The Sun.
London, England, 1844-07-17 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, JULY 17, 1€44.

SUMMER ASSIZES.
HOME Cll?CUlT—Chelmsford, July 16. ,
The commission for the county of Essex was opened
on Monday by Mr. Baron Gurney. The calendar is
heavy, and some of the offences are of a very serious
character, there being no less than eight charge of arson,
and in five of the cases the respective ages of the ac-
cused are 16, 9, 11, 12, and 8 years. There is also a
charge of child murder, and two cases of manslaughter.
On the civil side thirteen causes were entered, three of
which were special jury cases.
The business of the assize commenced this morning at
ten o'clock, Mr. Baron Gurney sitting on the Civil Side,
and Mr. Baron Parke in the Crown Court. On the
Civil Side the whole day was occupied in disposing of
an action of trespass, the details of which were of no
public interest.
(Before Mr. Baron PARKE.)
His Lordship in charging the Grand Jury said, he was
sorry to observe that notwithstanding the numerous
gaol deliveries in the county, and the operation of the
Central Criminal Court, there were so many prisoners
for trial at the present assizes, and still more to see the
magnitude of the offences with which a great many of
them were charged. There were several cases affecting
the lives of the accused, and, but for the recent altera-
tions of the law and the amelioration of the punishment
formerly inflicted, many others would have been in the
same position. The most serious case appeared to be a
charge of child murder, and in this case it appeared by
the depositions that the usual difficuly in cases of
this description, namely, whether the infant was
born alive or not would not, arise, inasmuch as it would
be shown that it was three weeks old at the time it was
destroyed, and he apprehended that if the facts should
be proved, as they appeared upon the depositions, it
would be their painful duty to find a bill for the murder.
There was another revolting case, in which a father was
accused of a felonious assault upon his own child; and it
was alleged that the offence had been committed while
his daughter was under ten years of age, which, if made
out, amounted to a felony, even if the jury should be-
lieve that the child was a consenting party. This, said
the Learned Judge, was the most shocking case he had
heard of during the period he had been connected
with the . administration of the criminal jus-
tice of the country, and it would be the duty of
the grand jury. to take the facts dispassionately into
their consideration, and see whether there was sufficient
evidence to warrant them in returning a bill either for
felony or misdemeanour. He regretted to see in the
cask:titter that there were many instances of an offence
which was very common both in that and the adjoining
county—the destruction of corn and other agricultural
produce by incendiaries ; but it was satisfactory to find
that, in nearly all the cases, the parties accused were not
labourers, who were alleged to be dissatisfied with their
employers, or with any particular law, but were children
of tender age, in one case the prisoner not being more
than eight years old. The law did not hold any one
criminally responsible for his acts who was under
seven years of age, and, perhaps, in some of
the cases the grand jury might be induced to
consider that the age of the 4tecused was so near
that fixed by the law as not rendering them
responiiQe, that they would pause before they
a bill, although he must admit that the deposi-
tions showed the parties accused to have admitted that
they were aware they were doing a wicked action, bat
at the same time without any apparent motive. The
Le.trned Judge proceeded to state that it was not neces-
sary to prove any malice or ill-will against the owner of
the property, this having been specially provided for by
the statute ; and all they would have to consider was,
whether, at the time the offence was alleged to have been
co emitted, the party accused was aware that he was
committing an illegal and wicked act, to the prejudice
of 'another. In one of the cases it did not clearly ap-
pear that the stack was actually ignited, and on that the
jury could not find a bill fur felony, but must return one
for inisdemeanour, f it the attempt to commit the offence
Ti:o grand jury then retired.
'There were no cases of interest tried during the day.

