The Sun.
London, England, 1860-06-05 00:00:00

have formerly advanced in this house on Parliamentary
reform, and believing, as I hope I may on this subject, that
I am, notwithstanding the Quarterly Review, expressing the
opinions of those gentlemen who sit on this side of the
house—(cheers)—l am not afraid to say I think it would
be most impolitic at this moment to attempt a sets lement
such as that projected by the noble lord. (Cheers.) If the
noble lord had the power indeed to deal comprehensively
and completely with the subject —if the noble lord had said
" I have here a comprehensive bill for England, Ireland,
and Scotland ; the principles and conditions upon which
_ _ .

we propose that power should be allotted in these countries
have been long considered and deeply matured—by them
we mean to stand or fall"—in bringing forward such a

policy, even perhaps with impending war and impending
revolution, we feel that it might strengthen the common-
wealth, might increase the public courage, and animate
public spirit in England—we might think the noble lord
and his colleagues rash, we might think them ill-advised,
we might think the Occasion full of danger, but all must
admit that it would fit least be a policy assured and deter-
mined by eminent men—which they undoubtedly were—
and entitled, if not to adoption by the country, at least to
respect. But when at a moment of undisguised danger, at
a period of most certain peril, the noble lord comes forward
after all with no policy, but with a compromise which, to
use his own epithet, I must characterise as paltry—l see
no safety in such a course—l recognise no security in such a
proceeding ; but i feel that at a moment when this house
should stand on high, and this country should be united,
we are recommended to try a course which may enfeeble
the one, and may dishonour the other. (Loud cheers.)
Mr. MACKINNON moved "that in order to obtain a
safe and effective reform, it would be inexpedient and un-
just to proceed further with the proposed legislative mea-
sure for the representation of the people until the house has
before it the results of the census authorised by the bill now
under consideration." As a general supporter of the Go-
vernment, he felt himself placed in a somewhat awkward
position in proceeding with the motion of which he had
given notice, but he believed the bill was neither popular in
the house nor in the country, and he therefore felt it his
duty to state to the house the reasons which had induced
him to adopt the course hehad taken. In 1831 he introduced
a motion in precisely similar terms, and although a majo-
rity of the house at that time were pledged to reform, he
was only defeated by a majority of 74. The bill, however,
did not pass until the following year, when the census was
really taken. He thought no real object would be attained
by pushing forward the present measure with:railway speed.
The higher and middle classes were altogether opposed to
the bill, inasmuch as they would be swamped by numbers,
and so far as the lower classes were concerned, they were
entirely indifferent to it. For some years he had had consi-
derable intercourse with the working classes in connection
with a bill he had introduced for arranging differences be-
tween masters and operatives, and he could honestly and
conscientiously state as the result of his experience, that the
lower classes were not in the slightest degree anxious that
this bill should pass. In point of fact he had received a letter
from a well-informed and sensible man, Mr. Humphries, of
Kentish-town, a member of the central committee of the
National Association of Trades in London, in which he said:
" Seeing the use which some parties seem desirous to make
of the working classes in order to secure the passing of the
bill of Lord J. Russell, allow me to assure you, that se far
as I am able to judge of their feeling in the matter, they are
perfectly indifferent about it, and for all the excitement or
agitation that exists there might be no such measure before
the country. In London, if there is any feeling at all upon
the matter, it is rather against than in favour of the bill,
because it entirely and intentionally excludes the most
thoughtful, sober, and intelligent portion of the mechanics
of our metropolis, simply from their inability to do more
than occupy apartments, though many of them pay £l5 or
£2O a year rent. A reform bill which purposely excludes
that portion of the people from its operation cannot be Very
captivating to them, and therefore the House of Commons
need not be surprised at the evident apathy and indifference
of the working classes at Lord J. Russell's Reform Bill.
Nay, further, their very silence is not so much indifference
as it is positively contempt. The only demonstration made
by the working classes arising out of the bill was that in
Hyde-park on Sunday, the 15th of April, when, in no very
complimentary language, they denounced it as a sham, a
delusion, and a snare. There is another point to which I
wish to call your attention, and that is, the appeal of Mr.
Bright to trades' unions to send delegates to attend before
Parliament. This, however, is a vain and empty appeal.
Mr. Bright knows very well, if he knows anything of trades'
unions, that political questions are rigidly excluded from
them, and for this reason, that if they were permitted to
form part of their discussion, discussion would lead to dis-
sension, and dissension to disunion—a consummation
which no doubt would be highly gratifying to the hon.
ourable member for Birmingham, but which would
be regarded as a great calamity by the working classes.
You may depend upon it that there is no danger of the
trades' unions responding to the appeal of Mr. Bright, The
same be said with regard to benefit societies. The hundreds
of thousands of working men forming these institutions are
all strictly forbidden and prohibited from introducing at
their meetings any questions of a political character, so that
these societies are not likely to endanger their existence by
