The Sun.
London, England, 1861-04-10 00:00:00

and was to be forwarded ye3terday to Mr. W. E.
Forster, M.P., for presentation to the House of
Commons. The sheets of the petition which had
been received on Monday evening by Mr. C.
Lund, at the Bradford Liberal Registration-office
in that town, bore the signatures of 20,060 per-
sons, and twelve sheets were at that time unre-
turned.

MEETING AT HECKMONDWIKE.
( On Friday night last, a crowded meeting of the
inhabitants of Heckmondwike was held in the
Freemasons'-hall, "to consider the state of reform,
and especially Mr. Baines's Borough Franchise
Bill." Luke Firth, Eq., occupied the chair.
Mr. S. WOOD proposed the first resolution :
"That it is the opinion of this meeting that the
time has arrived when a considerable extension of
the suffrage ought to be made both in boroughs and
counties, and it regrets that Mr. Locke King's bill
for extending the franchise has been so uncermo-
niously rejected by the House of Commons."
Mr. KELLY seconded the proposition.
Mr. B. RHODES moved :- ." Tnat this meeting
approves of the borough franchise bill recently in-
troduced by Mr. Baines, as being alike required by
the claims ofjustice and good policy."
The resolution was seconded by Mr. JOHN
FEARNLEY, supported by Mr. JOHN HARRISON,
and carried amid loud applause.
The resolution next submitted to the meeting
declared :—" That this meeting deprecates the
policy of the present Government in so faintly pro-
moting and so easily relinquishing the reform of
the representation, and especially disapproves of the
conduct of the Liberal members who, by hesitating
speeches or obstructive amendments and delays,
materially contributed to the defeat of the last
Reform Bill."

Mr. R. CLARKSON proposed the resolution,
which was seconded by Mr. I. SHARP, and cartied
by acclamation.
A vote of thanks to the chairman closed the
proceedings, which were throughout of a very
interesting and enthusiastic character.
It was announced that a petition had been for-
warded to Frank Crossley, Esq., embodying the
spirit of the above resolutions, for presentation to
the House of Commons, and that it had received
2,013 signatures.

COMMISSIOIIT OF LUAT 40Y ON TILE

EARL OF KINGSTON.