OXFORD CIRCUIT.—Oxford, July 16.
CgOWN COURT.—( Before Chief Justice TINDAL.)
Richard Elliott was indicted for stealing a banker's parcel,
containing 1,500 sovereigns, from the Defiance coach, on the
18th of March last.
Mr. Keating appeared on the part of the Crown ; Mr. Bal-
Jantyne and Mr. Huddleston defended the prisoner.
As the circumstances of this case have excited considerable
attention, we furnish the evidence somewhat more than
usually in detail, as elicited from the different witnesses.
fir. Robert Hare (clerk in Coutts's bank, London, corre-
spondsnt of the Oxford Old Bank)—I made up a parcel of
1,500
.sovereigns in a bag, which I tied up, in order to be
transtrikted to Oxford. Having weighed them, I delivered
the parcel to Quint, the porter, about twelve o'clock in the
day, on the Otil of March last.
hichard genii, porter to Coutts's bank—l received on the
day in question a bag from the last witness, which I put
into a wooden box and nailed down, directing it to Messrs.
Robinson and Parsons, High-street, Oxford. The box I then
put into a blue bag, which I tied up and carried in a cab to
the Gloucester Coffee-house. I had often formerly taken
similar parcels iu the same way. When I reached the
Gloace,ter Coffee-house, the Defiance, Oxford coach, had not
arrived ; it, however, came up in four or five minutes, where-
upon I delivered the bag to Hobson, the coachman. He put
it into the 01 side of the front boot, as he took it from me.
Thera was no one on the box at the time.
Cross-examined---I never left the parcel at all after it was
delivered to me until I gave it to Hobson.
William ilobson, coachman to the Defiance, which travels
the Henley road from London to Oxford—On 'Monday, the
18th of March, I a;gned a receipt at Messrs. Coutts's fur a.
parcel of 1,500 sovereign'. I left the Belle Sauvage at noon,
with one female passenger. j took up another female at the
Bell and Crown. At the Regent Circus I took up two male
passengers—one was a lad of the name of Cochrane, the other
seas a stranger. I arrived at the Gloucester Coffee-house at
half-past twelve. There I saw Quint, from whom I received
a Lag, which I placed near the bottom, on the off side of the
bed. There were several parcels both under and over it,
the boor, being very nearly full at the time. I took up two
male outside passengers at the Gloucester Coffeehouse. They
eat at tiie back. One, who took his seat near me on the
box, was d: eased in an old-fashioned blue coat, had his hat
pulled over his face, and appeared a very mean person. I
next stopped at the Cannon, Knightsbridge, where I took up
a male passenger, of the name of Mountjoy. As I left
Knightsbridge the man on the box said something, in conse-
quence of which I stopped at the door of a ginshop, where a
man put his head out of the door and held up his finger.
That was the prisoner. He got up behind, and sat with his
back to the horses. I proceeded to Salt-hill, and saw the
bag at Longford, between London and Salt-hill, where I
changed horses, which I also did three times between that
place and Benson. I had taken up a male passenger at
ctomroersmith, who stopped at Henley. I reached
13ens,,n at a quarter to seven, where I stopped at the
Crown. Mr. Shrubb, one of the proprietors of the
coach, whoN had travelled inside, got out at Benson, where
I got down, And gave his servant his carpet-bag out of the
fore-boot. I then went into the Crown, the coach remaining
there ahout eight or nine minutes. The prisoner then left the
coach, and paid me hid fare in the bar of the house. I gave
him change for a sovereign, and took part of a glass of ale,
which he ordered for me. I stopped next at Dorchester, to.
put on an extra horse, but did not leave the coach. I took
up the mail-bags, and lighted the lamps at Nuneham ; the
man m the box got down, aad had a glass of ale there. I
proceeded to the Old Bank at Oxford, bringing with me
seven passengers, and then missed the parcel for the first time.
No luggage of the prisoner's was ever put into the front boot.
I mentioned the loss of the parcel to Mr. Parsons, at the Old
Bank, and drove straight to the Vine, but could find no traces
of the bag. The man in the blue coat remained there a few
minutes, and then walked away.
Cross-examined—l have been a coachman on the Oxford
road many years. I was a little behind time at Benson. I
looked about for the prisoner for same little time, having
missed him fiir a short time. At Nuneham the horsekeeper
lit one lamp, anti I lit the other. I had a glass of ale there,
which was paid for by the man on the box. I took up the
mail- bags at the archbishop's lodge at Nuneham, which is
half a.mile from the inn. I afterwards got down, and locked
up the mail-bags in the hind boot for safety.
Re-examined—The prisoner had on a loose great coat. I
orgy pi d led up for the purpose of taking the Archbishop of
York's mail bags, but I did not stop there. When I got
down a Nuneham I gave the reins to Cochrane.
Dennison Cochrane-1 sat behind the coachman, with two
female and one male passengei s. I got up at the Bull and
:Mouth, Regent Circus. I did not see the parcel put into the
boot at the Gloucester Coffee-house. I stood up behind the
box at Nuneham, while the coachman got down, and held
the reins for two or three ininntes. No one that I saw went
near the boot during that time.
Cross-examined—The man on the box got down on the
near side at Nuneham.
William Chapman, servant to Mr. Shrubb, at Benson—
On the 18th of March, when the coach came up, I was
standinz, in the Crown Inn. I saw the prisoner get down
off the coach there. I saw him put one foot on the splinter-
bar and one on the wheel, and open the fore-boot. When I
came away he was still looking into the fore-boot, and stand-
ing in the same position.
Crow.-examined—l noticed the prisoner get off the coach)
but I had never seen him before. I was close to him at the
time. I know Mountjoy, but I did not notice him there.
The moan on the box remained there while the prisoner was
looking into the boot.
William Carr, horsekeeper at Benson-On the 18th of
Marchl saw Hobsoni get down from his seat on the coach,
on arriving at the inn door. I saw a man in a light coat
with one foot on the splinter-bar and one on the wheel, but I
Aid not notice him. He was doing something, I cannot say
what, in the front loot. The coachman handed me a carpet
bay. which I gave to Chapman. I am certain that only one
man (the one with a light blue coat on) went near thefore-
boot.