becoming the tools of any political agitator. (Hear. hear.)
•• - -----e caws., --- -- ••••• are., ea to imaeane t nat the rower
classes cared about this Reform Bill ? He had been told by
one hon. member that he should vote for the bill because the
Lords would be sure to throw it out. (Hear, and a laugh.)
He was riding up from Hertfordshire the other day, and he
saw in a green field some innocent sheep enjoying theirpas-
I ture ; but presently he saw them put up in a pen; and he
said to himself, " Why, that is like the member for Bir-
minghana, driving us up to his Reform Bill." (A laugh.)
Was it fair that those individuals who had little or no educa-4
tion and no property, should legislate for the people of Eng-
land ? He had presided as chairman over the Masters and
Operatives Committee, and one of the witnesses examined
before that committee was Mr. Potter, secretary to the Build-
ers' Union. Mr. Potter stated, in answer to a question, that
he corresponded indirectly with 600,000 operatives, who had
a central committee in London. Let the house consider for a
moment the great danger of such a combination of people hay-
ing the franchise, acting under one head ; would they not
swamp the upper and middle classes altogether—(hear)—and
might not the result be that the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer should entirely take away all indirect taxation ?
(Hear, hear.) Why should :the house deprive officers in
the army and navy, solicitors, and engineers, of the fran-
chise, and give it to those men ? Less than 100 years ago
it had been said in that house that the power of the crown
had increased, was increasing, and ought to be diminished.
Now, he said the power of the ;crown had decreased and
ought to be supported. (Hear, hear.) The Emperor Na-
poleon said to the Italians, "If you don't fight for your
liberty, you don't deserve it; and ho (Mr. Mackinnon) said
to the House of Commons, "If you, gentlemen of England,
don't preserve your constitution, you deserve to lose it."
The hon. member concluded by proposing the amendment
of which he had given notice.
Sir H. STRACEY seconded it.
Sir G. C. LEWIS said it would not be necessary for him
to trouble the house at any length in answer to the obser-
vations of his hoe. friend (Mr. Mackinnon). The most racy
portion of his hon. friends remarks was that relating to a
letter which he read to the house, and which had been ad-
dressed to him by members of the working classes or some
of those committees connected with trades, who constituted
themselves the representatives for the time of the working
classes. He understood that letter to assert that the bill
before the house was "a sham, a snare, and a delusion,"
the result of which he understood to mean that this bill,
professing to enfranchise the working classes, did not con-
fer upon them any essential political power. Unless that
was the meaning of the letter, it seemed to him totally des-
titute of meaning or applicability. (Hear, hear.) The
plain and obvious tendency of that letter, which his hon.
friend had paraded as a great reflection of the esoteric
feelings of the working classes, was in fact that is did not
go far enough, and did not include in its provisions a suf-
ficient number of the working classes. There was One
expression which fell from his hon friend which it was di&
ficult to comprehend—namely, that this bill excluded all
the "thoughtful" :portion of the working classes. He
(Sir G. Lewis) 'professed himself unable to comprehend
how the author cf that letter reconciled it 'that a £lO or £6
franchise included all the thoughtless portion of the work-
ing. classes. (Hear, hear.) He should now address himself
to the subject of his hon. friends motion, which had for its
object to postpone the consideration of the bill till the census
of next year should be taken. Now the results of the census
could not be in the hands of Parliament in time to found
any legislation upon it in the course of next session; there-
fore the necessary consequence of postponing the measure
till after the results of the census were known, would be to
enable legislation upon it next session impossible. (Hear,
from the Opposbion.) That might or might not be a
matter of congratulation to hon. members opposite--he
merely stated it as a fact that those who gave a vote to
postpone the measure till after the results of the census
were known, would postpone it till beyond the period of
next session. (Hear.) With regard to that matter, there
was one very obvious remark to be made, that the census
had no bearing what ever upon that part of this bill, which
turned almost exclusively upon the question whether the
borough franchise should be limited to £lO or X 6. (Hear.)
Therefore the ground of postponement which was now
alleged applied exclusively to that portion of the bill which
was not the main subject of dispute in that house. With
regard to the question of the census, so far as it related to
the transfer of seats, there was no clause in the bill which
said that all boroughs under 7,000 population should be dis-
franchised. That was merely a circumstance stated in de-
bate by his noble friend in introducing, the bill, and all he
asked the house to do was to transfer seats from certain
boroughs to other boroughs or to counties. (Hear, hear.)
It was stated as a ground for making a selection that those
fell within the line of 7,000. But there was no charm in
the number of 7,ooo—(hear, hear, ironically)—more than
there was in the number of 6,000 proposed by the late Go-
vernment. They must take some number upon which the
franchise should be based; whether it should be 7,000 ac-
cording to the census of 1851, or 7,500 according to the cen-
sus of 1861, it could not be material. But what was ma-
terial was whether the boroughs selected for disfranchise-
ment in part had a population relative to other boroughs.
If it should turn out that the boroughs selected stood in a
relative position to other towns it would be perfectly imma-
terial whether the highest town was 7,100 or 7,200, (Hear.)

