The Sun.
London, England, 1846-06-22 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, IWONDAY EVENING, JUNE 22, 1846.

CITIOUP XLii.

LIVERPOOL, 6RDISKIRR, AND PRESTON.
The Committee re-assembled at one o'clock this morning, and were
engaged in hearing evidence against the Bill.

Mfr. Skersbreck, Mr. Erle, agent for Lord Derby, and Mr. Cred-
well, were examined against the Bill, and the case for the opposition
was not concluded when the Cominittee adjourned.

GROUP XLV.

This Committee met this morning for the first time in Room, No. 1.
The Committee consisted of Mr. Bickham Estcott (Chairman), Mr.
Rashleigh, Mr. J. Toltemache, Mr. Henry Berkeley, and Mr. Goring.
The lines comprised in the group were-
-Ist. The Lancaster and Carlisle Extension to the Caledonian Rail-
way, and the Lancaster and Preston Junction Amalgamation.
2d. Cockermouth ank Workington Extension.
3d. Furness Extension.

4th. Caledonian (Carlisle Deviation).
sth. Whitehaven and Furness Junction (Whitehaven Extension
and Kirksaton Deflation).
Certain clauses on behalf of the Corporation of Carlisle, the only
opposing petitioner were also inserted.
CALEDONIAN (CARLISLE DEVIATION).The only
opposing petitioner to the line was Lord Lonsdale.
Messrs. Forsyth and Boyle appeared on behalf of the promoters,
and Mr. Lyon on behalf of Lord Lonsdale.
Mr. FORSYTH opened the case. The Caledonian Railway was a line
connecting England and Scotland, and the object of the present Bill was
to facilitate the arrangement of having one station for all the railways
running into Carlisle. The present station of the Caledonian Rail-
way was half a mile from Carlisle, and the company wished to
bring it into the town to Crown-street. The length of the
ex tension was a mile and thirty-fire chains, and the
cost 50,000/. There were no engineering difficulties.
After the examination of witnesses,
The CHAIRMAN declared the preamble of the Bill proved.
A clause was proposed on behalf of Lord Lonsdale, the further
consideration of which was postponed till to-morrow.
COCKERIVIOUTE AND 'WORKINGTON
EXTENSION.
The formal proof in this Bill having been given,
The CHAIRMAN declared the preamble proved.
The clauses were then passed.
The Committee adjourned till to morrow.

GROUP XLVI.
NEWCASTLE AND CARLISLE.

The Committee on this group met at twelve o'clock, in Room
No. 13 ; present, Mr. Bramstone (chairman), the Marquis of Chandos,
Lord Alfred Churchill, and Mr. Martin.
It will be remembered that this Bill was brought under the con-
sideration of the Committee as au unopposed Bill, and the preamble
was declared to have been preyed. subsequently, in consequence of
certain circumstances with reference to the steepness of the gradients
coming to the knowledge of the Committee, they were of opinion that
a re-committal of the Bill was necessary. The promoters immedi-
ately requested that no re-committal should take place, but that
evidence should be heard s ith reference to the gradients and curves.
This course was acceded to, and tke Committee entered upon the case
to-day.

The Lancaster and Preston Junction Amalgamation (the latter
part of No. 1,) was transferred to another Committee. The 3rd and
sth Bills being unopposed, were referred to Mr. Greene. Of the
remaining Bills, the first taken into consideration was,
THE LANCASTER AND COR.LISLE EXTEN—
SION TO TEE CALEDONIAN RAILWAY.

