The Sun.
London, England, 1844-08-07 00:00:00

THE Sm.; LORDON, NVVDNWSDAY EVENIN'at_ A.ITGrST 7, 1144.

• • - . - • eer
faesseeseao, it was tette that theEceleslastleal Courts Bill, The only question then was, whether Parliament had
and other measures, had met with disappointment in the i the power to separate man and wife, and he was
other House of Parliament, but for this the Government i not prepared toe say it had not that power.
would by no means be held answerable. He wished to I Ile did not, however, think any parallel to the power
defend his Noble Friend and himself from any charge of given by this Act could be found, except in the Act of
neglect, and to assure their Lordships that he was every Henry VIII., which gave to his proclamations, during
way willing at all times to give all the information it was his-life, the force of law, and another Act of Henry 111.,
in his power to offer or afford, by which his obsequious Parliament gave to the De
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE complimented the Spencers, and other minions of that monarch, the power
Noble Duke on his constant attendance and incessant of making regulations that were to have the force of law.
assiduity in that House. He thought, however, the No such power as this was ever given by any other Act.
complaint of his Noble Friend was perfectly well But the separation of man and wife was now the ribs°.
fouuded, and agreed with him in thinking that that lute law in 460 unions—many of them very extensive,
Itouso had been by the present Government converted some of them covering as much as 300 square miles. In
into a mere court of registration. The amount of busi- such a union as this, it was impossible for the poor to
siness passed through this House, or, rather, hurried leave their homes to go so far for relief. The hardship
through it, was enormous. It was impossible to suppose they suffered from this cause was very grievous. They
that laws could be perfect, when they were hurried had been told on many occasions, and they had been
through the Legislature without discussion—they were told last night, of the abuses of the old poor law. But
forced through it, and ripened into sudden maturity, like it should be remembered that they were abuses, whereas
fruit in the dog days. In the early part of the session, those evils of which he complained were legal parts of the
there was a perfect vacuum in the business of that House. system—that was the great distinction. And these
He had come from the country on the previous day to abuses of the old law were, besides, of comparatively
oppose a clause in the Railways Bill, which he thought modern introduction ; they were principally these—
would be injurious and insulting to the lower classes, the system of allowances, of roundsmen, and the pay-
and the clause was at length proposed and carried in a merit of wages out of the rates. All these practices
most incomprehensible form, from its having been so were, he believed, introduced in the years 1795 and
hastily drawn up; and the request of twenty-four hours' 1796. These were years of singular scarcity and dis-
delay, that the clause might be printed and circulated, tress, when the prices of provisions had risen to an
so that it might be properly understood, was refused, enormous height, in consequence of scarcity aggravated
because of the late period of the session. by the war. Then arose the practice of allowances and
Those crude laws so hastily passed would, instead roundsmen, which was first adopted, he believed, in the
of being useful, disfigure the statute-book. The mode county of Berks. But in the county of Durham, where
in which the House proceeded in this business reminded he had long resided, and in the north of England, it had
him of the story of an eminent individual, whose name only been adopted to a limited extent, though in
probably might be known to their Lordships. He was the south of England it was so general that it
very wealthy, and made a great number of legacies, and created the impression of its being a universal
when it was asked how he spent his evenings before he practice. He thought it was their bounden duty, when
went to bed, it was answered by calling for his will and they were endeavouring to fix on a right basis an en-
making legacies. It was asked how he spent his time in during system of poor-laws, that they should consider
the morning, and it was answered, calling for his will well whether they could not revert to the state of things
and altering the legacies he had made on the previous that existed under the 43d of Elizabeth, with such
evening.—(Laughter.) The latter part of the session checks as ought to be provided against the repetition of
was employed in making imperfect laws,' and the early those gross abuses which led to those evils which were
portion of the following session in amending them.— made the plea for enacting the present law. Could such a
(Hear, hear, and cheers.) For his (the Marquis of question as this be decided that night ? lie did not
Lansdowne's) part, he was often glad to see the stran. think there were as many as twelve Peers present. The
ger's gallery so thinly attended at the latter part of the House of Commons had taken six months to consider
session, that it might be less generally known with what the Bill, while their Lordships certainly would not have
speed the machinery of law-making was propelled in that as many hours. Was not this a measure of such a corn-
House. He would not further detain their Lordships:. plicated nature as to render more ample time for delibe-
The Earl of WHARNCLIFFE defended the Govern- ration absolutely necessary ? He must say that ,it was
ment from the charge of neglect or procrastination. It not only a most complicated :,measure, but that he
was said by the Noble Lord opposite that he had never thought the necessity for passing it at the present time
seen a royal speech promise so little as the last. He was so inconsiderable—there was so little reason for
(the Earl of Wharncliffe) thought that that was rather a passing the Bill this year, that to do so with so little
merit than a defect. Most of the suggestions in it had consideration would be absolutely trifling with the sacred
been acted upon, and brought to a successful conclusion interests of the poor. He did hope, that what he might
—the Bank of England Charter, for instance. The have said that night, however weakly, or perhaps with
Registration of Voters in Ireland Bill, it was true, bad an appearance of greater warmth than he ought to have
been deferred, but that was a measure which required spoken, would not be permitted to injure with their
the utmost deliberation, and they had accordingly post- Lordships the cause he was advocating; and he hoped
poned it. Those were the only subjects mentioned in he had brought forward facts enough to induce their
the Queen's speech. But had they done nothing else? Lordships to support the motion which he should now
Had they passed no other measures which met with make—that this House do go into Committee on this
with general approbation? Had they not passed the Bill on this day six months.
measure of the Three-and-a-Half per Cents., one of the The Duke of WELLINGTON said he had listened
most important financial matters which had ever with great patience to the speech of the Right Rev.
been brought under the consideration of Par- Prelate, and in reply, he begged to call their Lordships'
liament? They had also brought in, and succeeded attention, in the first place, to the arguments which the
in carrying, an amendment on the Factories Bill; Right Rev. Prelate had brought forward to induce their
they were also about to pass the Poor-law Amendment Lordships to postpone the consideration of this measure
Bill, and it could not be said that this had not been a most to a future period. In the first place, the Right Rev.
fruitful session. It was true they had not been able to Prelate told their Lordships, an hour and a half ago,
carry the Ecclesiastical Courts Bill, but its own impor- that it was too late in the evening to go into the consi-
tance, and the still greater importance of other measures, deration of this Bill, and he afterwards said there was
