The Sun.
London, England, 1846-05-07 00:00:00

HE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING, MAY 7, 1846

irmtoanthoef
atheooesLsiitvyerpfooor
al
line
eocokf
e as
3fr.l
Committee,hom a,
communication between Liverpool, and the places through which this
line would pass. He could not say anything as to the merits of this
agsßeragmeoleetyalMeoovidreei evidence ha
line, as he had not considered the subject.
Mr. Allan, steward to Lord Wharncliffe at his country residence
at Hawes, gave evidence as to the necessity for, and recommenda-
tions of, the Hawes branch of this line.
hoped
opete thethe Committeeop poitepawrtoyuisdhogialvde
Mr. TALBOT then said, that as he believed the Committee were
satisfied a the importance of this district, he would not give any
hfuhorthleeravgeentoeroaial eivithrthdenecet ev,biudtehheee
give evidence to contradict what had been preyed.
After some discussion this was assented to.
Tsgrssaividdetnhcaet,
asat,
uthtihs
alcaetemaiihourtteehwe
awreonlwillind nott
heenttehrouinghtot
As it was now near four o'clock,
Id be best to adjourn.
t ith
,e : engineering
aor.

The Committee assented, and adjourned till to-morrow at twelve
o'clock.

Bill might go through Committee pro forma, when they
would see what the Bill actually consisted of.
Sir R. PEEL said that those who required a perfectly
unruffled temper in him should set the example themselves.
The Hon. Gentleman would be in no better position than if
the Bill had been brought forward in its original shape.
On Wednesday next, so far from gaining any advantage, a
motion could be made that the Speaker do leave the chair,
and that the House do go into Committee on that day six
months, and so far from entering into any compact with the
Hon. Gentleman, he believed that he had never a word of
conversation with him on the subject in h 1 life. He could
not consent to repeal any of the provisions of the Act of
1829, nor would he give any pledge to support any amend-
ment which might be introduced.
Mr. NEW DLGATE explained. He did not impute to the
Right Hon. Gentleman any unworthy motive.
Mr. LAW did not wish to oppose any difficulty to the wish
of the House, and would withdraw his motion.
The motion was then withdrawn,
BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY BILL.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
HOUSE OF COMMONS, May 6.
ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL,
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
Mr. O'CONNELL--He could quote M. Thiers as an ex-
ample of a perfect statesman. He (Mr. O'Connell) con-
sidered that this suggestion of the Hon. Member, if it had
no other good quality, had at least that of novelty "to re-
commend it. It was something peculiarly novel to re-
commend the example of France in religious matters. The
Hon. Member said that this accomplished statesman had at-
tacked the Jesuits. He (Mr. O'Connell) contended that
that man was no statesman who only pandered to the bad
prejudices of his countr,yinen.—(Hear, hear, and cheers.) He
challenged the Hon. Member to bring one charge against
the Jesuits, and to prove that charge. He had thrown
that challenge down to the Honourable Member
some weeks ago, and he had not yet been
able to bring such a charge. True, he had spoken of a con-
sultation of the Parliament of Paris in the year 1762, where
calumnies of the worst description had been originated
against that ecclesiastical body. But he (Mr. O'Connell)
would ask, if it was either right or fair to bring this con-
sultation forward as a charge, when: the Hon. Member well
knew that these calumnies had been refuted times out of
number ; when he could have informed the House, that
Archbishop Amand, and all the French Bishops in the last
century, bad protested against those calumnies? Did the
Hon. Member forget the speech of Henry IV., when that able
and powerful monarch did full justice to Jesuits, but the Hon.
Member said something about the Emperor of Russia. He
quoted Thiers as his model of a statesman, and now he
quoted the Emperor of Russia as a model of kingly piety.
The Hon. Member made certainly a singular selection.—
(Laughter.) He again challenged him to substantiate a sin-
gle charge against the Jesuits. They were a most estimable
body. They had been the patrons of literature in every age.
As a community they were distinguished for the exercise of
every virture. Their hospitality was unbounded, their cha-
rity sincere, and however they might he villified now, they
would be regarded in history as the truest benefactors of man-
kind.
Mr. FINCH said that, in his opinion, the Hon. and
Learned Member for Cork had not fairly stated the argu-
ments of his Hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-
Lyne, when he said that the Hon. Member wished them
to follow the example of France in matters of religion. He
(Mr. Finch) considered that the Jesuits had in too many
instances been calumniated, but no one could deny that, in