The formal proofs having been given, and there being no opposi
Lion to the preamble,
The CHAIRMAN declared the preamble proved.
The clauses of the Bill were then passed,

Mr. KNowLEs, on the part of the promoters, very briefly opened the
case. lie stated that the object of the line was to convey mineral
productions from the mining districts at Alstone to the Carlisle Rail-
way. as the mineral traffic through that part of the country was
amply sufficient to maintain a railway. The length of the line was
to be seventeen miles, and the estimated cost was 280,000/. As the
line was to pass through a district of a rough character, and which
was also abounding in mines, the gradients and curves were neces-
sarily severe. There were gradients of lin 33 and lin39 ; but he
would be enabled to show the Committee that on various other rail-
ways gradients of a much severer character might be worked with
perfect safety. The Learned Counsel then called
Mr. Bourne, the engineer to the line, who proved that the railway
coufd be worked with safety. The gradients were severe, as the
nature of the country would not permit them to be otherwise ; but
there were much more severe gradients daily worked by locomotive
power on other railways, without any inconvenience being felt.-
Mr. N. Wood, examined by Mr. 'Nonfat, an engineer, confirmed
this evidence, and proved that a most extensive and valuable tract of
mining country, which was now lying useless for want of proper
means to convey fuel to it, would be laid open by this railway.
Mr. KNOWLES, on the part of the pomoters, offered to insert a
clause in the Bill restricting the Company from working the gradients
of 1 in 332, one in 39, unless by stationary engines, without the con-
sent of the Board of Trade.

The CHAIRMAN inquired whether any penalty would attach to the
Infraction of the Act with regard to such a clause.
➢lr. KNOWLES said that to disobey an Act of Parliament was an
Indictable offence at common law.

The CHAIRMAN would prefer that some specific penalty should be
introduced into the clause, giving to the Beard of Trade the power
of enforcing it in case of non-compliance with the Act. If they
were only to be restricted by fear of indictment the Board of Trade
might not hear of any disobedience until some serious accident
occurred.

The required alteration was then made in the Bill, and the Com-
mittee proceeded with the clauses of the Bill, which were all
acceded to.

GROUP XLVII.

This Committee met again in room 25 (Grand Corridor), at twelve
o'clock this morning, and were occupied during the whole of the day
in discussing the clauses of the
SWANSEA VALE

Railway Bill.
The Committee adjourned at four o'clock until twelve to-morrow,

GROUP XLVIII.
THE LI/IMITI VALLEY.
The Committee met again this day at twelve o'clock. Mr. Ald.
ham (chairman).

'fhe evidence for the promoters was proceed with. A long cross-
examination, in behalf of several landowners on the line, took place,
but nothing of importance was elicited to endanger the case for the
line.

STANDING ORDERS' COMMITTEES.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Their Lordships met to-day at one o'clock, in Room 1, House of
Lords, present Lord Shaftesbury (chairman), and Lords Hawarden,
Redesdale, Richmond, and Winchester.
There were on the list thirty-two Bills, which, with one exception,
were all railway Bills. Decisions were made in the following cases:—
MORAYSHIRE.
This Bill, which in the brevity of its title, is only surpassed by
the " Deeside," which was disposed of on Thursday, was one of
those in which the standing orders of the House had been complied
with by the parties.
ASHBUItTON, NEWTON, AND SOUTH DEVON.
Standing orders complied with.
MANCHESTER. SHEFFIELD, AND MIDLAND JUNCTION.
The Committee decided that the promoters of this Bill, which
had been adjourned from Friday, In the absence of one witness, had
complied with the standing orders.
The following Bills were called on, and having been part- rd,
stood over for further proofs :--
YORKS/lIRE AND GLASGOW UNION.
Adjourned till to-morrow.
NORFOLK (YARMOUTH EXTENSION AND LOWESTOFT
RAILWAY LEASE).
Also adjourned till to• morrow.
GLASGOW, PAISLEY, AND GREENOCK (POLLOC AND
GOVAN).
GLASGOW SOUTHERN FERMINAL.
Both adjourned till Wednesday.
CALEDONIAN (GLASGOW TERMINI AND BRANCHES).
This case stood over till to-morrow.
The Committee then resolved themselves into a
SELECT COMMITTEE ON MERITS.
The list contained sixteen Bills, of which seven only were Railway
Bills. Of these the following were disposed of :
STIRLINGSHIRE -MIDLAND.
This Bill was virtually passed. The decision, however, stood
ever, in the absence of one witness.
GLASGOW, STRATHAVEN, AND LESMAYIAGOW DIRECT.
s The preamble was declared proved.
A clause was inserted, in conformity with the resolution of the
Committee, as to placing lodges at all level crossings on public roads.
LONDON AND SOUTH-WESTERN RAILWAY ACTS
AMENDMENT.
This was a third class Bill, The proofs as to the standing orders,
and as to the merits of the Bill were proceeded with at the same
time, and the Committee declared the standing orders complied with
the preamble proved.
The Hamilton New Gas Bill was passed.
THAMES HAVEN DOCK AND RAILWAY.
This Bill was virtually passed, but one witness being absent, its
further consideration was postponed till to-morrow.
BALLOCHNEY.
Laconic again ! This Bill belonged to tha third class, and was
treated in the same way as the London and South Western Amend-
ment, above mentioned. It was passed.
Their Lordships then resumed the form of a Standing Orders Corn-
mittee, and proceeded with the remaining Bills on the list.
LONDON AND CROYDON (THAMES JUNCTION BRANCH.)
The Committee declared the standing orders complied with.
LANCASHIRE AND YORKSHIRE NORTH EASTERN.
Their Lordships made a similar decision in this case.
SCOTTISH CENTRAL (DENNY BRANCH.)
Standing orders complied with.
MONKLAND AND KIRKINTILLOCIL
The same applies to this Bill, The Morecombe Bay Bill was also
passed.