Martin Mountjoy, servant to the Earl of Chesterfield=On
the 18th of Marc:: was passenger by the Defiance to Oxford.
I got upon the coach, behind, at Knightsbridge. I saw the
prisoner get up. He sat at my right. lie had with him a
carpet bag, which appeared usarly empty ; it was put under
the seat where we were both sitting. I got down at Benson,
as did the prisoner alsa. On returning to the coach I ob-
served a man who had been travelling on the box at the boot
of the coach ; he had on an old-fashioned blue great coat.
He was standing with one foot on the splinter-bar and one
onithe wheel. I did not observe then whether there was
:any one sitting on the box, but I saw the man with the old
great coat holding a blue bag in his hand. It appeared nar-
row, about two feet long, and very heavy. He passed to the
back of the coach, and then resumed his place on the box.
difl not see what became of the bag. 1 was not absent
from the coach more than a minute. I came on to Oxford.
Cross-examined—l sat beside the prisoner all the way
from London, but did not talk to him. I had a carpet bag in
the front boot, and was watching, lest that should be moved.
I walked up and down a few times by the coach, during part
of which time I saw the prisoner in the inn.
Richard Coster, landlord of the Crown Inn, Benson—l saw I
the prisoner in the bar. He paid Hobson the fare as the
coach was leaving. He staid in the inn, bringing with him
a carpet-bag, umbrella, and top-coat. He went to bed early.
Lucas, the Oxford city marshal, came to my house that
nit,,ht, and I went with him to the prisoner's room. Lucas
searched his clothes, the bag, which was quite empty, being
still in the commercial room. We found nineteen sovereigns
and some silver in his trousers pocket. He said he was a re-
spertaLle tobacconist, residing in Bank-street, or Bell-street,
Paddington ; that he had dealt with Lloyd, on Holborn-hill,
five years, adding that he was going to Box (near Bath), •
when Lucas observed, "If you come with me to Oxford you
will be nearer B
Box then than now." The prisoner said if he
17-sisted on his going to Oxford he would go, but not other- •
wise. Lucas said he should insist, and requested him to get
an,, which he did immediately. He said that he must go to
Wiiodsor the' next morning, or he should disappoint some
friends.
Cross-examined—My house is five miles from the Walling-,
ord-rqd Station ; the trains at that time were running to

London, about eight or ten in the evening. When his money
had been taken from him, he asked what had been stolen.
Box is on the Great Western Railway. _ .

John Lucas, the city marshal, corroborated the account
given by the last witness, adding, that while the prisoner was
dressing he said that he did not much like the journey to
Oxford, having promised to meet two friends at Eton and
Windsor the next morning. I went to London the following
day, and found the place referred to by him in Bell• street, Pad-
dington ; it was a cigar and tobacco shop.
Mr. Guy Thomson, a banker in Oxford, of the firm of
Robinson and others, in High-street, was examined.
Lucas recalled.ii—A man of the name of Burgess poititectont
to me the spot where a bag was found like the one lost, con-
taining a box inclosing a stone and some sand. It was about
a mile on the Oxford side of Nuneham.

This closed the case for the prosecution ;
Whereupon Mr. BALLANTYNE proceeded to address the
jury on behalf of the prisoner.
After an able and lucid summing up on the part of the
Learned JCDGE, the jury remained some time in deliberation,
returning a verdict of Acquittal.
CIVIL SlDE.—(Before Mr. Sergeant ATCHERLET and a
Special Jury.)
BENCH V. MERRICK.

For the plaintiff were Mr. Valentine Lee and Mr. Hodg-
son ; for the defendant Mr. Sergeant Talfourd and Mr.
Alexander.

This was an action brought to recover compensation for a
breach of promise of marriage, alleged to have been made by
the defendant to the plaintiff.
Mr. lloDasos having opened the pleadings,
Mr. LEE proceeded to state to the jury the circumstances
of this somewhat singular case, as they afterwards appeared
in evidence.