Yesterday morning the proceedings under a writ
lunatic° inquirendo, issued on the petition of the
Hon. James King and Colonel E R. King, in refer-
ence to the state of mind of the Right Hon. Richard
Henry Earl of Kingston, were opened by Mr. Com-
missioner Warren, Q C., in the hall of Clement's-
inn. The petitioners were represented by Mr.
Montagu Chambers, Q.C., and Mr. Hodgson, and
the Earl by Mr. l)igby Seymour, Q.C., and Mr. P.
Thompson.
Mr. M. Chambers, in opening the ease of the
petitioners, said he had the honour to appear for the
Hon. James King, the younger brother of the Earl,
and Colonel Edward Richard King, a second cousin
of the alleged lunatic. The petition did not origi-
nate with the petitioners, but arose entirely out of
the conduct of the alleged lunatic in public—con-
duct which induced independent persons not in any
way related to him to interfere for his protection.
It was this conduct Which compelled the petitioners
to commence these disagreeable proceedings. In
order to enable the commissioner to form a correct
judgment he must refer to some circumstances con-
nected with the past history of Lord Kingston.
On succeeding to the title some years ago the
noble earl became possessed of a considerable in-
come. After a time his circumstances became so
embarrassed that under the influence, and with the
assistance of Mr. Sadleir, whose name was so noto-
rious, he raised money, and the result was that
he became still more embarrassed. At the
present moment his estate was very much
involved ; but there were proceedings going on
in the Court of Chancery in Ireland which might
or might not have the effect of practically reliev-
ing the earl's estate from its burdened position.
The earl was now, as indeed he was when the acts
occurred which led to this inquiry, comparatively
speaking a pauper, hardly able to support himself.
He mentioned this not for the purpose of doing
any injury to the alleged lunatic, but as account-
ing for much of the strangeness of his conduct
anterior to the curious acts which led to this in-
quiry. For many years past the noble earl's
eccentricities end extravagancies had been well
known more especially in the metropolis. He went
about from place to place, incurring debts to cab-
men in a peculiar kind of amusement. Instead of
payinc, the cab fare in the usual way he wrote on
a little piece of paper what purported to be a
cheque, not drawn on an)' bank nor any person,
and handed it to the unfortunate cabman, who not
being satisfied with such treatment brought the
matter before a police magistrate; There were
also indications of weakness of mind in his con-
versation, which was rapid, unconnected, end irra-
tional, especially as regarded distinguished per-
sons he was always imagining he had invited to
dinner, and his extraordnary accusations against
persons of 'unquestionable moral character, and
which accusations extended to almost every person
of high name he was acquainted with—so that if
it were not felt that he was insane, he would be
every day liable to civil actions or indictments for
the gross slanders he thus not only uttered but
wrote. In fact his whole conduct showed that he
was utterly unable to take care of himself, and he
should show by the medical witnesses that where,
as in this case, the mental aberration followed on
partial paralysis, recovery was hopeless.
The Master—What is his age ?
Mr. M Chambers—l believe 64.
Mr. D. Seymour wished to state, before his
learned friend proceeded to call evidence, that it
was his intention to apply, under the 43d clause of
the Lunacy Act, that the case might be tried by a
jury. If that application should be conceded it
might enable his learned friend to limit the evidence.
The Master said that, before granting or refusing
the application, he should see Lord Kingston and
judgefor himself as to his lordsnip's state of mind.
In the meantime Mr. Chambers would call such
witnesses as he thought necessary to establish his
case.
William Thomas Locker was then called and
examined by Mr. Hodgson, and deposed that he
was a waiter at the Euston Hotel, and remembered
the earl going there in September. He had an
attendant with him ; he ordered dinner in a most
incoherent manner, and laughed sti aqgely. He
smelt most offensively, and a gentleman who was
dining at the next table said he must leave if the
earl did not. When the bill was brought in the
earl said he had no money, but would give witness
a check on the Union Bank. The bill was 155.,
and witness took the paper or check to Mr. Wright,
of Whitehall-place, but did not get the 153. ( he
check was here produced. It was drawn on the
Unity, not the Union Bank, as stated by the
witness )
Cross-examined by Mr. D. Seymour.—For seven
or eight years the earl had frequented the hotel,
He always appeared eccentric, but knew bow to
order his dinner. He was generally simple in his
diet, and on the occasion referred to ordered fried
whiting only. He talked about Lord Palmerston,
but witness did not understand his remarks.
Mr. Russell, booking clerk at the Euston-square
Station, stated that on the 6th of September the
earl took a Liverpool ticket without paying for it.
Witness followed him to the platform and had a
long altercation with him,,in which he endeavoured
to turn attention to other matters, talking about
dining with Sir *Tames Duke and other persons.
Suddenly he struck witness in the breast with all
his strength, but as he was evidently insane he was
not given into custody. Witness knew that it was.
Lord Kingston. He went to where a train was
expected to come in, but was got off after some
struggling. He afterwards went into the waiting
room and called for paper, pen, and ink in order to
write a protest to the company against the man-
ner in which he had been treated. The note was
very rambling. About every third sentence he
said, " In insulting me you insult the whole House
of Lords." There was nothing in his manner to
show that he was intoxicated. About 9 o'clock on
the following day he again went to the booking-
offi.ce and asked for a ticket, but as he had no money
he was refused. He then threw Sown a paper which
he called a cheque, which had upon it, " Pay the
bearer I;lo—Kingston ;" but it was not directed to
anybody. He threw the paper into the window of
the booking-office,and went to the platform and
into a carriage. Witness followed and remonstrated
with him, and endeavoured to get hint out. Ulti-
mately he was removed from the carriage by two
policemen.

•
Cross-examined by Mr. D. Seymour—There had
been instances of persons being allowed to go on
from Euston-square without taking a ticket, but
paying at the other end of the journey. That,
however, was the exception and not the rule. H 2
only knew of one person of late who had been
allowed to do so, and that was the presEnt Sir R.
Peel. On the first night Lord Kingeton. remained
at the station until about 11 o'clock. When on
thenext evening witness removed him from the
carriage, he offered no resistance, but came out of
the carriage quietly.
W. Emery, a railway guard, corroborated Mr.
Russell's statement, and added that Lord Kingston
threatened to sue the company for £50,000, for not
being allowed to go by the train, 13.4c1 also that he
would bring the matter before the House of Lords.
Edward Swindle, police-sergeant at
.Euston-
square, deposed to having removed Lord Kingston
from the railwaysarriage on the 7th of September.