating on the question. The
dispatch of the 27th March, from Sir Charles Grey,
with all its minutes, had not then come bef)re the Com-
mittee, although the papers had been moved for on the
Bth May. How would they get over that? Now, it was
the duty of Earl Grey to select what should be copies
and what extracts. He then wished to know why this
dispatch, with four minutes on it, had bee❑ withheld on
the 9th May, papers which had been moved for on the
30th Marcia? Why did not the Noble Earl inquire why
it had not been laid before the Committee ? Why not
ascertain where the fault of the delay arose? Why did
he not direct that it should be immediately laid before
the Committee, arid at the same time apologise for the
detention ? It was intimated in that document that
the duty slat:Add be 2d. a pound, and 1,1. a pound o❑
sugar, or 9s. 4d. against 18s, 4d., but the Colonial-
office was mute and dumb. The Committee again ad-
journed to the 22d May, and in thirteen days after
they met again to consider a duty of 10s. against 20s.
proposed by Sir Charles Grey, of which they were
ignorant. The resolution prepared by the Chairman of
the Committee was thrown out, the Committee then
adjourned for four da)s to consider their verdict, but
inquiries were made in the interval. He found on the
16th of May, that the Right Hon. Gentleman the Mem-
ber fur Cambridge, asked if there had been any
accounts trona Jamaica. What was the answer ? No

.-- - -
that a mistake had been made seven days before
with regard to the dispatch from Sir Charles Grey, but
that they had not received the blue book. There was
one last resource ; the Committee met for the last time,
when they threw out the tenth resolution, proposed by
the Member for Cambridge, and supported by the
Member for Liverpool, and then the proposition of Sir
Thomas Birch, of a duty of ten shiliings for three years,
adopted. Mr. Hawes then said there was no information
from the West Indies, but that they expected accounts
in a few days. He would ask, did he not evade the
question ? Did he not know that the balance weighed
in the Committee, the information being wanting
upon which the Member for Liverpool could
form his opinion? The Government regarded this
great interest as a hostile party, and dealt with
it as with u criminal under prosecution by the Attorney-
General, and prosecuted it by suppressions of the truth.
That was his charge of the Under-Secretary for the Co-
lonies, and the President of the Board of Trade knew
that these dispatches were at hand, and withheld infor-
mation which would influence the vote of the Committee.
Then it was said that he charged the Under-Secretary
of the Colonies and the Noble Lord of fraud, who held
so high a position above such an imputation—(Hear,
hear, from the Ministerial benches)—his charge was a
political holding back of documents for a political pur-
pose.—(Hear, hear.) He imputed no sordid fraud to
the Noble Lord. There could be no suspicion of that
kind. But he felt himself justified in defending the in-
terests of his country, to arraign high Ministers of State
and to state that they forfeited the confidence which the
country had reposed in them. He made AO charge of
fraud in any other sense. He then charged them with
great want of memory, and now he would add, with a
great want of sagacity, that they could not comprehend
that the dispatch they wanted was that which had been
cocketted by Mr. Cox, "this is the dispatch the Com-
mittee want."

Lord J. RUSSELL said he could not but think his
Hon. Friend was entitled to an answer to the questions
he had put to the Noble Lord that night ; and he (Lord
J. Russell) rose, not to make a reply to the Noble Lord's
long speech, but in order to elicit some reply on behalf
of his Hon. Friend. The Noble Lord, on a former night,
accused his Hon. Friend of keeping back 13 dispatch
from the Committee of which he was chairman, to which
charge his lion. Friend replied by reading a minute
signed Earl Grey, dated March 30, ordering the
dispatch in question to be laid before the Committee.
On Friday last the Noble Lord said that those minutes
must have been concocted after his Hon. Friend's evi-
dence had been given before the Committee, and at the
end of his speech he quoted the sentiment of Mr. Burke,
that—" Plain good intentions are as easily discovered at
first view as fraud is surely to be detected at last." His
lion. Friend then said that an allegation of that kind
was not to be met without previous notice, upon
which the Noble Lord said, " that if the minutes were

not got up "—that was to say, if a gross and disgraceful
fraud had not been committed by Mr. Fox, Mr. Elliott,
his lion. Friend (Mr. B. Ilawas) and Earl Grey—" sub-
sequent to the sth of April, the Hon. Gentleman was
troubled with the shortest memory that bad appeared
since the days of Majoechi, of green-bag memory."
And now, when his Hun. Friend made an explanation as
to the facts, and asked the Noble Lord to prove his
charges or to withdraw them, or else to have a Com-
mittee appointed to examine into their truth, what did
the Noble Lord do ? He favoured them with a long
speech, but as to the character or honour of his lion.
Friend the Noble Lord had not said anything by which
the House could infer what his intentions were. As to
the minute, he had certainly said there was no doubt his
Hon. Friend was correct in his statement, but then
subsequently he seemed to say the contrary, and he
(Lord J. Russell) wanted to know whether the charge
of concocting it was withdrawn ? That was the first
question he put to the Noble Lord. Now, as
to the second point, the charge was perfectly intel-
ligible, and constituted what the Noble Lord called the
other horn of the dilemma—namely, " that if the minute
was not concocted after the sth April, the lion. Member
must be troubled with a memory as short as that of
Theodore Majocchi, of green bag notoriety," who, as
they were all aware, had acquired a character by trying
to deceive all the world in giving his evidence. Now,