prevented a full discussion of it during the present ses- not a sufficient number of Peers present to discuss
sion, but the Government had not by any means lost it. He begged to remind the House that they
sight of it. He asserted that the Charitable Bequests had frequently sat till a much later hour than
Bill relating to Ireland, had originated with the present this, and that at the present moment, though
Government, and not with Noble Lords opposite. The their numbers were few, yet they were sufficient,
Government had not done as much as they might wish to according to the constitution of that House, to con-
have done ; but they had done as much as was performed sider any question whatever. They were not at all
in the average of sessions. He wished the Bills were too few to discuss a measure that had been so long
sent up to this House a little earlier, and he also desired under the consideration of tho House of Commons, and
that they might receive as full a description as possible. one which related to a subject so perfectly well known
It _was asked why more measures, did not originate in to all their Lordships, and one which had, in fact, been
t his House, but he did not think such Bills were re- under the consideration of Parliament during the last
ceived in the same favourable spirit as in the Lower House three or four sessions. It had been introduced both by
%ellen they originated there. He would not oppose the the late and present Government at different times, and
production of the papers for which the Noble had had only been postponed in consequence of the pressure
moved. of public business. At last, this measure had been
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE did not think the considered and brought to maturity, in the present
explanation of the Noble Lord at all satisfactory. The session, in the Ilouse of Commons, and now came
Noble Lord boasted a good deal of the Three-and-a-Half recommended by that House to their Lordships'
per Cents., but he did not think there was any thing consideration. And this was the measure which was at
very novel or statesmanlike in the idea : he believed it this period of the session to be put off, night after night,
was a good measure, but it wasgenerally anticipated. He though it had for its object the amendment of many of
approved of the financial policy of the Government gene- those evils in the present law of which the Right Rev.
rally, but he altogether disapproved of the manner in Prelate complained.—(Hear, hear.) The real question
which they had treated that House, which was now the then was, whether they should enter into the discussion
chief subject of discussion. The Irish Registration Bill of a Bill having this amendment for its object. The
might not be very pressing ; he felt confident it was Right Rev. Prelate had alluded to the subject of work-
better the present law should be allowed to continue than house chaplains, lie (the Duke of Wellington) la-
that the Government measure should pass into a law. It merited that the Bill did not contain all the amendments
was a farce to say the present constituency of Ireland of the existing law on this point, which he thought it
was popular—it was narrow cramped, and restricted. ought to have contained. But theßight Rev. Prelate having
The Charitable Bequests Bill contained much that was entered into that subject very forcibly, then warmed up,
good and useful, but, at the same time, it was a great and came to what was his real object, which was the
mistake to say that the measure had originated with the repeal of the existing law. That was what the Right
present Government; it had been devised by their pre- Rev. Prelate wanted • he wished them to return to the
slecessors. The hurly burly way which measures had system that existed before the present law was enacted.
been passed through that House was in a great measure They ought not, he said, to pass this Bill, which was
attributable to the Government. Many Bills had gone not intended to amend that law, but at once to repeal it.
through the House without a single word being said upon Now, if the Right Rev. Prelate pleased to give notice
them. The Grand Jury (Dublin) Presentment Bill, he that, in the course of this or the next week, he would
would venture to say, was not understood by any of bring in a Bill to repeal the existing law, and bring into
their Lordships, and no one had said a word upon it but operation the 43d of Elizabeth, he might rely upon it
himself. He thought the motion of his Noble Friend that notice would bring down to that House a sufficient
well timed ; and he trusted that he would bring it for- number of Peers to discuss that or any other sub-
ward next session. For his own part, he thought the ject—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear")—which deserved
course that had been pursued was not calculated to in. their attention. But he entreated the Right Rev.
crease the esteem of the people for Parliament. Prelate not to set to work to repeal the existing law, by
The Earl of WICKLOW was net at all surprised at preventing the passing of a Bill which had for its object
the course that had been pursued by the Noble Marquis, the amendment of the evils of which he himself com-
as these species of discussions had now taken place for plained. Now, the abuses of the old law, which had
several years at this period of the session. He thought been referred to, grew out of the operation of the Act
many of the complaints that had been made against the of Elizabeth, and so great were the evils, that in many
Government with respect to the introduction of Bills parishes of England they consigned to ruin the land of
was totally uncalled for. As to the censure that had those parishes by causing a total cessation from cultivation
been cast upon the Government for the counting out of and labour. And everywhere the evils were such as to
the House of Commons, he thought it lay with Members require attention ; and they did receive the
on the other side, and not with the Government. - • attention of some of the greatest men who
The Marquis f NORMANBY, in reply, stated that ever appeared in England—Mr. Pitt, Mr. Whitbread,
the manner in which the business of the House had been and Mr. Sturges Bourne. Each of these endeavoured
conducted latterly was greatly detrimental to the coun- to introduce and carry through Parliament Bills to
try. Bills had been hurried through the House in a amend the 43d of Elizabeth ; but every one of them
most unseemly way. In conclusion, he wished to know failed, finding they could not attain their object ; the
whether the Metropolitan Buildings Bill had been sub- abuses were so great and so various, varying in almost
m tted to the Commissioners alluded to by his Noble every parish throughout England, that it was absolutely
Friend, He thought some course ought to be adopted to impossible to remedy them except by the establishment
put an end to the legerdemain legislation that had lately of a central and uniform system of management. That
taken place. He thought if the House met at four was an epitome of the history of the Poor-law Amend
o'clock instead of five o'clock that might be prevented. ment Bill; and from that Act, they could not depart
The Duke of BUCCLE ITCH said that the Metropoli- without going back to the old system of abuses. With
tan Buildings Bill had not been specifically referred to respect to the Act of 1834, he had never himself acted
the Commissioners alluded to. as a poor-law guardian. In consequence of his duties,
The motion was then agreed to. he could not reside long enough in the country to do so.
POOR-LAW AMENDMENT BILL. But he was in the habit of residing for portions of the
Lord WHARNCLIFFE moved that the House should year in two different parts of the country ; and while
resolve itself into a Committee on the Poor-law Amend- there, he often visited the workhouses of those districts,
ment Bill. and he must say that it was impossible for any places to
The Bishop of EXETER objected to the motion. Ile be better managed than those workhouses were ; and
thought it would be useless to attempt to go on with the he believed they gave great satisfaction. He spoke of