The plaintiff, it seemed, was a young woman of prepos-
sessing appearance, the sister of a Mrs. Grimes (whose
husband keeps the Red Lion Inn at Burford), with
whom she lived in the capacity of bar-maid. The defendant
whose mother died two or three years ago, and kept the
Lamb Inn in the same town, about nine years ago formed
an acquaintance with her, and had been in the habit of call-
ing upon her daily since. Sometimes as often as three times
a day, during that period. In consequence of a statement
which originally issued from, and seemed to have been indus-
triously propagated by a Mrs. Street, a tenant of the de-
fendant, to the effect that Miss Bench was a young woman
of immodest character, the defendant discontinued his visits
at the Lion. After an interval, however, of some duration,
lie was induced to resume them, and agreed to marry the
plaintiff within six months from the Ist of January, 1843.
This, however, he had neglected to do, alleging, as an excuse
that the plaintiff had been delivered of a child, as he
was informed, when only nineteen years of age. This she
did not deny; but at the same time contended that the is-
fendant had been fully aware of the circumstances for some
years, and now only sought to avail himself of that unfortu-
nate occurrence in order to evade the promise which he had
before repeatedly made. _ _

It was clearly proved, that ever since the unhappy young
woman's seduction by a Mr. Huseey, and it was not pre-
tended that she had ever been guilty of even an indiscretion
with any one else, her conduct had in every way been per-
fectly irreproachable.
Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD having addressed the jury on
behalf of his client, they remained about ten minutes in de-
liberation, finding a verdict for the plaintiff on the first, and
for the defendant on the second issue.

The defendant had pleaded, first, that he did not make the
promise in the declaration alleged ; secondly, that at the time
of making the promise, he believed the plaintiff to be a
woman of good character and morals, which he afterwards
found she was not, and upon these pleas it was that issue was
joined.

Cbtrb 13bttio11

SUN OFFICE, Seven o'Clock.

