The Sun.
London, England, 1848-02-17 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 17, 1848.

complished nothing save casting a stigma upon the '
religions to which they had reference. The bar
should not exist, unless it could be shown that dan-
ger would result from its removal, and he held that
it had not. With respect to the rumour, that it
was the intention of the Pope to establish
an archbishopric in England, he had heard the
statement of the Honourable Member for Youghal,
that it was merely a rumour, as nothing of
the kind had been yet decided upon by the Court
of Rome, on account of the difficulties in the
twioany. of
admittedestablishingthsautchthaenreowffiocueld withbe gargeraetastatisfac
differ-
ence between such an archbishop and the superin-
tendents of circuits appointed by the Wesleyans and
the Dissenters, for the former would have spiritual
jurisdiction, whilst the latter were divested
of that character. Clauses 24 and 29 pro-
vided for the appointment of Catholic bishops
in England, but he could not help giving his opinion
that the holding of such an office by a Catholic
would be a penal offence, but at any rate they would
be brought into collision with the clergy of other
denominations. The case of Ireland did not
justify the setting up of a new principle like this in a
city where but a small minority of the people were of
the Catholic faith. He trusted Hon. Gentlemen
would not merely consider whether the Church of
Rome was an aggressive church, but whether, in
equity, they ought not to do that justice which their
fellow-subjects had a right to demand.—(Hear.)
The Marquis of GRANBY was of opinion that it
would be unwise to disturb the settlement of the
question made in 1829. Some cause of grievance
ought to be shown before the House consented to re-
open the question. It had been said that there was
one grievance, which was, that there was a convent
in Leicestershire, the persons residing at which were
liable to be transported under the existing laws.—
(Hear, hear.) Such was not the case, because
if the parties registered themselves under the
provisions of the law they would be protected, and
so long as they remained peaceful and loyal subjects
of the Sovereign they would not be disturbed.—
(Hear, hear.) When he found that several of the
Catholic countries of Europe had been compelled to
expel the Jesuits from their country, it would be
unwise for a Protestant country like this to admit
the Jesuits to settle among them, or to
remove those safeguards which had been considered
necessary in the year 1829. He did not wish to say
one word which might be considered offensive to his
Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen. He felt it to
be the duty of the House, while admitting the fullest
principles of toleration, to prevent the spread of a reli-
gion which he believed to be hostile to the liberties
and institutions of the country.—(Hear.)
Mr. SHEIL said that he might insist that a con-
cession to the Catholic was made upon security to
the Protestant—they ought both to stand or fall
together. In the Act of 1829 there were several
clauses which were galling to the Catholics, and use-
less to them. At the time the Catholic Emancipation
Bill was carried every religious order which then
existed as such was protected upon registering its name,
but every individual who became a Jesuit since that
time was not so protected. Of what use, then, was
such a law to them ? The country was now full of
Jesuits.—(Hear, and cheers.) He would ask the House,
whether the Jesuit in the wilderness, holding up the
cross with the red savages around him, was not as
worthy a spectacle as the emissary of Protestantism
in New Zealand, who surrounded himself with the
fruits of conversion and appropriation at the same
time ?—(Hear.) The Hon. Member for the county
of Limerick had given notice that he would move in
Committee fur the repeal of the clauses forbidding
any Catholic to be Chancellor of Ireland. There
were good reasons why that motion should be
agreed to. When the Act of 1829 was passed, the
Hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir R. Peel) said that
his reason for the insertion of such a clause was that
he believed there was some ecclesiastical patronage
connected with the office. Such was not, however,
the case ; if it were so he should not support the
motion of his Hon. Friend on the subject. The
Catholics at the bar were now very rapidly on
the increase, and there was therefore greater reason
than ever for the removal of such a resolution as that
he had referred to. By passing the present measure
he felt convinced that they would do a great deal to
remove all the bitterness of feeling which the Catholics
were at present labouring under.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. HENLEY said that he was one of those who
thought that the early portion of the Bill was merely
introduced for the purpose of giving an opportunity
to Hon. Members to display a little liberal language
on the subject. The principal portion of the Bill was
that which had been kept in the back ground by the
parties promoting this measure. A great deal had been
said about the cruelty and wrong of transporting
a Christian brother. Now the Act merely stated
that the person was to be fined or banished, and
should he continue in the country in defiance of the
law, he was to be transported.—(Hear, hear.) Hon.
Members said " Hear, hear," but how stood the
case ? The Christian brother was not transported
because he was a Christian brother, but because he
disregarded the minor penalties and continued still to
act in defiance of the laws of the country.—(Hear.)
He felt it his duty, therefore, to give his support to
the amendment of the lion. Member for the Univer-
sity of Cambridge, that the Bill be read a third time
this day six months.—(Hear, hear.)
The Earl of ARUNDEL and SURREY main-
tained that every order sanctioned by the Church of
Rome ought to be admitted into this country. A
good deal had been said against the Jesuits ; they
had been denounced as mischief makers, and cunning
designers. They had been stigmatised as the crea•
tors of dissensions in states, and the disturbers of
the peace of private families ; but the House must
forgive him if he did not agree with all these severe
opinions. The Jesuits were a strictly religious body,
spreading good wherever they went, and as the Es-
tablished Church could not cure the infidelity that
prevailed in this country, he could see no just rea-
son why the Jesuits should be excluded from this
country.
Sir J. PAKINGTON could not agree with the
observations of the Noble Lord who had just sat
down, nor could he admit the force or justice of the
remarks made by the lion. Member for Dungarvan.
He was quite ready to relieve the Roman Catholics
from all unnecessary liabilities, but he could not con-
sent to afford them a fancied relief at the sacrifice of
the rights of the Church of England. Conciliation
to the Roman Catholics and securities against aggres-
sions on the rights of the Established Church had
always gone hand in hand, and he could never vote
for a Bill which made concessions without providing
securities against inroads upon the rights of the
Church of England.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, having been
called upon once or twice in the course of the debate
to give his opinion upon the probable effects of this
Bill, trusted the House would indulge him for a
few minutes while he ventured to give his opinion
upon the changes which this Bill was calculated to
make in the prevailing law. If he should suc-
ceed in satisfying the House that there was
one Act at least overlooked by the Bill of 1829,
he trusted he should have said enough to induce the
House to go into Committee upon this Bill. Now,
he was decidedly ofopinion that the 13th of Elizabeth
chap. 2, was not repealed by the Act of 1829, and as
it required an Act of Parliament to repeal the pro-
visions of that statute, he trusted the House would
have no difficulty in going into Committee on this
Bill.

Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the
House divided, when there appeared--
For going into Committee .... 186
Against it
Majority for going into Com-
mittee • -32

The House then went into Committtee pro forma,
and on the motion of

Mr. C. ANSTEY it was agreed that the House
should really go into Committee on the Bill this day
three weeks.

WEST GLOUCESTERSHIRE ELECTION.

Mr. GRANGER brought up the report of the
Committee appointed to try the merits of the West
Gloucestershire election. The Committee reported
that Mr. Grantley Berkeley had been duly elected
a knight of the shire for the western division of
Gloucestershire.

The report was received amid much cheering.
SELECT COMMITTEE ON SHIPWRECKS.
On the motion of Mr. HUME, the Select Com-
mittee on Shipwrecks was appointed after a short
discussion. The following are the names of
the Members appointed to serve on the Committee :
—Mr. Hume, Captain Berkeley, Mr. Gibson,
Admiral Bowles, Sir Thomas Birch, Viscount
Ingestre, Mr. M‘Gregor, Mr. Roundel' Palmer, Mr.
Foster, Mr. Fitzroy, Mr. Flaherty, Mr. Fagan, Mr.
Duncan, Mr. Robinson, and Mr. Sheridan.
LANDLORD AND TENANTS (IRELAND)
BILL.
Sir W. SOMERVILLE brought in the Landlord
and Tenants (Ireland) Bill which 'was read a first
and ordered to be read a second time on the 13th of
March.
The other orders of the day were then disposed of,
and the House adjourned at Six o'clock.

_
SHIPWRECK AND Loss Or LIFE.--Yesterday '
n
telligence reached Lloyd's of the total loss of theal "
d
lJy
Louisa, of Fowey, together with the whole of her crew
(ten in number), on the Hooper's Sand, off Llanelly, on
the night of, the I.lth instant. The steam-tug Sampson
put off to save the lives of the men, if possible, but, by
the time she reached the wreck, the whole of them had
been washed offend drowned ; one dead body was found
in the forecastle.
Ther
n in
tweather continues unseasonably mild, but has
beenw)
o s very variable. Sunday was a. resplendent day.
(na
milloonrinitgyi:rtaa.nindeyrdaetshhteeerardvily and constantly from
m
colder dwe re thh
_am the weather is too aa
February.--t; bridge nd
mild,
isolud, n
raal no
v;
eobnutftohiret
whole, however,
Advertiser.