measure at the present late period of the session ; they what he knew ; he had frequently stated this in that
had, in fact, only that night to discuss it, although the House in reply to a Noble Earl not now present,
House of Commons had taken seven or eight days to who was a strong opponent of the poor-law, and
do so. There was no pressure for the measure during ho always should do so whenever he was called on.
the present session, and he should therefore move that it The Right Rev. Prelate had complained of many things
be committed that day six months. It became that in the existing unions, some of which this very Bill was
House to give the subject its greatest attention, and was intended to remedy. Now one of the things of which
it to be said that it could be properly discussed in a the Right Rev. Prelate had complained, was the separa-
House consisting of not one twentieth of its Members ? tiou of man andlwife ; and he said that he had never
Rev,
rbev-
The present law was an experimental law, and the ex- fore heard of such a thing. Why did the Ricrh
periment had answered most marvellously ; that it had Prelate never hear of workhouses under the systemolde
been the cause of the incendiariem that had taken place of the law of Elizabeth ?—(Hear, hear.) Did the R• ht
he thought there was very little doubt. These reasons Rev. Prelate never heard of hospitals 2—Ulcer, heagr
alone appeared to him to press their Lordships to con- Why the common decencies of life required that where.)
sider well what provisions should be made with respect a large number of persons were brought twee-
to the poor, and to take care that no rash provisions ther, the males and females should be separated.
should be adopted. No provision in the present Bill had It could not be otherwise—the laws of decency required
any relation to the spiritual education of the poor, such separation.—(Cheers.) Not only had this always
and he thought such au omission showed that the sub- been the case in the hospitals, but it had also been the
ject had not been well and duly considered. He thought case in workhouses under the old law of Elizabeth.—
the Secretary of State was responsible for this, not only (Hear, hear.) Then, with respect to education, it would
to his country, but to his God. Their Lordships could be much better if the Right Rev. Prelate would suffer the
not pass a measure of this kind hastily, if they wished Bill to go into Committee, and propose a clause to ensure
to have the sanction of their country. He felt indignant that schoolmasters should be properly qualified, instead
that men, placed in the situation of Ministers of the of declaiming, as he had been doing to-night, about the
Crown, should dare so to trifle with their duty as to en- inferiority of the present schoolmasters.—(Hear.) No ,
deavot4r to thrust forward a measure like the present. that was not the object of the Right Rev. Prelate.--.
If their Lordships passed this miserable expedient, they (Hear.) The object of the Right Rev. Prelate was not
might depend upon it that they would set at nought the to amend the Bill.—(Cheers.) The object of his motion
best interests of the people. The law of Elizabeth said was not to postpone the Bill to-night, in order to give
that the poor had a right to subsistence and to be pro• their Lordships a better opportunity of considering
g it to-
tected from want ; but if the present measure passed, morrow or the next day. He did not wish to o into
that right would be taken away. The Poor-law Bill of Committee on the Bill at all—he wished to destroy
1834 was the product of the Malthusian theory. He (Hear, hear.) If the Right Rev. Prelate were in earnest,
(the Bishop of Exeter) bad the greatest respect let him state his objections, and propose his amendments
for Me. Malthus, but he objected to his principles. in Committee, and see if his Noble Friends would adopt
The hipgrapher of Mr. Malthus said—Mr. Malthus' his suggestions or not. On the subject of chaplains he
phiruo.l.l7ter and the poor-law must stand or fall together. knew that, according to the system of legislation este-
r.,
onteblackstone said the poor were entitled by blished between the two Houses, no amendment could
the
o f every law to relief from the parsons and parishioners be proposed on that point, but he might propose
there should be work
ke sftoautnudte
footrElizabeth required that amendments on other points if he chose. By doing that,
the poor in their own he would be rendering a service to the House and to the
parish: It Positively enjoined the building of new cot- country, but to pretend to stop this Bill to-night, in
tages for them, if their previous dwellings were not suf- order to defeat another measure which circumstances
ficient. Liberty.---the liberty of the public at large— had rendered absolutely necessary, was unworthy both of
was recognised in that statute theMagna Charta, as he the station and the abilities of the Right Rev. Prelate.
of the poor
ventured to call it,
lature had recognised this right*" If the British Legis. He hoped their Lordships would not attend to the
dealt with the poor as freemen, instead4o, it would have Right Rev. Prelate's suggestions, but would go into
up in gaols. Gaol was a strong word, but. shutting them Committee, and allow the Bill to proceed as far as it
an authority to prove that it was not too he would cite could do to-night, and would then proceed with the
tst
Right. Rev. Prelate then read a letter I (The other business before the House.—(Hear, hear.)
law Commissioners, characteristic of the the Poor- The Marquis of NORMANBY would not detain their
system, as a system of poor-law restraint).
,Isizr-house Lordships long. He concurred fully in all that had fallen
which was necessary to establish the justice wase all from the Noble Duke ; but as last night he had given
appellation. He then referred to the state of the his support to the motion of the Right Rev. Prelate, for
pauper schools, and the ignorance of the
school- hour to go into .1
• masters. Mr. Tufnell had stated that the character '
of the bulk of the adult population, and the wished to say a few words. He could not but express
example they set were of the worst description. thes surpriseit at the course which had been adopted by
Was it to be endured that honest persons of good gidit Rev. Prelate to-night. He had last night
pro
character should be compelled to associate with persons stating the postponement of a few hours only, without
who would contaminate them, and that their wives and Marquis of ohe intended to pursue, and he (the
Normanby) had certainly never anticipated
course
children should be exposed to the same evil? These the adoption of such a course on the part of the Right
considerations were so important, that he defied them to Rev. Prelate, as
go on with the Bill in its present shape. As Christians, almost every elaellropefosing the rejection of the Bill,
which was a relaxation of the
they could not, as legislators they would not. Under old law, on the harshness
the old law, and under the Gilbert Acts, man and wife Prelate had so long descsasn ofd which the Right Rev.
(Hear, hear.) There
could not be separated. In case relief was required, the was in fact no connection whateverte*—
argu-
wife could not be removed to the place where she had merits of the Right Rev. between the Prelate and the motion with
a settlement, even though the husband had no settlement which he had concluded—(Hear, he ar)
and he believed
at all. Lord Brougham had denied that the Commis- that he could assign the real reason
sioners ever ordered the separation of man and wife. Prelate moved the postponement last
why the Right Rev.
Ile had taken pains to bring that to the test. He was, the Right Rev. Prelate wished for The fact
wished to bring the point to issue, by a trial in a The Right Rev. Prelate had last nighta Complaineduller audience.
cult
of law ; but his counsel told him that his diffi- the smallness of the number of Peers who were present,
oft
"7 was this : the orders of the Commissioners were and he (the Marquis of Normanby) had cautioned-resell
mate of the same the
authority as an Act of Parliament. Right Rev. Prelate not to be too sanguine as to the re-