consequence of the dangerous teuets they propagated, they
had been driven out of every country in Europe.
After a few words from Lord ROBERT GROSVENOR,
which were inaudible in the gallery, ,
Mr. PHILIP HOWARD said that one of the wisest mo-
narchs in Europe, Frederick the Great of Prussia, had given
them a refuge in hs dominions. He felt that this Bill would
not be objected to by the great body of the people of this
country.
Mr."NEWDEGATE had always objected to the repeal of
the clauses of the Act of 1829. This oppoisition did not arise
from any wish to persecute the Roman Catholics, but from a
desire to preserve the peace and well-being of the country. He
trusted that her Majesty's Government would not consent
to the repeal of those clauses, which they had themselves in-
troduced. The reason why those clauses had never been put
in force, of course, was best known to the Right Hon. Baronet
the Home Secretary.
Mr. M. MILNES said, that for some years the youth of
the Roman Catholic community had been entrusted to the
Jesuits for their education, and no evils had resulted from the
Catholic youth being so educated.
Sir R. PEEL said he was ready to consent to a division of
the Bill, for the purpose of being enabled to express his opi-
nion with regard to that part of the Bill which contemplated
the repeal of part of the statute of 1829. Of course it was
necessary for him to vote for the motion of the Hon. Gentle-
man, in order to make the division of the Bill. He would
advise the Hon. Gentleman to permit the House to go into
Committee on the Bill pro former ; he would then have the
opportunity of taking the sense of the House on any clauses
to which he objected.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. LAW recommended that his Hon. Friend should not
give way to the proposal of the Right Hon. Gentleman, but
persevere in his motion.
Lord J. RUSSELL considered that there could be no dif-
ficulty in adopting the advice of the Right Hon. Baronet.
Mr. WATSON said that the House had already affirmed
the principle of the Bill, for the second reading of it had
already taken place. The present measure would not repeal
the Act of Supremacy, for supremacy was the common law of
England.
Mr. NEWDEGATE explained.
Lord JOHN MANNERS said that the Hon. Member for
Newcastle had stated that he did not wish to impose any
penalties on the profession of religion. The supremacy of
the Pope either was or was not a doctrine of the Roman
Catholic religion. If it were not, then he called upon his
Hon. Friend to allow this Bill to pass, and if it were, then he
called upon him to go with them and enforce the penalties.
The fact was, those who professed to be the most sincere
friends of civil and religious liberty very often turned out to
be the most bitter of its foes.
Mr. ESTCOURT rose amid repeated cries of " Divide,"
and said he should only detain the House for a very few
minutes. The Hon. Member who had charge of the Bill had
stated that he intended to expunge all the clauses down to
that which related to the statute of George IV. He thought
there was a secresy with regard to the Bill, for when he had,
on a previous occasion, made some observations with respect
to this particular Bill, they were net received with
much favour ; but a different opinion now appeared
to prevail. This only he would say, that if
those clauses were repealed, it would be a vio-
lation of the contract which was entered into in 1829.
The Bill was, in fact, a Bill for an amendment of the
Act of 1829, and if it had been introduced with that avowed
object, his Right Hon. Friend below him (Sir R. Peel) it
would have met it with his unquestionable opposition. He
would suggest that the Hon. Member (Mr. Watson) should
avail himself of the proposition of the Secretary of State for
the Home Department. By doing so, that Hon. Member
would undoubtedly lose an advantage which he had obtained,
unfairly obtained, but he did not doubt, that from the re-
spectability of that gentleman, he would readily give it up,
and not shuffle a measure like this through the House.
Mr. B. ESCOTT said, that what was meant by shuffling
and by unfair advantage had not been explained ; but he
would remind the House that this Bill had been read a second
time by a matority of three to one, and he thought that the
proper course was to go ini.o Committee, oppose what was
bad, approve what was good, and do what they thought
proper with the Bill on the third reading.
After a few words from Mr. Cop:lmmix, which were
hardly tolerated by the House,
Mr. SPOONER said, that although he might have ap-
proved of the early part of the Bill, he could not assent to
the latter part of it ; and he felt assured that it was not com-
petent for the House in the present stage to divide the Bill.
If his Right Hon. Friend at the head of the Government
assented to this measure, he would in fact be doing neither
more nor less than practising upon the House, and being a