And unless it should be maintained by argument that the
relative position was likely to be materially altered by the
coming census, the ground for postponement must fail. He
denied that any hon. gentleman could show that the smallest
reason existed for a postponement until after the next cen-
sus should be taken. (Hear, hear.) The facts before the
house were not likely to be altered by waiting or by fur-
ther delay, and he therefore thought it`-would be trifling

with the measure if they made this a pretext for postponing
it. He believed it could be equally well considered now
as in 1861. Indeed he believed that if the house had any
option, it would be better to adopt the census which was
taken when there was no prospect of a reform bill being in-
troduced, than a census which might be tampered with
when they knew that it might affect legislation. He had
F consulted the Registrar-General on the subject, and he said

he should have far more confidence in referring to the fran-
chise in the census of 1851 than upon the one of next year

upon which to found a reform bill, because he thought
efforts might be made to cause returns which might not
be accurate, and which might be laid before Parliament in
that state. He would not say that frauds would be perpe-
trated, but in such a case at such a time inaccuracies might
arise. (Hear.) Upon the merits of the matter no case had

. _
been shown for the postponement of the bill until the census
of 1861 should be placed in their hands. If the House of
Lords should be of opinion that the bill was founded upon
just principles, and if it were desirable to take a limited po-
pulation as a ground for partial disfranchisement—as in the
bill of last session and in this session—no case could be made
out for postponing legislation until next year. (Hear.) The
census of 1851 afforded a most clear and efficient basis for
the calculation. He would therefore entreat the house, if
they seriously proposed to deal with the bill, and if they
were not merely looking to this motion as aineans of post-
ponement, but were ready to discuss this bill upon its
merits, and to entertain the question of disfranchisement
upon the basis of population, to reject this motion without
waiting for another two years to elapse, and until the census
could be in their hands. Supposing some hon. members
thought they should discuss the elements of property and
the number of voters as a ground of disfranchisement, still
all those facts were in their possession, and the questions
could be raised in committee. The Government had con-
sidered these alternatives before making their propositions
to the house, because he was aware it might be said that if
they took the numbers of voters instead of population, they
would arrive at a different result; still it would have been
called a vicious principle, and the basis of population w uld
have been urged by hon. members. (Hear.) There could
be no expectation that they would arrive at unanimity upon
this subject, and the question could only be decided by a
majority of voters when they got into committee. No use-
ful object could be obtained by delay. All the material ele-
ments for legislation were in their possession, and the coun-
try would hardly believe that the house was seriously bent
upon the consideration of reform if they assented to the
motion of the hon. member for Rye.
Sir H. STRACEY said if there were any use in the
census at all, they would do wrong in legislating when a
bill like this was based upon numbers and population. Be-
ing based on population, surely the greatest accuracy would
be given by the census, and at the present time they found
that the greatest possible inaccuracy prevailed. The hon.
and learned member for Marylebone had shown that to be the
case. No doubt, if any one of the amendments were carried
against the bill, the noble lord would feel greatly obliged to
the hon. mover of it. (Hear.) He should have thought
that the mental capacity of the voter would be made a point
if consideration in giving the franchise, but that was not
the case in this bill. The hon. member for Birmingham
said he regarded the bill as a stepping-stone to universal
suffrage.
Mr. BRIGHT said he expressed his opinion in that
house and out of it, and he asked the hon. gentleman to