suit. He had told the Right Rev. Prelate that those
chairmen of boards of guardians who had been there
last night would not be there to night, and the result
had shown that he (the Marquis of Normanby) had
been the better prophet as to the success of the ex-
periment. He should reserve his defence of the general
measure to the time when the Right Rev. Prelate should
bring forward that motion, to which the Noble Duke
had alluded, for its repeal.—(Hear, hear.) The Right
Rev. Prelate, however, had not acted quite fairly—he
had quoted a letter written by the Poor-law Commis-
sioners, in 1539, at which time he held the seals of the
Home Department, on the appointment of chaplains; but
the Right Rev. Prelate had omitted to state that since
the date of that letter there had been a decision of a
court of law on the subject. The Right Rev. Prelate
had not said one word about the first clause of the Bill,
and yet that clause amended the existing law as regarded
, the bastardy clauses in the very sense in which the
Right Rev. Prelate had urged their Lordships to amend
• them for the last ten years. Now, if the Right Rev.
• Prelate had assumed a tone of triumph on the occasion,
• he might have been excused. No doubt they must own
• that the bastardy clauses had not answered the objects
which the original proposers of the measure had in view,
He agreed with his Noble Friend in opinion that, as fur
as those clauses were concerned, the experiment had not
succeeded. The Right Rev. Prelate also objected to the
size of the unions. He (the Marquis of Normanby) had
always thought the unions too large, but really it ap •
peared to him as if the Right Rev. Prelate had not read
the Bill—(Hear, hear)—for the Bill contained provisions
to lessen the size of the unions.—(Hear, hear.) Then,
with regard to the schools, the Bill provided for the es-
tablishment of district schools, which would cure the
evil of which the Right Rev. Prelate complained.—( Hear.)
The Bill also relaxed the law in relation to the granting
of out-door relief, a subject to which the Right Rev.
Prelate had also alluded. With regard to the 26th
clause, which related to that subject, his Noble Friend
(Earl Fortescue) had proposed an amendment in which
he could not concur ; widows generally wore their weeds
' fur twelve months only, but he was not aware that their
distresses left them at the same time. The Right Rev.
Prelate had apologised for his warmth and excitement;
now he must say that he had observed no symptoms on
the part of the Right Rev. Prelate of anything like warmth
or excitement.—(Hear.) The Right Rev. Prelate had
spoken as he always spoke—with great ability and great
tact, but he had shown no warmth—(Hear)—and, in-
deed, considering the state of the House, it would have
, been remarkably odd if he had shown much excitement.
There was, however, a great deal in this. The Right
Rev. Prelate had not intended that speech specially
for their Lordships' ears—(Hear, hear)—and no doubt
the Right Rev. Prelate felt that if the speech should have
the good fortune to reach those for whom it was really
intended, a little confession of warmth would not make
it tell the less effectually.—(Hear, hear.) He could not
think that any person could be considered as labouring
under warmth and excitement, who had availed himself,
as the Right Rev. Prelate had done, of a quibble.—
(Hear, hear.) The /tight Rev. Prelate had said that
the union houses resembled prisons, and bad quoted a
letter of Mr. Tufnell, in which he stated that the exte-
rior of those houses resembled prisons ; but in the same
letter, Mr. Tufnell stated that the ladies who had visited
them had found them so comfortable, that they were
afraid persons would be desirous of getting admitted to
them. Now, seeing that the poor were more concerned in
the comfort of the interior, than in the appearance of the
ex!trior of those houses, he thought the Right Rev. Pre-
16,te ‘l'llS .not justified in the quibbling use which he
had made of Mr. Tufnell's authority.—(Hear.) He
himself had eecently visited the Bethnal Green work-
house, and when Ile compared the condition of the poor
in that house with that of the labouring poor in the
eastern parts of the metropolis, he could not but be
struck with the contrast, and this was more particularly
the case as regarded the children.—(Hear, hear.)
Having held the office of Secretary for the Home Depart-
ment for two years. he could bear his testimony to the
justice, humanity, and kindness with which the Poor-
law Commissioners exercised their functions.—(Hear.)
Lord WROTTESLEY, as a chairman of a board of
guardians, and as one of those who had originally col-
lected evidence on whcih the new poor-law was founded,
could not but protest against the first nine clauses of the
present Bill, which were calculated to revive all the evils
of the old law, as regarded bastardy, and would give a
premium to perjury and incontinence, and place the
guilty in a better position than the honest and indus-
trious. He admitted, however, that the Government
were placed in a difficult situation, and he thanked the
' President of the Council for the speech with which last
night he had introduced the measure.
Their Lordships divided, when there appeared—
For going into Committee—Contents
Non Contents
. Majority against the Bishop of Exeter's amendment—l 6
The House then went into Committee on the Bill.
On clause I being proposed,
Lord WHARNCLIFFE contended that the present
law was a great improvement on the old system. Under
that system the poor suffered under great grievances,
and it was to remove those grievances that the new
poor-law had been introduced. Could the Right Rev.
Prelate for one moment entertain the idea of re-establish-
ing the Act 43d of Elizabeth ? The Right Rev. Prelate
knew that it was impossible to do so. The present law
he contended, was far more humane than the original
law, and the poor were better off under it. The law of
Elizabeth was passed for different times to these in
which he now lived, and it was idle to suppose that such
a system could be applied now.
The Bishop of EXETER took that opportunity of re-
plying to the arguments which had been used against
his amendment. He said that he had' brought that
amendment forward solely on his own responsibility,
and without reference to any party out of doors. It was
true, the law of Elizabeth was passed for other times,
and so was Magna Charts; but we still held Magna
Charta to be a good foundation for legislation, and he
contended that the law of Elizabeth was a good founda-
tion for legislation on the subject of the maintenance of
the poor. He concluded by giving notice that, early. in
the next session, he should move for a Committee to in-
quire into the means of spiritual instruction afforded in
union workhouses.—The clause was then agreed to.
Clause 2 was proposed.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE explained its operation.
The Bishop of EXETER objected to that part of the
clause which provided that, in affiliating a child, there I
should be some corroborative evidence added to that of 1