party to a measure for amending the Act of 1829.
Sir ROBERT PEEL trusted the House would allow him
to answer the perversions of the Hon. Gentleman who had
just sat down.—(Laughter.) He proposed that the Bill
should be divided into two parts, and as the Hon. Gentleman
objected to the first part of the Bill, he would have the op-
portunity of dealing with it ; he thought his suggestion should
be met in the spirit it was made in.
Mr. SPOONER objected that the Bill could not be di-
vided. If the Right Hon. Gentleman allowed the House to
go into Committee, he was virtually repealing the law which
he had declared should never be repealed.
The House then divided on the question that they go into
Committee, when there appeared—
For going into Committee llO
Against it
Majority fur going into Committee...--43
The House then went into Committee on the Bill, and the
preamble was agreed to.
On the question that the first clause stand part of the
Bill,
Mr. LAW moved that the clause be omitted altogether.
Mr. WATSON said that he did not intend to proceed fur-
ther with the Bill at that time. He should, therefore, pro-
pose that the Chairman report progress, in order that the
Bill might be recommitted for the purpose of introducing
certain clauses.
Mr. LAW said that he was in possession of the House.
The clause had been put, and in the exercise of his public
duty he should not give way.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that the course taken by the Hon.
and Learned Member was not a very fair one to the Hon.
and Learned Member who had the conducting of this mea-
sure. It would be in the power of the Hon. and Learned
Member to oppose this Bill in an after stage, and therefore
his present opposition was neither handsome nor courteous
to his Hon. and Learned Friend (Mr. Watson), nor very
just to the House.---(Hear, hear.)
Mr. LAW said that the division which had recently taken
place was for the express purpose of getting rid of the
Bill, and Honourable Members on his side of the House
were not, therefore, parties to any arrangement between the
Right Hon. Baronet and Hon. Members opposite. It was
ngithnisgo rwo
Bills a r
now Troposed to carry out that arrangement, that his Hon.
tf
w tihnsisteadßilolf io n anewHeswhaaspeo,ppof,
opposed
to this Bill in any shape, and he thereforene claimed
and Learned Friend should have an opportunity of re-print-
ing and bringingfact, making
to proceed in this course.perf Herm .—( had personallyan his right
tdheohh,igoliehsot
o
respect for the Hon. and Learned Member opposite, but he
had a public duty to Hear,hear,
He considered this Bill was of a,pernicious character, and he
viewed with suspicion all measures which emanated from
the other side, and which received the approbation of the
Right Honourable Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Go-
vernment.
publicrLtairation,
(Laughter.)
enduties,
. )w
MeSmirbßeroßwEhoßTbaPdELLt tsruposkteend tohnat
tthhee Hpeorn. formanandeeLeaofrnhed
is
dt T
hhi s cmoh
roaerr
egme du acutenesss
t themhave
av ew
thani
bt
eh enmhsooer
me
had
ae
d greatm
tp he
er
uns
hd.
soamwp opn dr.:e
hension on the part of the Hon. Member in pursuing a course
from which he could gain no possible advantage. The Hon.
and Learned Member (Mr. Watson) had merely asked to
have the Bill recommitted for. the purpose of having certain
clauses introduced which, if proposed on the instant, would be
less intelligible than if they were printed and Hon. Members
hadtime to consideroh oh!)—thrown emth out as them.
tohee3
Mr. LAW said that he had a right to
lt
s u
complainaee oe
rf
iannwyhin-
sinuations—(Oh,ei
he 1
had
(tcee —(Hear, hear.)
He s
ht dischargedt his duties
heßigh
flight
lion.
another.
Baronet
t
thatougthose duties were not discharged with reason,tlt
that temper
ande t t h
that attention which were due to them. H
t dido g
not-
g
complain of any opinion that the Right Hon. Baronet might
be pleased to entertain of those duties, but he thought,
speaking of courtesl, that much discourtesy had been ex-
hibited to him by the Right Hon. Baronet. If he had
thought that his assent would give no advantage to the pro.
moters of the Bill he should not oppose it then ; but such was
not his opinion, and he felt that it was his duty therefore to
follow this course.
Mr. COLQUHOUN said they had got rid of the first part
of the Bill, and the Right Hon. Baronet had stated that he
the extinction of the Bill.
plished their object, which was
it was not so, as he should move
Mr. ROEBUCK said that
should oppose the second part. They had, therefore, accom.
that the Chairman do report progress, in order that the new
course would be to re-
Mr. BERNAL thought the better
print the Bill. what he called the
clauses might be printed in a separate form.
Mr. NEWDEGATE, after condemning
Mr. Law), th
the Hon. Member for Cambridge University ( .
propriety of withdrawilag 114 ambient, cider that th
the Right Hon. Baronet, suggested to
want of temper of