GLOUCESTER AND DEAN FOREST RAILWAY.
This case, as well as that of the
WISHAW AND COLTNESS (GREENHILL BRANCH),
was postponed till to-morrow. So also was the
FLEETWOOD, PRESTON, AND WEST RIDING JUNCTION,
and some others.
NEWMARKET AND CHESTERFIELD.
The standing order._ were duly complied with.
HUDDERSFIELDCALEDONIAN AND(MID-LOTHIAN BRANC
MANCHESTER RAILWAY
AND
CANAL (HUDDERSFIELD DIVERSION AND COOPER-
BRIDGE BRANCH).
SHEFFIELD, ASHTON-UNDER-LYNE, AND MANCHESTER
(DUKINFIELD, WORSBOROUGH AND OTHER BRANCHES).
SHROPSHIRE UNION RAILWAY AND CANAL (NEWTOWN
TO CREWE).
The above Bills were postponed till to-morrow.
The Committee then rose at about a quarter to five, and adjourned
till to-morrow at One.

MPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

(THIS EVENING.)

the subject was one of the most important character,
and one which demanded their most calm and deli-
berate attention. He did not expe-ct to be able to reverse the
decision to which they had recently come on this question.
' He could not say that the policy of the Government with re-
gard to the corn-laws met with his approbation. He
could not say that he became a party to this hasty, hazard-
ous, and dangerous question. He could not say what
might be the usage of the Parliamentary Cabinets; bus
, this he could say, that he believed that there was no
object to be gained. This question was only of importance
as it affected the corn question, and he was, therefore, desirous
of coming to a decision to-night. He was well aware that it
was asserted that there was a large quantity of corn imported
into the United Kingdom. He was also aware that there was
an objection on account of the taxes. Now, it was well under-
stood that there was a large quantity of corn imported into the
country; and he had understood that a decision was to be come
to at the present moment. If this House were to be consulted,
he understood that a division would be come to on Monday or
Tuesday next, when, perhaps a majority might determine the
question. A return, lately made to their Lordships' House,
showed the amount of wheat in bond was! 2,000,000 quarters
of wheat. Since that time there had been considerable in-
crease in the quantity imported nto this country. It had been
pouring in from every part, and merchants have been
buying immense quantities to meet the rumoured famine.
In one week only, in Liverpool, 56,000 barrels of flour were
imported between Ist and 9zh June ; 51 vessels, laden with corn,
had entered the various ports of the United Kingdom. Of this
number 32 contained wheat, 5 barley, 12 oats, and 2 peas.
The Noble Lord had said that even if this quantity of corn
were to come in, it would not make the produce of
farms totally unsaleable. From that opinion he totally
differed, for a great sale of food was of the
greatest importance to the country, and under the Noble
Lord's opinion, the imagined security of great abund ince
o ould not be a security of great dearth. The Noble Lord bad
on a former occasion said that they were mistaken in
supposing that all this corn would come in, it would not come
in at all because it cost the importers 605., and what
chance had they of this ever being brought in at that
price at which it could not be sold at a profit. He
was sure that ten days would not elapse before every
holder of corn would bring it in, for if they did not they would
be caught by the decrease of duty. The latest price of corn