HO NEE CIRCUIT.
:ord,, Tuesday, August 6.
MTH. SIDE.
(Before Mr. Baron PARKE and a Special Jury.)
THE BLOODSTONE CASE—SECOND DAY,
lIERI:ERT V. DAY.
-

William Crook examined—l live at Apperley, about
two miles from Waiter. -hill. In 1848 I went to Mr.
Newman's to perform .an operation upon a colt belonging
to him. I had seen the. same colt in the summer of that
year. He had a very pretty head, and was rather, thick
set and " cabby." This colt had a white stripe down
the face, and more white about the heels. After I per-
formed the operation the colt was taken ill, and I did not
see him any more.
Cross• examined—No money has been offered me by
Newman. He did not say that he would give me 1001.
if I would swear that I operated upon the colt. I did
not say it was a bad job, and I would have nothing to
do with it. I did say I would have nothing to do with it.
because it might expose my profession.—(Laughter.)
They did not offer me money to prove that the colt died
after the operation. lam not the Mr. Crook of Coal-
house, Apperley—(the person referred to in yesterday's
evidence). He is a relation to me, and is a licensed
dealer in horses. I don't know that he has bred a colt
within the last ten- years. He may have had three or
four brood mares within the last three years. I know a
gentleman named Walker very well. There was a per-
son named Smellcomb, but I did not say, in the presence
of those persons, that I had been offered 1001. to swear
that I cut the Beiram colt, and that it died under the
operation. And I did not say either, that it was a black
job, and I would have nothing to do with it, as it would
all come out.
Re-examined—l did not wish it to be known that the
colt I had operated upon had died, as it might have hurt
my business.
Mr. John Noble Partridge—l am a coal-merchant at
Cheltenham, and in 1841 I lived near Mr. Newman, at
Walton, and I remember his Chesnut blood-mare having
a foal in 1841. It was a very pretty cult, had a small
head, white mark on the face, and two white beelsbehind.
I remember the same mare having another foal in 1842.
It was in the spring of the year; April or May, I believe.
The colt Bloodstone is the same cult, if ever I saw him.
Baron PARKE—What do you mean by that ; it is an
odd expression.
Mr. PLATT—It may be very true, my Lord.
Witness—l swear that Bloodstone is the same colt.
He had a largish head, a white mark on the forehead,
and one white heel behind.
By Mr. PLATT —I have seen other colts upon Mr.
Newman's farm. I was not present when the second
foal was dropped.
Robert Shorter—l am an ostler at the Royal hotel,
Cheltenham, and am acquainted with Mr. Newman. In
1841 I had a half-bred colt at Walton. It died about
Christmas in that year. I remember the thorough-bred
mare having a colt in 1841. Ile had a very neat head,
rather small inclined, and cobby. The same mare had
a second colt in 1842, and this one was much larger and
lengthier, and when it was five months old was inclined
to be as big as the other. A colt, very much like him,
stopped at my house on the way to Jones's, to be trained,
but I did not recognise him as the same colt. I observed
that he had capped hocks, and looked at him particu-
larly, and I am sure the horse Bloodstone is the same.
By Mr. PLATT—I cannot swear it is the same colt I
saw in the paddock at Mr. Newman's.
Re-examined—He was very much like him, but I
cannot swear he was the same colt.
Edmund Jones—l live at Rockley-house, near Marl-
borough, and have been a public-trainer of race-horses for
many years. I saw Mr. J. Newman at Tewkesbury
Races in 1843, and ho spoke to me about a colt he had
atilNVed inu
alt Ion:
He wasandl wentyetroypttiil
seei li.
im the next day and exa-
mlheaded, and had large
ears, but had length, and some racing qualities. I saw
that he was inclined for curbs, and that his hocks were
capped. He had a small white diamond-shaped mark on
his forehead, and one white heel behind. The same horse
was brought to me to train, and he remained with me
until he went to run at Ascot, but before this I heard
Mr. Herbert had bought him, and on the 19th sf May he
was transferred to Mr. Herbert's account. I saw the colt
run at Ascot in the name of Bloodstone fur the New
Stakes. A filly named Carissima met with an accident
during the race' and was thrown out, but I do not think
any of the field had a chance to beat Bloodstone, and he
came in several lengths a-head. I did not examine the
colt's mouth until after Ascot Races, but I do not pretend
to be able to tell the age of a horse by examining his
mouth; but he appeared like:all the other two-year-olds
that were under my charge, and there was nothing to in-
duce me to believe that he was other than a two-years-
old. I saw the mare Romaike, and she was pointed out
to me as the mare that had run against a mare of my
own named Susannah. She ran for the Guy Stakes. The
mare that run against mine was a large chesnut mare
similar to the one I saw at Mr. Newman's, but I cannot
swear it was the same mare.
Cross-exateitied—Race-horses are generally handled
when they are yearlings. Whether a race-horse should
be gelded depended a good deal upon the character of the
animal. There were some very good geldings. I have
bought a good many horses, but I know nothing about
their mouths. I don't know when horses lose their
sucking teeth, but I can guess to five years. I know the
difference between five and six years old. The persons
who send horses to me are respectable men, and it is not
my busine-s to look at their teeth. When I first saw the
colt, I told Mr. Newman that he was a horse of power,
and he sent him to me on the 28th August, 1833. I
looked in the horse's mouth after the race at Ascot, and,
according to the best of my belief, it was not a three
years old mouth. I could tell the age of a horse cer-
tainly better by his mouth than his tail.—(Laughter.)
The colt is now in my keeping. Application was made
to me to show the colt, and I refused to do so.
Reexamined—The horse was examined on the day of
the races, and the day after; he was also examined on
the third. I told Mr. Day the horse should be at his
disposal whenever he wanted to see him.
William Lovesey—l live near Wa!ton, and occasion-
ally went to Mr. Newman's, and remember seeing a
chesnut mare there that was called Romaike in the
sprang of 1841. At that time she had a chesnut colt,
with a remarkably pretty head, but it was too small for
a race-horse. The same mare had a second colt in the
following year. He had a large head, with a white spot
on the forehead, and one white heel, and was much
more like a racer than the other. Bloodstone is the second
colt that I'have referred to.
Cross-examined—I am related to the Newmans.
Richard Newman is my cousin. I had no bets on the
race that Bloodstone won. I have kept race-horses, but
I did not run a horse at Hungerford races which was
afterwards disqualified after it had run. I have been in
the army, and am now living on my property. I have
bought several horsee and I generally looked in their
mouths to ascertain their age. I know nothing of a
horse's age until after he is four or five years old, and
before that age I could not form any opinion. I do not
know when a colt sheds his sucking teeth, but I should
say that the permanent teeth present a very different
appearance from the milk teeth.
William Brunsdon—l am a farmer, and live at a
place called Deerhurst, near Walton, and have been
aye. trainted with • the Newman family for several years,
an frequently was at his plae,e I knew the blood mare
Romaike, and remember her having a colt in 1841.
The witness described the Beiram colt in the same terms
as the former witness.) He also described the second
colt represented to be the horse Bloodstone, and said that
he had that day seen the same colt at Guildford.
Cross-examined—l don't know much about horses,
but I can tell a horse from a handsaw.—(Laughter.) I
have bought and sold horses, and I always look in the
horse's mouth when I buy. I can tell a four. year old
horse, but I know nothing of their mouths before that
age. I have had several colts, but I never looked at
their teeth. I know that they do shed their teeth, but
I cannot tell at what periods.
By the Jury—l don't know what became of the first
colt, but I heard that it died from an operation.
John White proved that he saw the blood mare and
the two colts at Mr. Newman's, and he gave a similar
description of them to that of the last witness,
Cross-examined—Witness saw several colts at Wal-
ton, both in 1842 and 1843. The Newmans breed horses