On the motion of Sir J. GRAHAM, the second reading
of this Bill was postponed for a fortnight.
ART-UNIONS BILL. _ _

The Committee on this Bill was also adjourned for a fort-
night, on the motion of the Right Hon. Baronet.
CORRESPONDING SOCIETIES AND LECTURE-
ROOMS BILL.

On the motion of Sir J. GRAHAM, this Bill was read a
second time.

ELECTION NOTICES BILL.

The House went into Committee on this Bill, and it was
ordered to be reported on this day (Wednesday) fortnight.
ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE BILL.
The House then went into Committee upon this Bill.
A few verbal amendments were moved and agreed to on
clauses I and 2. _

Mr. LAW then moved the addition of the following
clause :—(Power to award hard ;labour, and the costs of
the prosecution in all cases.)—" And whereas it is expe-
dient to give to Criminal Courts the power to award
hard labour as a portion of the punishment inflicted on
offenders convicted before them, and also to give to
such Courts the power of allowing reasonable costs in
all cases piosecuted or tried before them ; therefore, be it
enacted, that it shall be lawful for the Court before which
any offender shall be convicted of any misdemeanour, to sen-
tence (if such Court shall see fit) such offender to be kept
to hard labour, either in the common gaol or house of
correction, for the whole or any part of the term for
which such Court is now by law authorised to direct
such offender to be imprisoned, and to direct (if it shall see
fit) the costs of the prosecutor, and witnesses for the prosecu-
tion, in all cases of misdemeanour, to be paid in the same
manner and under the same regulations as the costs in
certain cases of misdemeanour are directed to be paid by the
statute passed in the seventh year of the reign of his late
Majesty King George the Fourth, intituled 'An Act for
improving the Administration of Criminal Justice in
England. " _

Sir JAMES GRAHAM said that the clause proposed by
his Hon. Friend was a very important one. He looked with
very great jealousy to any extension of the powers to the
criminal courts in the manner proposed by the clause. It
required great consideration before they came to any decision
on so important a change as the clause contemplated. He
could not say he was quite prepared to oppose the •'clause
until he had heard the reasons of his Hon. Friend.

Mr. LAW explained that the clause was merely an exten-
sion of the powers contained in sec. 63, chap. 74, of the Act
of George IV. He knew of several instances of aggravated
assault, which had been very inadequately punished, in con-
sequence of the provisions contained in the 7th George IV.
not meeting the case. By the present law, in cases of con-
spiracy and of assault, the parties who brought the criminals
to justice were not allowed the expenses of the prosecution.
This has been the subject of animadversion day after day
for years, and it had not yet been remedied. The object of
his clause was to give the criminal courts the power of
awarding reasonable costs in all cases prosecuted or tried
bet'ore them. _ _

Sir J. GRAHAM should feel greatly obliged if his Hon.
Friend would withdraw his clause for the present, and pro-
pose it again on the bringing up of the report. This would
give him time to consider the matter, and as it was a very
important subject, the clause should not at this moment be
pressed.
Mr. LAW consented to the postponement of his clause
until the bringing up of the report.
After a few words from Mr. P. EGERTON,
Mr. BODKIN was perfectly willing to agree to any post-
ponement of the clause, as it would give further time for the
consideration of the matter.
Mr. J. JERVIS thought that the powers proposed in the
clause of his Hon. Friend would be dangerous in the hands
of the judges.
Mr.GRAINGER was of a similar opinion. With regard to
the first clause, he agreed that too much power was placed
at the disposal of magistrates with respect to cases of mis-
demeanours, and therefore he thought it should be altered.
With regard to the others, he should be contented that they
should remain as they were.
After a few words from Colonel SIBTHORP.,
Mr. LAW would be glad to receive the suggestions of
Hon. and Learned Gentlemen opposite as to the particular
cases which should be exempted from this clause.
Mr. HENLEY objected to the introduction of the word
" conspiracy." They ought to define the particular crime
intended by the term, as at present it was altogether too
vague, and would lead to abuses.
Mr. B. ESCOTT would wish that the particular costs in
particular cases should be specified.
The clause was then withdrawn.
The House resumed, and the report was ordered to be
brought up this day week.
The House then adjourned.