ELECTION COMMITTEES.
WEST GLOUCESTERSHIRE

(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday)
Mr. CROWDER addressed the Committee on behalf of
the sitting Member, contendiNg that upon all points his
opponents had failed, and concluded by calling upon the
Committee not to lend themselves to Earl Fitzhardinge,
in order that he might be in a position to tyrannise over
his brother.

The room was then cleared, and the Committee having
consulted together for a few minutes, strangers were re-
admitted, when

The CHAIRMAN announced that it was the opinion of
the Committee that Mr. Grantley Berkeley had been
duly and properly elected.
The Committee then broke up.

LAW INTELLIGENCE,
COURT OF CHALvCERY, Feb. 16.

The Lord Chancellor sat. to-day in the Old JP!I, Lin-
coin's Inn, for the purpose of giving several judgments
and hearing appeals.

IN TUE MATTER OF UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, OXFORD.
The LORD CUANCELLOR gave judgment to-day in
this case, which our readers will recollect was argued
before his Lordship at Westminster in the course of the
last term, upon a petition presented to the Crown by the
Rev. Mr. Moorsom, praying that the Lord Chan-
cellor, as the representative of the Queen, who was
the visitor of University College, Oxford, NI
declare that one of two fellowships which had
been filled up in University College, Oxford, were
invalid on the ground of the disqualification of the
parties elected. The petition of Mr. Moorsom was
directed against the appointment of two gentlemen of
the names of Bright and Covington, the former on the
foundation of Henry IV., and the latter on that of
William of Durham. The petitioner's case was, that
neither Mr. Bright nor Mr. Covington fulfilled the
requisites of the statute, neither of them being in priest's
orders—in sacerdotis constitutes —at the time of the
election. Mr. Bright was then only 22 years of age,
and not admitted even to deacon's orders, as by the 44th
Geo. 111., cap. 43, he could not be admitted to deacon's
orders until he attained the age of 23 years, nor to
priest's till 24. He was a native of Yorkshire, but that
was not of any consequence to the fellowship of
Henry IV., to which he was elected. Mr. Co-
vington, who was elected on the foundation
of William of Durham, was not duly elected
thereto, as the statute required preference to be given
to a native of the dioceses of York or Durham, to which
he did not belong, having been born in Lincolnshire.
The petitioner was qualified according to the statutes for
either fellowship, having been admitted to priest's or-
ders previous to the election, and being born at Whitby,
in Yorkshire. There was no question or doubt as to the
probity, learning, and morals of any of the three gentlemen.
The Lord Chancellor, on giving judgment, went at
considerable length into the facts of the case, and also
the statutes, and in conclusion stated his clear opinion
to be that no ground whatever existed for impeaching
the election to fellowships either of Mr. Bright or Mr.
Covington, and therefore that those elections must be
affirmed.
Mr. BETHELI„ on behalf of the respondents, trusted
that the Court would give his clients the coats.
The LORD CRANGELLOR said that he could make no
order in that respect. He was only acting for the
Crown,! who was the Visitor of the college; and such
being the case, he did not think any authority existed in
him to give costs.
Mr. COOPER observed that the authorities on the
subject were against giving any costs.
Petition dismissed without costs.
AXE V. ANDREWS.—JUDGMENT.

..„.
The LORD CHANCELLOR also gave judgment in this
case, which was an appeal from the judgment of the
Vice-Chancellor Wigram, dismissing the appeal with
costs.

LANCASTER V. WORD.-JUDGMENT.

The LOR➢ CHANCELLOR also gave judgment in this
ease, which was an appeal from the decision of the pre-
sent Master of the Rolls. His Lordship, after reviewing
the whole cas,,, dismissed the appeal with costs.

GLOVER V. HALL.—JUDGMENT.
The LORD CHANCELLOR also gave
.judgment in this
appeal from the decision of the Vice-Chancellor of
England. His Lordship decided that the order of the
Court below was correct, and dismissed the appeal with
costs.