the mother. He thought that, the more modest the
woman, the less chance was there of corroborative evi-
dence. He thought it was right to give the magistrate
a discretion, but that was an additional reason why cor-
roborative evidence should not be demanded. The Right
Rev. Prelate concluded by moving the amendment.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE must oppose the amendment.
The Right Rev. Prelate alluded to cases of seduction by
the men, but the fact was, the greater number of bas-
tards were not the fruit of seduction at all. In most
cases the woman seduced the man. The Right Rev.
Prelate talked of the indecency of an expose in a court
of justice, but he did not apprehend that any such would
be the case. There would be no indecency whatever in
the corroborative evidence.

'The Marquis of BUTE differed entirely from the
Right Rev. Prelate, and would oppose the amendment.
He thought the clause went too far.
The amendment was negatived without a division.
The Bishop of EXETER thought some other mode of
receiving the money should be devised than that of the
woman's receiving the money from the putative father,
which was exposing him to further sin or to further bru-
tality.
The Earl of WHARNCLIFFE agreed with the view
taken by the Right Rev. Prelate, and would devise a
remedy.
The Bishop of EXETER said in case of appeal by the
woman's father from the decision of the two justices, the
woman in most cases would not be able to sustain the ex-
pense of the appeal at the quarter sessions.
The Earl of WHARNCLIFFE said, there undoubt-
edly might be cases where the woman might not be able
to sustain the expense of an appeal ; but it should be re-
collected that the man wag bound in security not only
to pay the allowance to the woman, but to
pay the costs likewise if the appellant were un-
successful ; besides, many attorneys would be glad to
take up her case for the purpose of pocketing the costs,
and gaining a certain degree of notoriety for himself.

occasionally. Witness was positive that the white mark
on the forehead of the first colt went down one side of

The clause was then ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The fifth clause was likewise agreed to, as were the
sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, and eleventh, which
are the bastardy clauses.
Clauses up to 40 inclusive were agreed to.
On clause 41 being proposed,
The Bishop of EXETER suggested that the chaplain
should be appointed by the Commissioners instead of the
guardians.ord
WHARNCLIFFE said that the subject had
been fully discussed in the House of Commons. He
could not accede to the suggestion made by the Right
Rev. Prelate.—The clause was agreed to.

the face, and I am positive it had one white heel behind,
and I believe it had two. I think the second colt also
had a star on its forehead. I was not at all interested

in these colts, and had no reason for takiag particular
notice of thew. I don't know much sbeett horses, but I

can tell a horse from a mare.—(Laughter.)
Re-examined.--I am sure the Morse I have seen a
Guildford is not the first colt that was with the mare.