board ; he could not tell how many. He went on board
determined on laying an information, and he fixed his
attention entirely upon the captain on the paddle-box.
He had experienced annoyance and uncourteous
treatment from the steam-boats when even sculling on
the river, and he had mentioned his intention to prosecute.
Mr. Cattarns objected that the bye-law merely related
to freemen, and was not applicable to persons Who were
not proved to be free.
Alderman GIBBS said it was evident that if the defen-
dant was not free he had subjected himself to more
severe condemnation and punishment, inasmuch as a
person not a freeman found navigating a vessel was
liable to be committed as a rogue and vagabond.
Mr. Cattarns submitted that in all penal Acts every
thing charged must be proved to the letter, and such
had not been the case in the evidence of the gentleman
who brought the charge.
Mr. Goodman said it was not necessary for a man to
be free in order to be made amenable under the statute.

Alderman GlBBS—Surely it canaot be meant to argue
,bat because a man is not free, he can do just as he
ikes.

Mr. Cattarns said he meant to argue that the bye-
law, which the defendant was accused of having violated,
had reference to freemen alone. _ _ _

THE WEST INDIA MAIL.

SOUTHAMPTON, WEDNESDAY, HALF-PAST TWELVE.

Alderman GlBBs—Well, we can see whether he is or
is not a freeman. Let the clerk to the Watermen's
Company be called.
Mr. Baryon (clerk to the Watermen and Lightermen's
Company) then proved that the defendant was made a
freeman of that company in November, 1832.
Mr. Catterns took another objection, upon the ground
of the uncertainty as to the wording of the byelaw in
fixing the penalty.
Alderman Ginns over-ruled the objection, and fined
the defendant 40s.
Mr. Cattarns said the complainant had not proved
what was at all calculated to justify a conviction, and
gave immediate notice of appeal.
The same defendant was then charged by the same
complainant, upon another byelaw, amongst the same
regulations, with having unlawfully navigated the Bride
steam-vessel without causing and procuring a proper look-
out to be kept from the bow of the said steam-vessel.
Mr. Fellows, in his evidence in the second case, stated
that while the Bride was performing part of the voyage
below Blackfriars and Southwark bridges, and when the
defendant was acting as master on the paddle-box, there
was nobody at all during a portion of the time in the
fore-part of the vessel except himself (witness), and
there was no one looking out from the bow of the vessel.
Cross-examined by Mr. Cattarns—Witness could not
say how many people were on board. He saw a man
on the bow at one time, but that man did not look like
one of the crew ; neither did he look out at all. Was
not sure what the hour was at which the circumstance
occurred, but it was between three and seven o'clock.
He could not say how the tide was, nor whether the
vessel eased or stopped between Blackfriars and London
bridges.
Mr. Cattarns observed, that the complainant appeared
to have shut his eyes to everything except the object of
endeavouring to fix a penalty ; and the fact of his not
being able to speak of the time within a smaller limit
than between three and seven o'clock, was surely enough
to justify an acquittal in the present case.
Alderman GIBBS said, that the complainant, by ex'"
elusively fixing his attention upon the only things which
it was necessary for him to prove, was better able to state
facts, by not allowing his mind to be distracted.
The penalty of 40s. was also inflicted in this case by
Alderman Gibbs, and Mr. Cattarns gave a second notice
of appeal
William Cadwell, commander of the steam-vessel
Citizen, appeared to answer similar complaints made
by the same complainant.
The defendant had refused to give his name to the
complainant in the first instance, but upon being told
that by the rufusal he would subject himself to a penalty
of 101., he complied. Witness had been nearly run down
in the river upon one occasion by a steamer called the
Citizen, but he could not say the vessel in question
was that steamer. There was no registered number of
the vessel, nor was the registered number of passpgers
painted within the paddle-boxes, of which there were
two. There:was no look-out at all from the bow.