show that he had ever said anything in favour of universal
suffrage. (Hear.)
Sir H. STRACEY said the hon. gentleman declared he
regarded this bill as an, instalment, and he understood
thereby that he meant universal suffrage. But perhaps the
hon. gentleman meant only household suffrage.
Mr BRIGHT said that when he spoke of the bill as be-
ing an instalment he recerred to a further distribution of
seats. (Oh, oh.)
Sir H. STRACEY was sorry if he misrepresented the hon
gentleman. But the hon. gentleman was a democratic
leader of that house, and he was sorry to see the occupants
of the treasury bench dependent on such support as the hon.
member for Birmingham could bring them for their position
in that house. He believed that some of them would be
glad to see this bill disappear altogether. Although they
might support the measure by their vo' es, he thought he
could see by the faces of some of them that they thought
differently. (Laughter.) He might say of them " Video
meliora proboque ; deteriora sequor." He heard some of
them compared to so many Chevaliers Bayards, but if it
could be said of them that they lived sans peur he believed
they would never die as he did, sans reproche. (Oh, oh.)
Mr. GREGSON considered that this was the very best
time for passing a Reform Bill when they had no disturb-
ance at home, and were at peace with Europe.
Mr. BARROW believed it was desirable that a bill
should pass, but then it ought to be a bill that was likely
to last for some years, and not a bill, as this was, which
would last for only a few months. He was as anxious as
any man could be that mere suould be 50,.0 change in
the representation, but he wished it should be a permanent
one, and he feared that no permanent change could be
effected without fuller information.
Sir F. GOLDSMID trusted that hon. members would
permit of the measure being settled this session.
Mr. BOVILL and an Herr. MEMBER on the Ministerial
side rose together, and for some minutes disputed the at-
tention of th© chair. Finally, the former hon. and learned
member proceeded to address the house. "What, he said,
were the materials to which the Government might have
looked in considering the disfranchisement of boroughs ?
Were they to take mere population,; men, women, and
children, or were they to take the number of voters in re-
lation to the whole number of inhabitants ? There might
be objections to that test—but were there ,no other ?
Population was tried in 1331, but it was found imprac-
ticable, and in 1832 the Government of the day deter-
mined to proceed upon the relative importance of the
boroughs. Let the house observe how the Government
schema affected the boroughs of Tavistock, Tiverton,
and Tamworth. Tavistock was not to be interfered
with ; at present 433 electors returned two members ;
59 would be added by this bill, making 492. The borough
of Guildford, with 723 voters, was to be deprived of ono of
its members. Why was that ? (Hear, hear.) Guild-
ford had increased in population and importance. The
number to be added by this bill would be 207, making the
electors for Guildford 930—nearly twice the number of elec-
tors at Tavistock ; and yet it was proposed to leave Tavistock
its two and take one away from Guildford. (Hear.)
The bill would give two additional members to the 14 now
returned for the county and boroughs of South Devon,
while one was taken away from West Surrey. Tiverton
had now 526 voters, 242 would be added by the bill, making
768. Tiverton retained both its members, though Guild-
ford, with 930 voters, lost one of its representatives. Tam-
worth, witks2o voters, would have 98 added.
Sir R. PEEL--I beg to assure the hon. and learned gen-
tleman that that return is entirely erroneous. (Loud cheers
from the Opposition.)
Mr. BOVILL said he relied on the same return for Tam-
worth as for other places. He understood that the Govern-
ment maintained the accuracy of the returns ; but if they
were inaccurate, the case for postponement was stronger.
Tamworth would, under the bill, have 618 voters, a smaller
number than Guildford had now. (Hear.)
Sir It PEEL again rose and said—The hon. gentleman is
stating what is incorrect. (Cheers, and cries of " Order.")
The SPEAKER--The hon. baronet will have the oppor-
tunity of replying to the hon. and learned gentleman after-
wards.