Watton, the driver of er Ry, deposed that be saw a
Chesnut mare and a colt at Mr. Hicks's, and he remarked
that the mare had a. tery long tail, and that the colt had
a white mark down the face, and two white heels. He
saw a second foal with the mare, in the opening of
1842, and he had seen the same colt and mare at Guild-
ford. He was sure it was not the first colt that that was
shown to him at Guildford.
Cross-examined—Had been among horses all his life,
but could not tell the age of a colt by its mouth, nor
what teethlt had when it was two years old. My mas-
ter has bought some hundreds of horses, and I have
looked into the mouths of a good many of them, but I am
no judge. I know nothing about the age from looking,
andonly did so from curiosity.--(Laughter.) I cannot tell
anything about the age of a horse by looking in
its mouth.
William Taylor, a farmer and coal-dealer, residing near
Walton, gave similar testimony to the former witnesses
relative to the two colts being at Newman's farm in
1841 and 1842. He also said that the horse at Guildford
was marked in the same way as the second colt, but he
could not swear positively that it was the same horse,
although, according to the best of his belief it was.
Margaret Hopkins proved that she went to work at Mr.
Newman's, and remembered seeing the colt in 1841, and
remarked that it had a very pretty little head. She
also saw the second foal in 1842, and she gave a similar
description of it to the other witnesses, and expressed
her opinion that Bloodstone was the same colt.
John Hawkins deposed to seeing the mare and the
colts, and also stated that he had frequently heard it
remarked of the first colt that he would snake a good one
.to drink out of a
,jug, as he had such a small nose. He
expressed his opinion that the horse now in Guildford
was the colt that he first saw in 1842, with its dam, at
Mr. Newman's.
William Taylor, a butcher in the neighbourhood of
Walton, gave similar testimony.
Patience Kitling was called to speak to the same facts,
but she stated that she saw nothing of the mare and the
second foal in 1843.
Cross•examined—ls sure sho did not see the mare
and foal in 1843. The witness was evidently confused,
and she at length explained that she saw the same ani-
mals up to last Christmas. The witness was cross-
examined at some length ; and she several times altered
tho dates of the different transactions which sho pro-
fesF cad to speak to, but she persisted in saying that the
mare and the hors& she had been shown at Guildford, ,
were the same ituhuals she had seen in the paddock.

The remaining clauses of theThill were then agreed
to, and the Bill was ordered to be read a third time to-

morrow.

_
The Merchant Seamen's Bill went through Committee,
and was ordered to be reported to-morrow.
The Irish Arms Bill was read a second time, and
ordered to be committed to-morrow.

The House adjourned at a Quarter before Twelve till
:0-morrow at a Quarter to Four o'clock.

LLOYD'S SHIPPING.
NOTICE TO MARINERS.
SAFETY BEACON ON THE GOODWIN SANDS
CARRIED AWAY.

" Admiralty, August 6, 1844.
" Sir,—l am commanded, by my Lords Commissioners
of the Admiralty, to transmit to you herewith, for the
information of the Committee for managing the affairs
of Lloyds, a copy of a letter from the clerk in charge of
her Majesty's naval yard at Deal, reporting that a
schooner, in crossing the Goodwin sands, had run against
and carried away the safety beacon erected there some
years since, by Captain Bullock.
" I am, Sir, your most obedient servant,
" SIDNEY HERBERT.
" W. Dobson, Esq., Secretary, Lloyd's."
(coPy.)
" Deal Yard, August 5, 1844.
"Sir,—l hare the honour to acquaint you, for the in-
formation of the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty,
that a schooner, in crossing the Goodwin sands early
this morning ran against and carried away the safety
beacon erected there some years since by Captain Bullock.
" From subseequent inspection it appears that the
vessel- struck the top of the beacon on the western side,
and carried it away ; that the mast is gone just above
the surface of the sand ; and that the whole is a perfect
wreck, held by the rigging and chain plates.
"I have cleared and brought on shore to-day as much
as the state of the tide would allow of, and I shall avail
myself of the first opportunity to secure the rest.
" I have the honour to be, &c.,
(Signed) "CHARLES WOOTTON,
" Clerk in Charge.
" The Hon. S. Herbert, M.P., &c. &c., Admiralty."