The Royal Mail steam-ship Medway, Captain W. S. An-
drews, arrived this morning at 11 o'clock, with the usual
West India and Mexican mails, and the large number of 109
passengers.
She also brings an extensive and valuable freight. The
amount of dollars for the dividends is only 46,000; viz.
36,000 from Vera Cruz, and 10,000 from Tampico.
The latest dates brought by the Medway are—Tampico,
22d of March ; Vera Cruz, Ist of April ; Havannah, 10th of
April ; Honduras, 20th of March ; Chagres, 28th ; Jamaica,
April 8 ; Carthage, March 30 ; Demerara, April 3 ; Trinidad,
sth ; Barbadoes, Bth ; Grenada, 9th ; St. Thomas, 14th ; La
Guayra, 7th ; Bermuda, 22d.
The principal freights brought by the Medway consists of
289,580 dollars, including 36,003 from Vera Cruz on account
of the Mexican dividends; 10,000 from Tampico on ac-
count of the Mexican dividends ; 2201. 2s. 6d. British coin ;
420,603 dollars in gold dust and gold ; 4 boxes Vanilla ;
24 serons of Jalapa ; 52 boxes and packages plants ; 59
serons of cochineal; 115 cases and boxes cigars; 138 bales
tobacco ; 94 turtle, for Nassau ; 38 cases preserved turtle ;
1 package aloes ; 52 ditto sundries ; 6570 z. gold ; 75005.
silver; and 121 b. platina.
There is no particular news of importance by this arrival,
either from the West Indies or from Mexico.

LAW IN TELLIGEN CE,

COURT OF CHANCERY, May 6.
JONES V. MORGAN.

Mr. Cattarns remarked upon what he considered to be
the exceedingly inaccurate evidence of the complainant.
Mr. Fellows said he considered that his evidence was
quite conclusive enough; however he should take care on
future occasions to observe a few more particulars.
Alderman GIBBS fined the defendant upon each of the
eases, which differed in no respect from the two cases
already decided upon, in the penalty of 40s.
Mr. Cattarns gave notice of appeal in both cases as
well as in those against the commander of the Bride.
The Lord 'Mayor has issued 40 summonses to the
commanders of steamers navigating the Thames under
his Lordships' jurisdiction, for acting without being free
of the Watermen's and Lightermen's Company, by which
the proceedings are undertaken.

The further arguments in this part-heard appeal from
the decision of the Vice-Chancellor of England, upon
demurrer, were resumed, and concluded to-day. The
question in this case relates to the liabilities of certain
parties who had taken shares in a company, the object of
which was to form a Socialist Society, upon the plan of
Mr. W. Owen, at Arbiston, near Glasgow.
The LORD CHANCELLOR, at the conclusion of the argu-
ments, postponed his judgment.

METROPOLITAN STREET
CLEANSING ASSOCIATION.

VICE- CHANCERY COURT, May 6.
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND.)
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL V. THE EARL OF DEVON.
The arguments in this part-heard case were resumed
to day, and the case on behalf of the relatives concluded.
The information was filed by two gentlemen, named
Heathcote and Hale, inhabitants of Tiverton, in Devon-
shire, and the object of the information was to obtain the
direction of the Court as to the management of the
Grammar school at Tiverton, in Devonshire, of which
Lord Devon, and several other noblemen and gentlemen
of the county were trustees. The school under their
auspices had become a school for gentlemen's children,
who were boarders, to the exclusion of the children of
inhabitants of the town, for whose benefit the charity was
intended by the founder.
Mr. Bethell, Mr. Walker, Mr. Blunt, and Mr. Heath-
field were Counsel for the relators ; and
Mr. James Parker, Mr. Struton, Mr. Rolt, and Mr.
Palmer, were Counsel for the defendants.
At the conclusion of the case for the relators, the
arguments on behalf of the defendants were postponed
to the 25th of May.

A public meeting of this Association. was held in Guildhall
on Monday.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, May 6.
This Court was occupied nearly the entire day in hearing
the arguments of the Attorney and Solicitor-Generals in a
case arising out of an act of the Corporation of Warwick.
The question was entirely a dispute between two political
parties in the town, though it was nominally whether the
Corporation had, by the Municipal Act, any power over cer-
tain public charities.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, May 6.
Mr. CHAMBICRS made an application to the Court to change
the venue of a case from the county in which it was about
to be tried to London, or elsewhere. The grounds of the ap-
plication were, that the plaintiff, who was a poor man, had
been prosecuted by the defendant, Sir R. Murray, for an
alleged breach of the game-laws, for which he had been im-
prisoned, and for which imprisonment he now sought to
take an action, as he contended that it was a false
imprisonment ; but he apprehended that the defendant had
such influence in the district where the case was prcposed to
be tried, that the jury would lean towards the side of the
defendant.