was 325. 10d., and by the new Bill, if that became the
average of six weeks, the duty would immediately rise
because 535. was the rate at which, according to the
new Bill, the corn was to come in at 4s. The
average quantity of corn introduced into this country was
550,000 quarters a year, and he wanted to know what pros-
peet t'ney had now, in the present state of things, of requiring
five times that amount.—( Hear, hear.) How could their
Lordships sanction such an injustice to the tillers
of the soil of the country ?—( Hear.) But he had only stated
what had been the average of the last three years, and it might
be said that in 1839, 1840, 1841, and 1842, there
was a considerable deal more corn wanted in this
country than 550,000 quarters. Let the House, however,
look to the years 1832, 1833, 1834, 1835, 1836, and 1837, and
they would see that the average for six years running was under
550,000, clearly showing that the larger quantity was the excep-
tion, and not the rule. He therefore entreated Noble Lords
to consider this question calmly and dispassionately, without
reference, and if they determined to try a desperate experi-
ment 1:t them do it cautiously and carefully, or not at all.
On a former occasion, when it was proposed to remit some
protective duties, steps were taken to prevent the evils that
might arise from the sudden withdrawal of protection. In
1822 the Act was passs d, and Mr. Huskisson kept the old
law in operation till the prices had reached a certain amount.
Again, in 1826, that statesman let in 400,000 qrs. of wheat, or
about eve-fifth of that which would be admitted in now, and so
careful was he to prevent any violent oscillation of price, that
he provided that one-third of it should be introduced every
month, thus extending it over the period of three months.
This was also while the duty was! kept at 10s. a quarter. Such
was the contrivances of the Government of that day, when these
was no comparison of the change proposed with that now
before the House. He was persuaded there would be no diffi-
culty in making an arrangement of this kind now. He had
not much hope, however, as they professed a great deal
sympathy for shippers and manufacturers, but they had very
little sympathy for the poor cultivators of the soil.—Hear, hear).
He complained that their Lordships, in passing this measure,
appeared to act too carelessly with regard to the interests of the
parties whom it would affect. He had occupied their Lordships
attention longer than he could have wished; but he had
confined himself simply to facts. He had not occupied their
Lordships' attention for the purpose of calling upon them to
retrace their steps. Would to God that he could persuade
them to do so.—( Hear, hear.) He had not the slightest hope
of being able to do so, but he begged of them seriously
to consider what would be the effect of their
decision on this question. Their Lordships should not,
in justice, interfere with the present prosperous state
of things unless a sufficient case were made out. The
Noble Lord concluded by moving his resolution.
Much ado had been made about flour, but if they took the re-
ports of the markets they would find a sufficient reason for the
rejection of this measure.
The Earl of DALHOUSIE rose, and was

(LEFT SPEAKING.)

HOUSE OF COMMONS,

The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'clock.
COVENTRY, NUNEATON, BIRMINGHAM, AND

LEICESTER 'RAILWAY.