Mr. BOVILL said the comparisons he had made showed
the fallacy of the test adopted by the Government—that of
population. That test had been at first adopted under the
Reform Bill of 1831, but it was afterwards abandoned. To
take a population of 7,000 instead of 6,000 as a test of dis-
franchisement, was to proceed on no principle at
all. He understood the noble lord (Lord J. Russell)
to admit that the question of a £6 franchise was not a prin-
ciple of the bill, but one that might be settled in committee.
The only principle of the Government appeared to be, that
as the late Government had proposed a population of 6,000
as a test of partial disfranchisement, and a £lO franchise,
the present Government would propose 7,000 as the mini-
mum, and a ;e6 franchise. They could not proceed in com-
mittee on that; but why, it was difficult to understand ;
and yet they were now asked to proceed in committee with-
out any information. He should certainly support the
amendment. The bill was not considered satisfactory by
anybody—not even by Ministers themselves. (Hear, hear.)
They ought to proceed on certain fixed principles—namely,
to look to the relative importance of boroughs. Tf they did
that they would find a test which was acted upon, and with
success, on a former occasion. If they adopted that course
no one would have a right to complain, but they must first
have information to work upon. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. BRINES did not think it at all necessary or expe-
dient to postpone the bill until the census of 1861 was
taken.

Mr. M. FARQUHAR entirely concurred with those
bon. gentlemen who had spoken in favour of the motion.
He believed the house had not sufficient information before
it upon which to legislate.
Mr. HUNT moved the adjournment of the debate ; which
was agreed to.
The debate was then adjourned to Thursday.
On the next order of the day for going into committee ex
the Irish and Scottish Reform Bills,
Mr. BLACKBURN said he had come up fresh from
Scotland, and he wished to know whether the Government
intended to proceed with the bill for the reform of the repre-
sentation of the people of Scotland ?
Mr. WHITE SIDE observed that he had heard the noble
lord the Foreign Secretary announce that he would confine
himself to the bills for England and Ireland, and that the
bill for Scotland would not be proceeded with.
After a few words from, Mr. CoLLINs,
Lord J. RUSSELL was understood to say that what he
had before said was, that the English bill would be pro-
ceeded with in committee, and that they thought they
would not have time to go on with the Irish and Scotch
bills, but they might as well now be appointed for com-
mitted on Thursday. He might observe thut' the late

Government did not introduce any measure at all with
respect to Scotland.
The order was then postponed until Thursday.