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.
FROM THE EVENING PAPERS OF THIS DAY.
GLQBE.-es"l repeat it again," said Sir Robert Peel
last night—and indeed he does repeat it, at least as often
as modesty tolerates—" I repeat it again, that we have
done more, without destroying any existing interests,
though they were frightened at first—we have done
mere for the relaxation of commerce, and contri-
buted more to the restoration of commercial pros-
perity, than any Government that has preceded us."
Now, in every point of view, it appears to us Minis-
ters made an exceedingly bad beginning. In the first
place, so far from contributing to the restoration of
commercial prosperity, we affirm that nothing could
possibly have so much retarded it, as the extreme de-
gree of distrust they created by their unexpected unset-
tling of favoured interests. This is what Sir Robert
Peel euphemises as frightening existing interests at first.
May we ask, how it came to be Sir R. Peel's part to
frighten existing interests ? Frightened them he had,
to his heart's content, at the measures of his opponents.
Taken his stand he had, to all human appearance and
understanding, and so had that slippery corn and cur-
rency convert, Sir James Graham, on the Bill, the
whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill—of 1828. Ever
since the Agricultural Committee of 1836, at which
epoch the Whig leaders in the Commons evinced them-
selves favourable to the substitution of a fixed duty for
the sliding scale, the Conservative leaders had lost no
occasion of marking that as a grand point of difference
between parties. On the one hand, they presented them-
selves as the steady supporters of the existing law against
even inquiry—and, on the other hand, they pointed to
their opponents as wen who had shown and avowed
themselves disposed to change that law. It is fallacious
to accuse 'the late Ministers as having only bethought
themselves of commercial relaxations in the fashion
of a death-bed penitence in 1841. For years pre-
viously their expressed desire for a change in the
corn-laws had been worked by their intended suc-
cessors as one of the most dangerous things about
them. Well, no sooner were the elections carried by the
alarm against change of the core-laws, than the new
Minister intimated that be was not pledged to every
figure of the sliding scale. He had previously stood
by the existing law, as something it was sheer heresy
to inquire into ! Instant innovation on the existing law
was his first measure for frightening existing interests.
Consistency (save the mark !), however, demanded
that the change should not be complete. Something
else, therefore, was to be thrown in as a makeweight—
a tub to the popular whale. Corn could not, for de-
cency, be satisfactorily handled, amongst the new " re-
laxations of commerce." Cattle, therefore, which no
soul dreamed of, which no tongue or pen asked for,
were to curry favour with the food-appetent public for
these "knaves in grain." Here was another "fright" for
the interests whom Sir Robert Peel came in to save from
being frightened. First he frightened them at the reckless
Whigs, who could dream of making corn an object of
commerce. N. B. Corn was already so—at intervals of
few years—and the Whigs, therefore, in seeking to give
its 'commerce steadiness, were far from seeking to de-
stroy any existing interest—but, on the contrary, as we
are firmly persuaded, consulting for the best, as re-
garded the landed interests themselves. Cattle, how-
ever, was no object of commerce in any one's contempla-
tion. To begin making it so was to break new ground;
to bring in foreign competitors de gaiete de ceeur. Eng-
land is as eminently fit to supply herself with home fed
cattle, as she is eminently unfit to devote her inferior soils
to wheat Here then Was was a totally wanton and treache-
rous aggression on the very interest these men declared
required to he excepted from common commercial princi-
ples. Here was an inlet of competition with that interest
opened in an article of importance to it—and the neces-
sity of importing which had never shown itself in the
manifest shape which called loudly for change as re-
garded the commerce in corn. But not only are these
Ministers chargeable (from the protective point of view)
with starting unexpected game—with throwing open
unasked-for imports—but the admission of these
imports was flatly contradictory to their plea for
landed protection. If land required protection,
it required it pre-eminently for this branch of
products. For this is essential to all the rest—en-
couraging cattle-breeding is encouraging cultivation ;
discouraging it is discouraging and impoverishing the
very culture Sir Robert Peel still pretends to keep
out of the ordinary commercial category altogether.
We do believe that nothing more astounding ever was
conceived, or perpetrated, by any Government keep-
ing up the pretence of protecting agriculture—having
turned out its predecessors because they would not
enough protect agriculture—hallooing the hounds of
every county on Lord John Russell and his late
colleagues for proposing a duty of Bs. on corn, which
comes in whether we will or not—and then adopting a
nominal duty on cattle—whose manure is essential to
corn-culture ! Let any intelligent agriculturists,
even who still cling to protection, answer the ques-
tion, whether Lord John Russell's moderate ap-
plication of commercial and financial principles
to the article of corn, or Sir Robert Peel's
unsettlement of corn, and new start with cattle,
be the more pregnant with ultimate depressing effects
on agriculture ! We know this, that men of that order
think the repeal of the cattle-laws far more mischievous
to them than could have been repeal of the corn-laws.
Such men say that the small number of foreign beasts
hitherto imported supply no criterion whatever
of the effect of Sir Robert Peel's cattle clap-