Mr. SPOONER moved, that the Committee on the
Coventry, Nuneaton, Birmingham, and Leicester Railway
Bill, 13,_ revived, that it be an instruction to the Committee,
to entertain and hear the parties on the petition of William
Atkinson Gardner, and the petition of Charles Holt Brace-
bridge, with reference to the non-compliance with the resolu-
tions of the House of the 30th day of April last. If the reso-
lutions which were adopted on the 30th of April by that House
were to be maintained, thee it was imperatively necessary
that the Committee on the Bill should be revived, in order
that the case of the petitioners might be heard.
Mr. BANNERMAN thought that before the House decided
on the proposed motion, they should inquire who the pe-
titioners were. The party who petitioned against the Bill was
deputy-chairman of the line against which the Committee had
decided. It was also extremely doubtful whether the peti-
tioners bad any locus standi before the Committee, as the peti-
tion was not presented until the day after the Committee had
given their decision.

- Lord G. SOMERSET thought the explanation of the
Hon. Member (Mr. Bannerman) was quite satisfactory, and
be should therefore oppose the motion.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE understood that the resolutions of
the 30th of April directed that the Committees on Railway
Bills were to entertain every petition presented, but it would
appear that in the present case the Committee had not done
their duty. If the resolutions' were not attended to, it would
be better at once to put them behind the fire. He should cer-
tainly support the motion.
GLASGOW AND BELFAST UNION RAILWAY.
The report on this Bill was brought up, and the Bill ordered
to be engrossed.
GRAVESEND AND ROCHESTER RAILWAY AND

CANAL (SALE AND PURCHASE).
The report on this Bill was brought up, and the Bill ordered
to be engrossed.
GREAT GRIMSBY AND_ SHEFFIELD JUNCTION

RAILWAY EXTENSION (No. 3) BILL.
The Lords' amendments on this Bill were read and agreed to.
Mr. ESTCOURT considered that the present case was one
of contempt of the House, inasmuch as some of the parties had
foisted a fallacious return on the Committee. He would sup-
port the revival of the Committee, not for the purpose of con-
sidering the merits of the Bill, but whether the decision of the
Committee had been come to in consequence of this fallacious
report.
Mr. GREENE supported the motion. He thought the
petition should have been entertained.
Mr. VILLIERS did not think that the revival of the case
before the Committee was the proper mode of dealing with a
fraud practised on the Committee.
Mr. SPOONER bad consulted the highest authority in the
House as to the course he should pursue in the matter, and had
acted according to the advice given him.
Mr. NEWDEGATE hoped the House would not reive
the Committee upon such vague allegations as those contained
in the petition.
Mr. B. WILLIAMS said the motion was only made for the
purpose of incurring additional expense and delay.
Mr. MUNTZ supported the motion, because he thought the
Committee had not strictly followed the rules of the House.
The House then divided when there appeared—
For the motion ................................. 12
Against it ........................................ 80
Majority against the recommittal of the Bill —63
GREAT GRIMSBY AND SHEFFIELD JUNCTION
RAILWAY AND GRIMSBY DOCKS CONSOLI-
DATION BILL.

On the order of the day being read for the further proceed-
ing on the third reading of this Bill.
Mr. STEWART WORTLEY said that the Bill,
if carried into effect, would cause the most serious im-
pediments to the public, and he therefore moved that
the Bill be read a third time that day six months.
Messengers came down from the Lords bringing several
Bills, which were ordered to lie on the table.
Viscount EBRINGTON considered that no line at all would
be preferable to the one under consideration, and entertaining,
as he did, the strongest opinion on the subject, he would vote
against the third reading of the Bill.
Mr. MONCKTON MILNES hoped that the House would
not swerve from its usual custom, b_t would affirm the decision
of the Committe.

Mr. C. WOOD said he should vote for the rejection of the this d
reading. In another session the tribunal to which the Bill will be
submitted would have a much better opportunity of arriving at
a just conclusion.