Lord ROBERT GROSVENOR having taken the chair, said it
was the first meeting he had ever attended in the City of
London, and he was sorry, considering the importance of
their object, that the meeting was not greater, and he must
leave with so bad an opinion of the good people of the City of
London.—(Laughtel.) To-morrow the Commissioners of
Sewers would hold a meeting, and their decision as to the
present scheme would no doubt be much affected by what
took place there that day. Those who had originated in this
matter were known as the Society for the Improvement of
Cleansing the Streets of London, which grew out of the fol •
lowing circumstances :—There were a number of scien-
tific gentlemen who wished to acquire and dissemi-
nate information as to the best roadway for the streets
of the metropolis. There was therefore a struggle between
rival schemes—wood pavement, granite, and asphalte—each
promoter striving to set his nostrum in pre-eminence, as all
of them must have witnessed in various parts of the City.
But these gentlemen were struck with the quantity of mud
and dirt in the streets, and were brought to the conclusion
that unless some arrangement was provided for the removal
of this mud from the top of the streets it would be impossible
to arrive at any conclusion as to the best means of paving.
He (Lord Grosvenor) was aware that a good deal of mis-
conception had gone abroad about their society—a suspicion
that under good coats and kid gloves there was something
more than met the eye—an association, namely, of general
scavengers; and that, after quietly creeping towards their
object, and after securing it, they were to strip off the good
coats and their kid gloves and take the broom and the
basket.—(Laughter,) He did not mind this sort of opinion,
for they who would do good must lay their account with
misrepresentation ; and he was sure that he could very easily
dispel it when he mentioned what was the rule of the Society,
that nobody could belong to it who had any pecuniary in-
terest in their operations.—( Applause.) These gentlemen
accordingly, when they had come to this conclusion, strove
to direct the attention of shopkeeper a and inhabitants of the
different localities to the subject, and the means it would
give of employment to the poor. The Society determined to
make an experiment, and began their operations in Regent-
street, where it is crossed by Oxford-street; remonstrating
with the inhabitants of Oxford street, in order to get them to
remove their filth and dirt. Their operations were not con-
fined to the public roadway; they went into the lanes and
alleys, and took away the filth from the poor, who were un-
able to pay to have it taken away; the consequence of this
being the prevention of disease and fever. They had a
meeting after that in Hanover square Rooms, and in con.
sequence of what occurred there, a deputation of the Society
with Mr. Cochrane, their President, waited on the Paving
Board in the parish of St. George. Mr. Cochrane was re-
ceived very coolly, but in despite of this he persisted in lay-
ing before the board the superior cleanliness that would be
the result, and the vast number of people that would be
employed. But the Society made a mistake when they
opened their intentions in this quarter; it ought to have gone
to the east, where the sun rises, instead of the west. They
accordingly did turn to the east, although, as the sailor says,
from west to east is the wrong way of turning to the wind.
—(Laughter.) They went to the Commissioners of Sewers,
and there they met with a good reception. The deputation, in
going before the Commissioners, made known their object and
their scheme, and all that they requested was to have the
opportunity of giving them an example of their manner of
operation, which most of those present must have seen, ere
this, at work in Cheapside. This experiment was tried in
the months of November and December last, and the result
had been, on the rate-payees and inhabitants, that a vast
number had signed a petition, declaring their readiness to
meet any increase on the rate, in order to secure this mode
and this degree of cleanliness.—(Applause.) He hoped most
earnestly that the Society might be successful in their en-
deavours. He had only one word more before he resumed his
seat. Often had he heard men talk of a redundant popu-
lation—that there were more people than could be employed.
This he believed was a satire on Providence. He enter-
tained no such notion. Certain he was, that if men would
only do their endeavours they would find the means of em-
ploying the industrious, and that too in such a manner as
would give them a return for their money.--(Applause.)
Rev. Mr. Hansen, in moving the first resolution, entered
into details from his own parish to show the painful neces-
sity there was of some greater effort to cleanse away the
filth, out of which arose so much disease and suffering to the
people.