trap. They say that it required some years' pre-
paration—which preparation is actively making in Hol-
land, Holstein, Northern Germany, &c.—to enable
foreigners to feed up to the condition required by the
demand of the English market. The farmers on the
opposite coasts have now provided themselves with the
short-horned breed fitted fur this market ; and they will
find no difficulty in fattening up to the point required, as
the greater part of the very cake with which our farmers
fatten comes from Hamburgh, Holland, and Holstein ;
and the freight of oxen is less from klamburgh than
from Aberdeen.
STANDARD.—Putting on one side the deep crimi-
nality of fretting and teasing the temper of a diseased
though convalescent population, the Irish grievance-
mongering of the Opposition in Parliament is unspeak-
ably contemptible. Mr. Wyse on Monday occupied the
House of Commons with the State Trials, already dis-
cussed in half a dozen different shapes, and upon one
occasion, in February, for nine successive nights. The
charge, however, though false was grave, and we hoped
that it would remain, the well-wearing stock of the Irish
grievance-mongers,
" As in some Irish houses, when things are so so,
One gammon of bacon is hung up for show."
We were, however, mistaken ; the House of Lords must
have its "gammon" too (we design no vile slang pun),
and last night Lords Fortescue and Normanby pre-
sided at the beggarly entertainment. The " gammon "
which occupied the noble assembly was supplied
by the case of Mr. O'Driscoll, whom the Chan-
cellor of Ireland, having first dismissed from
the commission of the peace, as not having at the
time (in consequence of recent indisposition) sufficient
command of his temper, subsequently restored to the
bench, upon the request of nearly all the noblemen,
gentlemen, and yeomanry of the neighbourhood. Un-
fortunately fur the grievance-mongers, Mr. O'Dris-
coil is not an Orangeman, or even a Protestant. He
is one of the sect which usually supplies them with
suffering innocents. Mr. O'Driscoll is a Roman Ca-
tholic ; but as a loyal, a liberal, and a respectable
gentleman, he is considered by the ex-Ministerial
party as fit an object of persecution as if he had all his
life toasted the battle of " the Boyne," or of " the Dia-
mond." The charge against Mr. O'Driscoll is cumu-
lative ; his crimes, if not of a very deep dye, are mani-
fold. He, it seems, in a rescue case in which himself was
the sufferer, sent for a witness to the rescue to his house,
and then forwarded the same witness to give evidence
before another magistrate, which other magistrate, dis-
satisfied witk the conduct of the witness, committed
him, the witness, to prison. To this vicarious respon-
sibility for the act of another magistrate, Mr. O'Driscoll
added the heinous guilt of impeaching the justice of a
decision of his brethren of the bench, and was even
reluctant to apologise, though in the end he made a
most ample apology ; lastly, he actually struck with the
lash of his riding whip an urchin whom he suspected of
having shot a hare before the hounds, which he was
at the time following in all the enthusiasm of the
chase. All these enormities were duly represented to
the Chancellor of Ireland, blazoned of course in that
style of eloquence by which the Irish so well know how to
bring tout a grievance in bold relief and full effect—an
art, by the way, like that which enables the French cook
to convert old shoe-soles, candles'-ends, and fish-bones
into the savoury and piquant " harlequin," eulogised
by Eugene Sue's " Chourineur." The medley accusa-
tion, duly seasoned by the officers of the repeal con-
spiracy, was presented to the Chancellor, who tota re
perspecta concluded that Mr. O'Driscoll was like
many other squires of his age—a testy old gentleman—
that a recent indisposition (a fit of gout,' we would
wager) had lately rendered him more irritable, and that
therefore it would be as well to suspend for the present,
so the Chancellor's words ran, his functions as a ma-
gistrate. We are tempted to stop here, and ask
whether this was not hard measure—whether there
is a 'squire of sixty years of age in the com-
mission of the peace in England who has not trans-
gressed as often and as gravely as- Mr. O'Driscoll ?
However, the Irish. Chancellor was right. Living in a
cloud of slanderers and false accusers, he could not be
too circumspect. Meanwhile Mr. O'Driscoll's friends
and neighbours of all ranks, those best qualified to
estimate his sterling worth, felt the slight apparently
offered to him as a wound to themselves ; they re-
spectfully remonstrated with the Chancellor, and
the Chancellor complied with their anxious wishes
by restoring their old friend to the commisson ;
and if the Chancellor had not done so, he would be un-
worthy of the station he holds. Such was the trum-
pery case with which the House of Lords was entertained
last night, through the whole of its sitting, by the last
two Whig Viceroys of Ireland. Trumpery as the
affair is, the exhibition to which it gave rise
11 of inestimable value—it shows out of what
stuff the Whigs manufactured their Irish Viceroys ;
it shows, too, how truly we spoke when we said that Sir
Robert Peel's Government had been niggardly of Irish
grits. ances—niegardly indeed when nothing more pre-
sentable than the case of Mr. O'Driscoll's restoration
c-z be found. The state of Ireland is unhappily far
from one of ptsfect felicity, much less enjoyment;
but if the conduct of the Government only was
concerned in marring the prosperity and com-
fort of the people, this very grievance proves that Ire'
land would be a paradise ; for if we must set down as a
satiated voluptuary one who can complain of nothing but
a crumpled rose-leaf on his couch, may we not call that
people perfectly happy who have no more serious ground
of dissatisfaction than such an act as Mr. O'Priscoll's
restoration ?