-Mr. B. DENISON said he hoped that the House would
reject the third reading of the Bill. The two Bills which
had been passed ought to have been rejected by the Committee,
and those which had been rejected ought to have been passed.
Mr. STANSFIELD supported the third reading.
Strangers were ordered to withdraw, and the House di-
vided, when there appeared,
For the third reading ... 50
Against it .................
Majority
SCOTTISH CENTRAL AND CALEDONIAN JUNC-

TION RAILWAY.
This Bill was read a second time.
BUCKINGHAMSHIRE RAILWAY (OXFORD AND
BLETCHLEY JUNCTION).
On the question that the Lords' amedments on this Bill be
considered,
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented a petitition containing
strong allegations against the Bill, and hoped there would be
no objection to have it printed and taken into consideration
with the amendments.
The Maquis of CHANDOS objected to any postponement.
He was not aware until that moment that any opposition would
be entered into against the line, but he would pray that the
House ,xould not take notice of individual objections to a
great public line.
Sir GEORGE GREY also objected to the motion.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said all he wanted was to have the
petition printed, so that it might be, in the hands of every
Member of the House who would not suffer a great injury
to be inflicted on a private person.
Mr. W. COLLETT said, the petitioner had no locus
ea-di.
The amendments on the report were then considered and
a,ted.
Mr. W. ELLIS tnoved the third reading of the Leicester
and Bedford Railway Bill.
Air. V. SMITH objected to the third reading of this
Bill on account of errors which he perceived in it.
It was the recommendation of the Board of Trade, and a
standing order of the House, that the maximum rate of tolls
should be mentioned in the Bill, but of these he found no men-
tion whatever.
Mr. WA KLEY presented several petitions in favour of the
Glasgow, Dumfries, and Carlisle Railway.
(LEFT SITTING.)

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
OLD COURT.
(Before Chief Jus O
tice TLNDAL, Baron ROLFE, and
Alderman Titomrsos
Dr. James Ellis surrendered this mornin4 to take hi; trial,
and was placed at the bar, indicted on the coroner's inqui
tion for manslaughter, in the case of Richard Dresser, who
e
died while being subjected to hydropathic treatment
under
the care of Dr. Ellis, to
which charge A
he pleaded O

(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of Saturday.)
John Maynard, an attendant in Dr. Ellis's establishment,
at Sudbrook Park, near Petersham, stated that he was a
bathing man, having certain rooms allotted to his section,
and he attended all persons in these rooms. He had been
there about six months. He saw Mr. Dresser on the Friday
in No. 2, in the cottage, a part of the establishment, a bed
room; Dr. Ellis was with him at the time, which was be-
tween seven and eight o'clock. Dr. Ellis said something to
witness, but he did not recollect what it was. Dresser had
a bath on Saturday morning betweenseven and eight o'clock,
the bath being carried into the room and Dr. Ellis being pre-
sent. The temperature of the bath was 85 degrees. The
patient after remaining in it 90 seconds was taken out and
well dried and put to bed. Witness took up water three or
four times during the Saturday, about two quarts cold and
two quarts hot; each time at intervals of three or four hours.
Dr. Ellis was there at these times; there was no bath in the
room. A cloth about two feet long was taken up with
every quantity of water. On Sunday he had a bath at the
same time of the morning as before. Dr. Ellis ordered that
it should be at a temperature of 85 degrees, and that the
patient should remain in it 90 seconds. Towels and water
were taken up as on the day previous. In the bed-room his
covering was two or three blankets. He had a bath on the
Monday, but not quite so early, and no water or towels were
sent up that day.
Cross-examined—The rubbing down on Saturday morn-
ing, after the bath, did not cause so much redness as witness
had seen in other cases. After the bath on Sunday he walked
out, and felt very much better from Dr. Ellis's treatment,
and said so frequently. He expressed himself to the same
effect after the bath on Monday, and wished to have baths
during the day, he felt so much relieved. He had no bath
on Monday night. His food was tapioca, milk, bread, and
butter. His bowels were confined from the time he came
on Friday till Monday morning; on Sunday some castor oil
was taken into Dresser's room. Dr. Ellis sat up with his
patient on Sunday and Moiiday nights, the whole night
through, and appeared very anxious about him. On Mon-
day, at half-past six o'clock in the evening, witness saw no
change in the patient. There were four or five gentlemen in
the establishment at the time.