➢ir. LUSIGNAN, without any remarks, seconded the
resolution,

The Court refused the application, upon the ground that it
would be
an imputation upon the impartiality of the jurors
to grant it.

" That, as uncleanliness and ungodliness are akin, so must
the moral and spiritual, as well as social and physical, condi-
tion of the people be improved in proportion to the extensive
advantages which cannot fail to attend on the maintenance
of greater cleanliness in the dwellings and surrounding loca]l
ties of the community at large.
It was moved by Mr. EAGLETON and seconded by Mr.
SOLOMONS,
"That the system of street cleansing, benevolently, demon-
strated in the City by the National Philanthropic _Associa-
tion, during the winter months, the principle of which con-
sists in keeping the streets clean, by the continuous
employment of men throughout the day, and thereby pre-
venting the streets becoming dirty, has met with the general
approval of the ratepayers and householders of the City of
London."
It was moved by Mr. CARTSR, and seconded by Mr. BATES,
"That, taking into consideration that the improved system
referred to will greatly conduce to the comfort and health of
the public, will diminish the losses to which the householders,
and shopkeepers, and foot-passengers are now subjected, and
the fact that, if extended throughout the kingdom, it will,
very probably, give employment to 50,000 able-bodied poor,
this meeting is of opinion that the Commissioner of Sewers
be respectfully requested to adopt it in cleansing the streets,
courts, and alleys, about the city of London, with the least
possible delay. '
Mr. COCHRANE, called on by the Chairman, then pro-
ceeded to lay before the meeting a more detailed account of
the Society's history, to which the Noble Chairman alluded
succinctly in his opening speech. Mr. C. continued to say
that the present expenses of cleansing the streets amounted
to somewhere about 16,0001. There was paid to scavengers
6,000/. ; the value of the ashes collected and given gratis in
part payment of these scavengers was 5,5001. And, adding
to these sums for watering the streets in order to lay the
dirt that had not been taken away, another 4,0001., it would
amount to about what he had said.; and with all that outlay
of money there were only fifty-eight men employed. The
necessary outlay for the new system would be about 18,000/.,
and there would be employed by it 520 men, and if extended
throughout the kingdom 50,000 men would find regular
employment is this way.—(Applause.) He had had the
whole results before thp Commissioners of Sewers,
and the Chairman, and Mr. Peacock, and the clerk were all
strongly of opinion that there would be an actual saving of
16,000/. by the adoption of the improved system. They had
called the present meeting by permission of the Lord Mayor
sad the CorpQrAtiviz 0 the GUY,iu ()Ng that the colium'a.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HO USE.
Henry Hudson, commander of the steam-boat called
the Bride, plying between Chelsea and London-bridge,
was summoned by Mr. Thomas Howard Fellows, student
at law, of No. 1, King's Bench-walk, Temple, for having
infringed the first of the bye-laws passed by the Court
of Aldermen, and confirmed by Baron Platt. Alderman
Gibbs sat to adjudicate on the case, which, as the most
essential objects fur which the bye-laws were made were
comprehended in, it excited a great deal of interest.
The summons charged the defendant with having, on
the 21st of April, unlawfully used and worked the said
steam-vessel for carrying passengers for hire and gain,
without having the registered number of it, and the
number of passengers licensed to be
carried therein,
painted and kept legible in such a position and in such a
manner as was ordered and directed, &c., in pursuance of
the statute in such case made and provided.
Mr. Fellows stated that on the 21st of April be got
into the Bride steam-boat at one of the piers at
Chelsea, where the voyage, which terminated at London-
bridge, commenced. It was between Yantlet Creek and
New Windsor. Between Blackfriars and Southwark
bridges, on the City side of the river, the defendant
acted as commander and witness observed that neither
the number of the steam-vessel nor the number of pas-
sengerstakeprocliacedenisned to be carried was painted on the outside
of either paddle-box, and that in fact there appeared no
number at all. He had paid the fare before he got into
the vessel. About a month ago he said he meant to
take
but he received no answer to the com-
munication which he made to that effect.
if
they t tid boats
not navigating iga
complyting the
with upper
the
part of the Thgasmes
against
Cross-examined by Mr. Cattarns, solicitor to the
teaul-boat Company—Therebvere not many people pa