STATE OF TRADE.
(From the Manchester Guardian of this day.)
Business contiunes in a satisfactory state in this
market. The demand for yarn is very good, and, for
some descriptions, especially of water twist, a slight ad-
vance has been obtained. Goods are also in fair demand;
and, with the exception of 40-inch shirting (which, though
rather better than last week, are still somewhat de-
p'ressed),. sell readily at very firm prices. It is satisfac-
tory, however, to observe that there is an entire absence
of speculative feeling in the market. Spinners and ma•
nufacturers are ready pliers at the market prices, and
generally disposed to accept orders for future delivery.
ROCHDALE FLANNEL MARKET, MONDAY, JULY 15.
We have had a very good demand for flannels to-day,
but very little change in the prices. Manufacturers
complain that they cannot get an advance upon their
pieces in proportion to the advance upon the raw mate-
rial. Wool has been much inquired after ; and the
prices are slowly, but gradually, advancing.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT
(THIS DAY.)

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
POOR-LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
(Continued from our Afternoon.. Edition.)

Mr. BAILLIE COCHRANE thought that unless
these asylums were as numerous as the police-offices,
they would be of no use.
Colonel SIBTHORP wished to know what provision
was to be made for those persons for whom there was
no room in these asylums?
Sir JAMES GRAHAM was afraid that without the
insertion of a proviso, the clause might be construed to
relieve the unions from the obligation at present im-
posed on them, of relieving the destitute poor; and in
that case, when the asylums were full, the poor would be
left without relief. He therefore proposed to introduce
a proviso, enacting that nothing in this Act contained
shall be construed as relieving guardians or relieving
officers of unions from any obligationtt present imposed
upon them -by law to relieve any case of destitution or
urgent necessity.—(Hear, hear.)
After a few words from Mr. HENLEY, which were
inaudible in the gallery,
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said, if be could ascertain
the exact wishes of the Committee, he should be most
happy to comply with theta. On the whole, it would
be as well that the queStion of removal should be post-
poned—(Hear, hear)—and that the clause, with the ad-
dition he had proposed, should be agreed to. in order to
meet the immediate emergencies of the case.—(Hear.)
Colonel WOOD (Brecon) quite agreed in the pro-
priety of postponing the entire question of removal until
the next session, when they would all be better prepared
to discuss and decide upon it.
Mr. WAKLEY expressed a hope that the addition to
the clause was so worded as not to supersede the liability
of the relieving officer to extend help, or the right of the
really unfortunate to claim it,
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said his intention in framing
the clause was precisely that which the Hon. Member
for Finsbury desired, and he thought the phraseology
would bear out that intention.
The claNise as amended was then agreed to.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said he was now in the hands
of the House, and he was willing to obliterate the power
of removal from the Bill, or to proceed with the discus-
sion of the words, giving such power as the majority of
the Members might think fit.
Mr. BORTHWICK considered it better to retain the
power. As the Right Hon. Gentleman had promised to
bring in a Bill next session on the whole subject of the
law of settlement, it would be very easy then to modify
or otherwise alter the pov‘ er now given, or to remedy
any evil which might be found to have arisen in the
exercise of it.

Mr ESTCOURT agreed with the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman (Sir J. Graham) that it would he better to abro-
gate the power, and leave the whole question for deci-
sion in the next session.
Mr. G. BANKES said the question of removal was
now never decided by the judges on its merits. lie
agreed in the propriety of deferring the consideration of
the question until next, year, when something sound
and permanent might be resolved on.
All the words giving the power of removal were then
struck out from the Bill.
Clause 48 was then agreed to.
Clauses 50, 51, 52, and 53, were agreed to.
Clause 54 was also adopted.
Sir J. GRAHAM then gave notice that he should con-
tinue the consideration of this Bill in Committee to-
morrow, at one o'clock. He had made arrangements
with his }lon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone) for that purpose.
Mr. HUME asked if any arrangements had been made
with respect to the Railways Bill.
Sir J. GRAHAM said the Railways Bill would be
proceeded with at twelve o'clock till one, when the Poor-
law Bill would be taken. • His Right Hon. Friend would
then state on what day the Railways Bill would be pro-
ceeded with.

The House then resumed, the Chairman reported
progress, and obtained leave co sit to-morrow at One.
APPEAL IN CRIMINAL CASES BILL.
This Bill was postponed in consequence of the absence
of Mr. Fitzroy Kelly.
FIELD GARDENS BILL.
Sir J. GRAHAM suggested that this Bill should be
committed pro forma, and postponed till Wednesday
next. To the principle of the Bill he was decidedly
favourable, and he did not think that the course he sug-
gested was at all hostile to the measure.
Mr. MACKINNON advised the Hon. Member who
introduced the Bill to accede to the suggestion.
Mr. CO%VPER consented.
Mr. HUME advocated the propriety of giving la-
bourers a small portion of laud in the same manner as
in France and Belgium.
Dr. BOWLING instanced the good effect of the
large number of landed proprietors in France.
It was ultimately agreed that the Chairman should
report progress, and ask leave to sit again, with a view
of havieg amendments introduced, when the Bill would
be printed, and the further consideration of it postponed
until the next session.