lishments. Such was not the case, for, by the law of
nations, the slave trade was not piracy. It was clear
that the real facts of the case had not been duly repro.
sented, and there could not therefore be any ratification.
Besides, it was a pnkt which, perhaps, Lord John
Russell was aware of before this, viz., that he was not
" the Queen;" and a letter of his Lordship and the other
members of the Government could not therefore be a
ratification. And, for aught they knew, her Majesty
Queen Victoria might be as ignorant of the circumstances
as any individual in the heart of China. The ratification
of the acts of the defendant by her Majesty would be, in
point of fact, a casus Lai, and as she would be guilty of
a violation of the law of nations towards a friendly power,
the Queen of Spain would have a right to say, " It
may be true that one of my subjects has done wrong,
but who gave you the power to interfere in the matter?"
The existing treaties between the two countries might
be refereed to, but they referred only to vessels afloat,
and would not apply to the present case. lle would remind
the Court at this point, that in the representations made
by the defendant to the authorities at home, and which
formed the main basis of the treaty with King Siacca,
was the insult committed towards the crews of her Ma
jesty's boats. No proof whatever had been given of
this. The representations stated that the defendant
went to avenge an insult to the British flag, but it had
not been proved that any insult had been committed on
the British flag. Where then was the ratification of these
acts to be found? Praise, however justly awarded to
the gallant officer for his conduct in putting down the
slave trade, did not amount to a ratification. The whole
of the letters put in were from subordinate officers, and
did not commit the Crown. The Learned Counsel then
proceeded with his address to the jury, and called upon
them to look at the question apart from its mural con-
siderations and solely as a commercial transaction, which
it really was. With respect to the treaty no weight
could be attached to it; it was wrung from the natives at
the point of the bayonet, with a military force already
in possession of a portion of their territory. The
Learned Gentleman concluded by calling upon
the jury to dismiss from their minds all feelings
in favour of the plaintiff or the defendant
which would seduce them from the strict and narrow
path in which they had to travel. If they did so depart
from that path of duty then would justice be somewhat
leis, and much less, i❑ estimation than it was and had
been. lle could assure them that his anxiety was not
for his client, for he felt that towards him, however im-
perfectly, he had discharged his duty to the best of his
ability, and with him all relations had therefore ceased;
his anxiety was for English justice. Their predecessors
in that box had not hesitated to return heavy damages
for the value of slaves unlawfully seized. I❑ the case of
Madrassa v. Wells the jury gave a verdict of
18,0001. and in several other eases large sums
had also been awarded, and he trusted that they
would not be less firm, less faithful, or less just to th.
law than their predecessors, who by their conduct had
raised the admiration of British justice to that height to
which foreigners, who, although aware of all the diffi-
culties and delays of English law, and all the imperfec-
tions which had been so justly complained of, neverthe-
less put it above the administration of justice in all the
other parts of the world, because they were not afraid
to come before a British jury, and felt that they would
do their best, and use their utmost exertions to guard
against being led away by the operations of any feelings,
and that they would always stand firm to principle.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL then rose to claim his right
of reply.
Mr. Baron PARKE said that the Court were of opinion
that they could not hear him, and proceeded to sum up
to the jury. The facts of the case, although they had
occupied a considerable portion of time, were still cmn-
fined to a very narrow compass, and it was needless for
him to request them to divest from their minds any
prejudice on the matter, and consider their verdict coolly,
having regard only to the evidence which had been laid
before them.

A bill of exceptions was tendered by Mr. Robinson,
upon the ground that there was not sufficient legal evi-
dence to go to the jury, to prove that a subsequent
ratification would be equivalent to a prior command.
The jury retired, and after a short consultation,
returned a verdict finding that the ratifications had been
made by the Crown, with a full knowledge of what the
defendant had done; and that, therefore, upon the plea
of " not guilty" they found their verdict for the de-
fendant. Upon the other counts the verdict was for the
plaintiff.

to deliver luggage to the passenger at the station, and
not at any particular part of the station, and the com-
pany were not discharged from their duty till the lug-
gage was clnlivered sately at that part of it which the
passenger should select with their concurrence. He,
however, reserved leave to move to the defendants if he
was wrong.
_ _

MA. Sergeant TALFOURD then addressed the jury for
the defendants. He could not help sympathising with
the plaintiff for the loss he had sustained. The only
question, however, was whether the railway company
was responsible for it ? The railway company had no
notice given to them of the responsibility they were
contracting. The dressing-case was lost at a time when
it had ceased to be under the dominion or control of the
defendants. It had been brought safely to the terminus.
He contended that the testimony of the lady's-maid
could not be depended on. It was unlikely that, knowing
the value of the dressing-case, she should not take it
with her, or ask for it to take to the hackney-coach ;
and so uncertain was her recollection about it, that the
witness had written about it to Woodgate station. Whilst
in the witness-box she was certain about its being put
under her mistress's feet. The hackney-coach was left
at the door long enough for such a parcel to be taken
away and stolen then. It might have been put outside
and lost in the transit. It was not made out, the Learned
Counsel contended, that the case was lost whilst under
the control of the defendants.