Henry Rogers, boots in the establishment, said he saw
Dresser about three o'clock in the afternoon, when Dr. Ellis
ordered him to rub Dresser's feet, which were rather cold.
Witness sat up with him that night until half-past three
o'clock next morning, and during that time the patient fre•
quently complained of pain in the side.
This closed the case for the prosecution.
Mr. COCKBURN took three technical objections, two on the
wording of the indictment, and one on the subject of the ju-
risdiction of the Court.

Chief Justice TINDAL reserved the points.
Mr. CocKnuaN then addressed the jury, and delivered a
long and elaborate defence of the prisoner, and finally put it
to the jury whether they could say there was congestion of the
lungs, that that corgestion was caused by the water treat-
ment, and that, even if that were so, Dr. Ellis's ignorance of
a latent disease of which his patient never spoke a syllable,
was of that gross and culpable description which would jus-
tify them in finding him guilty of manslaughter.
Several witnesses, patients of Dr. Ellis, were called, who
spoke to his care, skill, and humanity.
Chief Justice TINDAL summed up the evidence, and sent it
to the jury, who, in a few seconds, returned a verdict of Not
Guilty.

The verdict was received with great appaluse by several in
the Court.

IVETV COURT.
(Before the COMMON SERGEANT.)
Henry Sharp, a young man of very respectable appear-
ance, who was described as a warehouseman, was indicted
for stealing a quantity of French cambric and cambric hand-
kerchiefs, of the value of 491. odd, the property of his em-
ployers, Messrs. Lewis and James, warehousemen, Gutter-
lane, Cheapside.

Mr. Benj. Lewis said he suspected the prisoner a few days
after he had left his employ. In consequence of such suspi-
cion he had his stock taken, and found the property now
produced missing. The cambric and the handkerchiefs
exactly corresponded with those in their ( the prosecutors)
possession, the threads where they had been torn off exactly
fitting.

In his cross•-examination by Mr. BALLANTINE, the prose-
cutor admitted that he had formerly entertained a very high
opinion of the prisoner, and that there were other persons in
his employ who also had access to the cambric. The account
the prisoner gave of the transaction was that he had pur-
chased the articles from a Mr. St. Croix, who had been intro-
duced to him by a Mr. Bisson, a merchant, living at Jersey.
Mr. Bisson had been, and prosecutor believed was still, on
intimate terms with the prisoner. That gentleman, however,
denied ever introducing such a person as Mr. St. Croix to
him. About the 26th February, prosecutor, who required
the services of Mr. Bisson. as a witness against the prisoner,
cautioned him, on being informed that he was going to dine
with the prisoner, to be careful that he was not " drugged."
George Hayter was next examined. He was directed by
the prosecutors to go to the prisoner's warehouse and endea-
vour to purchase the cambric, they having been told that
the prisoner had some for sale. He accordingly went to
prisoner's shop, and there saw the articles produced and pur-
chased them.

Cross-examined—The articles were lying exposed to view.
Mr. BALLANTINE made a powerful address on behalf of
the prisoner, contending that it would have been absurd for
a man in the prisoner's position, who was rapidly improving
his condition, and had become the partner of a highly re-
spectable man, to run the risk of sacrificing his future
prospects by committing a paltry theft.—Mr. Bisson, one of
the prosecutor's witnesses, had placed between 6001. and 7001.
worth of goods in the prisoner's possession since the charge
had been brought, and such was the high opinion he enter-
tained of him that he would not have this property removed.
There had been abundant opportunities of disposing of the
articles said to have been stolen, if the prisoner had been so
disposed, and he (Mr. Ballantine) would call a witness to
prove that the purchase was made by the prisoner of a person
answering the description of Mr. St. Croix at the very time
and place stated.
After a lengthened and feeling appeal to the jury, this wit-
ness was called, and corroborated the statement made by the
Learned Counsel, after which

Mr. CLARKSON' said he was instructed to withdraw the
prosecution; which announcement was received with accla-
mations, and the prisoner left the dock in company of his
friends.