IRISH FISHERIES.
Sir D. NORREYS, seeing the Noble Lord, the Secre-
tary for Ireland (Lord Eliot) in his place, wished to ask
whether he intended to introduce, during the present
session, any measure for the protection of Irish fisheries?
Lord ELIOT said there was a measure in a sufficient
state of forwardness to be introduced during the present
session; but whether it could be passed or not, would
depend upon the opinion of the House. He was in hopes
that the Bill was so framed as to merit a favourable con-
sideration; and he shottld, therefore, do his best to have
it passed into a law.
IRISH MAGISTRACY.
Mr. SHEIL said there was a sort of understand-
ing that when the Unlawful Oaths (Ireland) Bill
was again before the House, the question of the
restoration of Mr. O'Driscoll to the commission
of the peace would be brought forward. Reflec-
tion had convinced him that that question was of far too
important a character to he discussed thus incidentally.
He, therefore, begged to give notice to the Government,
that if the Hon. Member for Belfast (Mr. Ross) did not
make a distinct motion upon the subject of Mr. O'Dris-
coil's re-appointment to the Irish magistracy, he (Mr.
Sheil) should feel it his duty to de so.
The Copyhold Enfranchisement Bill went through
Committee pie forma, and the report was brought up.
The District Courts and Prisons Bill went through
Committee, was reported, and ordered to be read a third
time to-morrow.

The Lecturers and Parish Clerks Bill was read a
second time, and ordered to be committed to-morrow.
Mr. GREENE brought up the report of the Committee
on the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, which was
agreed to.
_ . _

The Party Processions (Ireland) Bill was reported,
and ordered to be read a third time to-morrow.
The Trafalgar-square Bill was read a third time, and
passed. _ _

On the question that the report on the Farm Build-
ings Bill be received, . _

HUME complained of the apathy that had been
displayed by the Government with respect to the incen-
diary fires that had takan place in different parts of the
country. He thought the Government ought to have
instituted some inquiry on the subject. He conclude d
by asking whether the Government had taken any
measures to ascertain the causes of these fires, and
whether they were prepared with any remedial measures.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM believed that information
would be afforded to the lion. Gentleman and to the
country as to the causes of the fires in Norfolk, Suffolk,
and Essex at the approaching assizes, when seventeen
persons would take their trials on charges connected with
these fires.

Sir CHARLES BURRELL denied that the agricul-
tural labourers were inadequately :paid. Their wages
were 13s. a-week, which was a fair and reasonable rate,
according to the present value of corn. lion. Members
opposite would be better employed, if, instead of endea-
vouring to excite feelings against the farmers and landed
gentry, they would endeavour to persuade the labourers
to avoid these acts of mischief.
Mr. W. 'WILLIAMS considered 13s. a week very
inadequate wages, but in the eastern counties the la-
bourers could not procure even that amount. It ap-
peared, from the excellent letters which had appeared in
the Tames on this subject, that the correspondent of that
paper brought forward evidence to prove that the
wages in Norfolk- and Suffolk ranged from Bs. to 9s.
a week. Those allegations had been subjected to the
most searching inquiry, and their correctness
had been proved ; and it had also been proved that
where the rate of wages was lowest, fires had
invariably taken place. Now, he would ask the Hon.
Baronet if Bs. a week Was a sufficient remuneration to a
labouring man, whether it was sufficient to enable him
to maintain a wife and five or six children ? And unless
they could live on that scanty pittance, they must go
into the union workhouse. No one knew better than
that the Hon. Baronet, the feelings of abhorrence with
which the labourers regarded these unions. They would
rather enter a prison than a union.
The report was then received, and the Bill was ordered
to be read a third time to-morrow.
Mr. HUME wished to know what the Hon. Baronet
meant by recommending Hon. Members on that side of
the House to advise the labourers not to do mischief.
He (Mr. Hume) had complained to the Government of evils
%hich were existing in the country, and had asked them
if they meant to apply a remedy. The country gentle-
men said, it was necessary that they should have a mo-
nopoly of corn, in order to keep the agricultural la-
bourers comfortable. They did not fulfil their promise,
and therefore he proposed that trade should he set free,
which would enable the labourers to make themselves
ponafortable.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (MIDDLESEX) BILL.
Sir J. GRAHAM, in moving the second reading of
this Bill, proposed to take the debate on the motion for
going into Committee, which he would bring forward
to-morrow at five *lock.

The Bill was then read a second time.
LOAN SOCIETIES.
The report on the Loan SJcieties Bill was brought up
and received.

T. Beech, grocer, Newcastle-under-Lyme, Staffordshire,
Aug. 17—J. R. Spencer, tanner, Halstead, Essex, Aug. 6
W. Little, stay-maker, Liverpool, Aug. 6—K. H. Knight,
victualler, Chichester, Sussex, Aug. 6—T. Bastow, sen., J.
Jackson, and T. Bastow, jun., brewers, Birmingham, Aug. 6
—ll. Lewis, wine-merchant, Mold, Flintshire, Aug. 6—W.
Povey, grocer, Ashton-under-Lyne, Lancashire, Aug. 6—J.
Gibson, grocer, Kirton, Lincolnshire, Aug. 6.