A number of witnesses were called for the defence,
servants of the company, to prove that they had seen no
dressing-case, nor had it been left at the station. On
cross•examivation, it appeared that one of the porters on
that occasion, a carriage-cleaner, named Baptiste, who
assisted in removing the luggage, had left the corn-
pan's service, and was not to be found, and that both
seats of the railway carriage had not been looked under,
though the porters examined were confident that no
dressing-case was left in the carriage. There was no
notice about jewellery stuck up on the platform or in
the booking-office, through which passengers went,
limiting the company's liability. The hackney-coach
had been left at the plaintiff's door without any ono
attending it whilst the driver assisted the footman to
carry Mrs. Richards up stairs.
This was the defendant's case.

The jury intimated that they were agreed on their
verdict, without troubling Mr. Sergeant'Byles to reply.
Verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 1501., with leave
to move to enter the verdict for the defendants.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MAR YL EBOIVE.
Mr. Jelin Harvey, formerly a banker in Guernsey, but
now residing at No. 32, Surrey-street, Strand, was again
placed at the bar before Mr. Broughton, when the whole
of the depositions taken upon two former examinations
were read over by the chief clerk, Mr. Fell. It will be
remembered that the charge against the accused wits
that of having stolen a leather case containing a Bible
and a Prayer-book from the parochial chapel, Kentish-
town; the said articles, value 275., being the property of
Mr. Bulvver, Break neck-cottage, Camden-town. The
particulars of the affair have already appeared.
Mr. BROUGHTON had o❑ the previous afternoo❑ ex-
pressed his willingness to accept bail, but gave the
prisoner to understand that, in the event of his doing so
it must be to a large amount, not less than he (prisoner)
in 5001. and two sureties in 2501. each. At the termi-
nation of the first inquiry on Monday the security en-
tered into for his attendance at the court on the next
day was one-fifth of the sum now required.
Yesterday Mr. Phillips, shipowner and broker, 2,
Royal Exchange• buildings, presented himself before the
bench, and said that for the last thirty-five years he had
known the prisoner, who, in consequence of having lost
his wife recently, and being left with a large family,
upon many occasions, evinced great absence of mind.
lie (Mr. Phillips) thought that the bail asked for was
very large, and intimated that, if it were lowered, he
would willingly become one of the securities, being fully
impressed with a belief in the accused's strict honesty of
principle.
Mr. BROUGHTON—The expression of your belief as to
that matter may be of service to the prisoner at his trial,
but not here.
Mr. Phillips—l would bail him instantly to the amount
of 5,0001. if I were satisfied of his steadiness of mind
Mr. Phillips then went out, and in the course of a
quarter of an hour returned, accompanied by his part-
ner, Mr. Shaw, and offered themselves as sureties, and
on the usual questions being put to them and satisfac-
torily replied to, their bail was taken; each of the gen-
tlemen said that no indemnification whatever had been
given.
The prisoner having also entered into his own recog-
nisance in 5001., the parties then quitted the court.
LAMBE:IIi.
William Ebbs, a youth of nineteen years of age, was
charged before Mr. Elliott with stealing a horse, cart,
and harness, of the value of 151., the property of Mr.
Charles Taylor, a corn-dealer at Kennington-cross. On
Monday week the prisoner called on a person named
Stamford, in St. George's market, who is in the habit
of dealing in such property, and told him his master
had a horse, cart, and harness for sale, to pay up some
arrears in a loan society, and Stamford said he had no
objection to purchase them, provided there was not any-
thing hanging to it. On the following morning, at an
early hour, the prisoner forced the lock off the prose-
cutor's stable door, and called to a man named Page to
assist him in getting out the cart and placing in it the
horse. He then drove on to St. George's-market, and
sold the lot to Stamford for 51., though the prosecutor
deposed they were worth more than 151. In the course
of the same day Mr. Taylor traced out his property, and
Stamford at once gave it up.
Mr. ELLIOTT remarked upon the gross impropriety of
Stamford in purchasing the property under such circum-
stances, for one-third of its real value, and said he richly
deserved the loss of the 5/. he had paid, and committed
the prisoner for trial.
SOU7'HIVARK.