SUPPLY.
The report on supply was brought up and k: reed to.
SHERIFF COURT HOU '4ES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
On the order of the day for going into committee on this
bill,
The LORD ADVOCATE moved that the bill be et- 1
mitted on Tuesday, the 12th, at 12 o'clock.
Mr. DISRAELI said he wished to facilitate busineo as
much as possible, but he thought the first morning sitting
ought not to be proposed surreptitiously in a whisper ester

midnight.
Mr. STEUART hoped the proposition of the learned
lord would not be agreed to.
The LORD ADVOCATE said there were several Scot) 3h
bills waiting for committee, and he had fixed them all tel be
taken at a morning sitting. He informed the hon. men 4, er
for Stirling of his intention to move that the bill be taken
at a morning sitting.
Mr. BOUVERIE remarked that if hon. members would
neither agree to going into committee on a bill after twelve
o'clock, nor agree to a morning sitting, he did not see how
the business was to be got through.
Sir J PAKINGTON observed that the complaint was,
that almost in a whisper the Lord Advocate proposed to
take the bill at a morning sitting.
Mr. BUCHANAN thought that it was better to take
Scotch bills in a morning sitting.
After a few words from Lord C. HAMILTON,
Sir G. LEWIS denied that there had been anything sur-
reptitious in the conduct of the Government.
Mr. DISRAELI and other members opposed the motion;
on the ground that it should not have been made without
due notice. They would consent to the consideration o
the Scotch bills on Friday.
The house divided, when there appeared—
For the motion
Against it
Majority for the morning sitting —l3
TENURE AND IMPROVEMENT OF LAND
(IRELAND) BILL. _ _

Mr. CARDNVELL proposed to take the adjourned de-
bate on the second reading of this bill at a morning sitting
on Friday next.
Mr. WHITESIDE objected to this proposal.
After a brief discussi• n, in which Mr. Cogan, Lord Claud
Hamilton, The O'Donoghue, Mr. Longfield, and Mr. Dis-
raeli took part,
Mr. CARDWELL then proposed that they should pro-
ceed with the adjourned debate this day (Tues, ay) with
the view of adjourning the debate to a morning sitting on
Friday, should it be necessary.
After a few observations from Mr. P. O'Brien, Mr.
Hassard, and Lord Palmerston, the proposal of Mr. Card-
well was acceded to. •
THAMES EMBANKMENT.

Mr. HENNESSY moved that the select committee on
the Thames Embankment consist of seventeen members,
and that Lord Fermoy and Mr. Joseph Locke be added to
the committee.
Sir J. PAXTON said that personally he had no objec-
tion to either of his hon. friends who were proposed to be
added to the committee ; but in accordance with the usual
practice, the committee had been composed of fifteen mem-
bers, and it would be productive of great inconvenience if
the arrangement was now altered.
Mr. W. COWPER also opposed the motion, which was
supported by Colonel KNOX.
The house divided on the question that the committee
consist of seventeen members, when there appeared—
For the motion
Against it
Majority —2B
The other orders were disposed of, and the house ad-
journed at twenty minutes past one o'clock.

LAW INTELLIGENCE. June 4.

VICE-CHANCELLORS' COURTS.
(Before Vice-Chancellor Sir J. Stuart.)
NOTTIDGE V. PRINCE.

This was a bill by Mr. Ralph Clarke Nottidge,
who was the administrator of his late sister, Miss
Louisa Jane Nottidge, against Mr. Henry James
Prince, now the head or proprietor of the Agape-
mone, in the parish of Spinxton, near Bridgwater,
in Somersetshire, for the purpose of recovering
from the defendant a sum of £5,728 7s. 7d. New
Three per Cent:- Annuities, on the ground that it
for med part of the personal estate of Aliss L. J.
Nottidge, and that sum had been transferred by
her into the defendant's name by the exercise of
undue influence on his part over her, and when she
was, in fact, under his spiritual ascendancy, and in
a state of religions delusion with respect to him;
believing him to be the Tabernacle of God on earth,
and that God's spirit dwelt therein, Prince's
original spirit being extinct. Prior to December,
1845, three of the sisters of the late Miss Louisa
Jane Nottidge became members of the society called
the Agapemone, in which there is no observance of
the Sabbath, no practice of public or private
pxeept only that hymns or anthems of
praise are sung ; no usage of prayer or intercession
with the Almighty, and in which it is held that
prayer is useless, as the day of grace is past, and
the day of judgment has arrived. In December,
1845, Miss L. J. Nottidge herself became ono of the
disciples of Mr. Prince, who then and now declared
himself to be the servant of the Lord, and was and
is still preacher of the above doctrines. Miss Not-
tidge, who was then about 41 years of age, went in
that month to reside in the neighbourhood of the
Agapemone, where the plaintiff alleged she was
under Prince's influence. After some difficulty
Miss Nottidge's bother and brother-in-law suc-
ceeded in taking her to reside with her mother,
and as Miss Nottidge appeared to her friends to be-
tray symptoms of insanity, they called in medical
aid, and the result was that in November, 1846,
she was, upon the usual medical certificates, placed
in confinement, the chief ground upon which
the opinion of her insanity was based being that
she alleged that Prince was God Almighty, and that
he had the power of conferring immortality upon
her. Miss Nottidge remained in a private lunatic
asylum until May, 1848, when she was released by
order of the Lunacy Commissioners. Those gen-
tlemen in one of their reports said that Miss L. J.
Nottidge admitted that she did not now pray to
God, for that there was no use in it ; that she
acknowledged that she believed the Tabernacle of
God was upon the earth, that Prince was that
tabernacle, and that the spirit of God dwelt therein,
Prince's original spirit being extinct. In another
report the Lunacy Commissioners said Miss Not-
tidge, in answer to their inquiries, had said that
she was satisfied that there was no such person as
Prince, but that the spirit of God dwelt in his body ;
that she believed the spirit of God was now on
earth, and that it resided in the body of Prince.
The Lunacy Commissioners stated as their reasons
for liberating Miss Nottidge, that, although no
material improvement had taken place in her
mental condition, and her extraordinary and irra-
tional notions on the subject of religion, which
they regarded as delusion, were irreconcileable with
soundness of mind, were unabated, yet beyond those
delusions she had exhibited no other indication of
insanity ; and her bodily health had been latterly
giving way, and there was Much reason to appre-
hend that it might be seriously injured by the pro-
longation of her confinement. On the day of her
return she was met by Mr. Thomas, who was one
of Prince's followers, and had married one of her
sisters, and was by him brought to London, when
they, on the day after her return, went to a stock-
broker's respecting the transfer to Prince of the
stock then standing in her name. Not knowing
the exact amount of stock in her name, she was
then unable to make the transfer. She immediately
left London for the Agapemone, and having in the
meantime ascertained what amount of stock she
had in his name, she procured a power of attorney,
and accordingly made the transfer now called in
question, 13 days after her release. Miss Not-
tidge died in July, 1858. The defendant said
that Miss Nottidge had frequently, prior to her
confinement, offered to give him the above
stock, but that he had always refused to accept
it ; and that she made the transfer to him without
any solicitation on his part, and without his know-
ledge. He also denied that Miss Nottidge was
under any delusion with respect to himself, and
claimed to be entitled to the stock transferredinto
his name for his own benefit.

The above is a general outline of the case, which
is at present only part heard.
Mr. Malins (with whom was Mr. W. Knox
Wigram), for the plaintiff, occupied the Court the
whole day, and had not concluded his address.
Mr. Bacon and Mr. Smale appear for the de-
fendant, Prince.