Julia Hayne, a good-looking girl, 15 years of age, the
daughter of a compositor, was brought before Mr. Cot-
tingham, charged with attempting to purchase poison
for the purpose of destroying herself.
Inspector Carter, of the L division, said that between
five and six o'clock on the preceding evening the pri-
soner was brought in custody to the station-house in
Tower-street, by policeman 106 L, who stated that she
was given in charge to him at a chemist's shop, where
she went to purchase arsenic, which she afterwards con-
fessed she intended to have taken to destroy herself.
The inspector added, that instead of locking the girl up,
under the peculiar circumstances of the case, he sent
her to the workhouse, where she was kept all night;
and that her father and also the chemist from whom she
wanted to purchase the poison were now in attendance—
the former to relate the particulars with regard to his
daughter, so young a girl, contemplating suicide, and
the latter to describe the circumstances that took place
when she entered his shop.
Mr. Jones was then called forward, and stated that he
was a chemist and druggist in Blackfriars-road. That
on the previous evening about the time above mentioned
the prisoner, in a hurried manner, entered his shop with-
out a bonnet, or any covering on her head, and asked to
be served with a pennyworth of arsenic. Witness hap.
pened to be in an inner room at the time, and on hearing
what passed he went into the shop, and addressing the
prisoner asked her what she wanted wi;h the arsenic.
Her reply at first was that it was wanted to kill rats, but
when he pressed her closely and inquired where she
came from, she burst into tears and acknowledged that
she wanted the arsenic to poison herself, owing to the
cruel treatment she experienced at the hands of her
mother. lie then questioned her further on the subject,
and in reply she told fern that she became aware of the
nature of arsenic, and its deadly effect, by reading ac-
counts of different suicides in the newspapers, and added,
that her life was made so truly wretched at home that
she had made up her mind to destroy herself. Finding
the girl was in such a condition of mind, ho considered
it his duty, instead of allowing her to depart, and pro-
bably succeed in her application for a deleterious drug
elsewhere, to call in a constable, to whom he related
some of the above facts, and gave her into his custody,
in order that her family might be apprized of what had
taken place.
The Magistrate, addressing the prisoner, who stood
sobbing bitterly, asked her if she heard what Mr. Jones
said, and whether it was true?
She replied in the affirmative. She said that her
mother was in the habit of drinking to great excess when
her father was engaged at his business. On those occa-
sions she ill-treated her, and in order to avoid such treat-
ment, she (the daughter) left home and got a situation,
where she was living in comparative comfort. Her
mother came there about three months before last
Christmas, drunk, abused her employer, and made her
leave her place. Since then her mother continued her
ill-treatment; was in the habit of tearing up her clothes;
and on the previous day, when she expressed her inten-
tion of leaving home and getting another situation, and
put on her bonnet arid shawl for the purpose, her mother
flew at her, tore the bonnet to pieces, struck her, and
vowed vengeance against her; and it was owing entirely
to her mother's harshness of conduct towards her that
induced her to go the chemist's shop to purchase arsenic
' to poison herself.
The accused's father next stood forward, and com-
plained of the dissipated habits of his wife, who for the
last five years had indulged in liquor to such an excess
as to make his home a perfect misery to them. The
present was not the first occasion on which she had
acted with cruelty towards the girl, for which she (the
mother) had been given into custody and taken to a
Police-court, where she was held to bail, arid in default
of finding the required securities, was committed for
three months. While she lay in gaol he paid 12s. a
week for her board, instead of permitting her to live
upon the prison allowance; but he found when she was
liberated and returned to her home she broke out as bad
as ever—cornmeaced drinking afresh, and treated his
daughter in the way represented.
Mr. COTTINGHAN, having pointed out to the girl the
sin and wickedness of such an attempt as that she was
about to make upon her own life, attributable in a great
measure to her mother's vile conduct towards her, then
addressed the father, and said, that if he had a spark of
affection for the children, he would not permit them to
remain an hour longer with a mother who set them such
a dreadful example; but if he thought proper to live
longer with such a wife that was no reason he should
suffer his children to be where she was, and if
i he pro-
mised to comply with the advice, his child, instead of
being sent to prison, should be forthwith discharged,
and given up to him.
The father intimated that he should certainly adopt
the magistrate's kind suggestions, and his clughter
was accordingly discharged, and they left the Court
together.

EUCLID OUTDONE.—The following proposition is
so immensely difficult that we offer a large reward—the
particulars of which will be duly announced—to any one
by whom the problem is solved, It is as follow,,:—Given,
a railway time-table—to find the periods fixed fur the
starting of the trains.—Punch.