Mr. Joseph Pratt, a coach proprietor, driving upon
the road, past!, Mr. Newman's paddock, also spoke to
seeing the mare and the two foals, but he could not
identiCy the horse at Guildford, known as Bloodstone, as
one of those colts.
Mr. Davis deposed that he had seen the mare and the
colts, and he expressed his opinion that Bloodstone was
the colt brought to Mr. Newman's in 1842.
Cross-exaz.iined—Witness has bought several mare,,
and, of course, he always looks in their mouths for fear
he should buy an old one for a young one,--(Laughter.)
Does not know the appearance of the mouth of a three
year old, because he does not buy them. Thinks he
could tell when a horse was under three years old ; but
over three, he would have a full mouth.
By the COURT—A horse has not so many teeth when
he is under three years old, as when he is over that age.
Cross-examination continued—He did not touch the
horse that was shown him at Guildford. Did not look
in his mouth, but it was not because Mr. Newman told
him not to do so.
Mr. W. Coleman—l am a veterinary surgeon, and
have been in business for twenty years. I carry on busi-
ness at Cheam, in Surrey. In my judgment the appear-
ance of the mouth of a two 'or three-year old is not an
infallible rule to ascertain the age, but I think you can
generally tell the age. It is sufficient to decide between
an early two year-old and a late three year-old colt. If
an early two year-old colt was taken care of, and fed with
cow's milk and corn, as well as being suckled by its dam,
it would make a considerable difference in its growth and
general appearance. There was an appearance of lace-
ration in the gums where the tushes would be expected.
The training, or the manner in which a horse was bitted,
would make a great difference in the appearance of the
colt's mouth, and keeping the bit in the mouth would be
likely to remove the temporary teeth much earlier. In
my opinion the horse now in Guildford is thirty months'
old, and if I had been called upon to examine him pro-
fessionally, I should have given a certificate to that
effect.
Cross-examined—l was at the last Epsom races when
Running Rein won the Derby. I don't know whether I
gelded a colt by Saddler out of Mab, but possibly I
might. I am not aware that Running Rein was des-
cribed as a colt by Saddler out of Mab. It was so des-
cribed, but I know nothing about it ' • but I know that
the horse that did run was an entire horse. I did not
give any information to the stewards, because I knew
nothing of the matter. I castrated a bay colt for Mr.
Goodman, or Mr. Levi Goodman.
Mr. PLATT—Or Mr. Goodman Levi, for I believe he
goes by all these names.
Witness—He may, for what I know.
Cross-examination continued—l don't think I knew of
a horse named Gladiator, but I may have seen him at
Epsom. If I had to give a certificate of the age of
Bloodstone, I should say he was thirty months old.
Re-examined—l had nothing to do with the races at
Epsom, or with the pedigree of the horse described as by
the Saddler out of Mab.
Mr. Brown, veterinary surgeon at Warwick, confirmed
the evidence given by the last witness relative to the
effect the biding a young horse would be likely to have
upon the teeth. He said that he examined the horse
Bloodstone at Rockley, and he considered he was a two-
year old, and according to racing rule he would be con-
sidered a two-year old in January last. I have exa-
mined the mouth of Old England, the second horse ;
and, although his teeth are not so forward as those of
Bloodstone, I have no doubt they were both two-year
olds. Old England is certainly a two-year old.
Cross-examined—I don't think there is any certain
rule to tell the age of such young horses. If a horse is
entered to run as a two-year old, I consider he is a two-
year old—especially if he belongs to a respectable person.
That is not the reason why I say that Bloodstone is a
two-year old. Bloodstone has got four permanent teeth,
but I do not think that is a proof that he is a three-year
old horse.
Mr. Bradshaw deposed that he was a veterinary sur-
geon, and carried on business at Stratford-upon-Avon.
He saw Bloodstone run the race at Ascot, and he
examined him on the 21st or 22d June. He did not
consider the mouth of a horse a certain criterion of his
age, but in his opinion this horse was a two-year old.
The mouth of a race-horse developes itself much sooner
than that of another horse, on account of the mode of
feeding and sweating them. He had examined Blood-
stone and Old England at Guildford, and was satisfied
they were both two years old, but Bloodstone was six
weeks forwarder than Old England.
Cross-examined—Bloodstone has not got any of his
molar teeth. If a horse is foaled in April or May his
racing age is calculated from the January preceding, so
that he should consider Bloodstone to be now two years
old and a little more, and he would be considered a two-
yearis whether he was foaled in
ro
ol dnAuln,nyAt
Ri
pl
KaJEr ay, t
—n
ouTfa
the
hye
e,
i 321.
sBe
u4a
ers .
will do.
l 8 482 a.
Mr. PLATT—Exactly so, my Lord.
Mr. W. W. Bryan, another veterinary surgeon, de-
posed that he examined Bloodstone yesterday at Guild-
ford, and, according to the best of his judgment, he was
two years old. lie did not consider the appearance of
the mouth a certain proof of the age of a horse, and
witness had been mistaken on some occasions with
regard to the ages of horses he had examined.
Cross-examined—He was of opinion that a horse
being well fed would cause his teeth to grow faster.
This was the case for the plaintiff.
Mr. PLATT then rose to address the jury, and he
observed that, having at length got to the end of the
plaintiff's case, it was his duty to lay before them the
evidence upon which the defendant relied, to satisfy
them that the real facts of the case were very different
to those that had been alleged on behalf of the plaintiff.
The jury, no doubt, perfectly understood that the ques-
tion at issue was whether the horse now called Bloodstone
was foaled in 1842, and that his dam was Romaike, and
his sire Bubastes, and, although many of the plaintiff's
witnesses had boldly sworn that he was the same animal,
he had no doubt that he should be able to give
them conclusive evidence that in truth he was not so.
It would be the duty of the jury to look at all the cir-
cumstances of the ease and see on which side the truth
really was. lie submitted that the plaintiff's evidence
was very unconclusive, and he said it was very extra-
ordinary that veterinary surgeons should have been pro-
duced from distant parts of the country, when a hundred
skilful men, who could have no interest in the twitter,
might have been found in London, or in this imme-
diate neighbourhood, who could have proved the horse
to be a two year old horse if he really were so. He
would now state the history of the transaction. In
1840, the mare Romaike was put to Lord Exeter's
Beiram, and in due time produced a foal, and while this
foal was at her foot she was sent to Mr. Hicks's to be
put to Bubastes, and it would then appear that the
fraudulent proceedings commenced, for the next year
the same mare, which was a thorough bred fine mare,
was sent in a false name to a gentleman named Gib-
son, being represented as a half-bred mare, to be put to
a horse called Liverpool, end while in the possession of
that gentleman, she was delivered of the real Bubastes
colt. The jury had seen the conduct of Richard Newman
with regard to those letters that had been produced re-
ferring to this transaction, and he put it to them whe-
ther they could doubt that he was not perfectly aware
that some improper transaction was going on. (Mr.
Platt then read an extract from a letter written by
Richard Newman in the name of Crook, in which he
stated that the mare was in foal by Bubastes, and that,
as she was only half-bred, and his object was merely to
breed a steeple-chaser or hunter, he should not give
more than 101. for putting her to the horse Liverpool.)
In March, 1842, the mare, Romaike was sent to Mr.
Gibson's as a half-bred mare, and at this time she had
the mange, and was in very bad condition; and it
would be important for the jury to remember the
evidence given by John Newman that he had had the
mange in his stable, which was a catching disorder,
in confirmation of the assertion that this was the same
mare, although all the witnesses had positively sworn that
she never was, at Mr. Gibson's. On the 17th of April,
1842, the mare dropped the real Bubastes colt,
which was a weakly, small, miserable animal, and to
this one no doubt the story told by the wit-
nesses about the castration affair referred. He should
prove those facts beyond the possibility of doubt, and he
should also show that Richard Newman applied to Mr.
Hicks to give him a receipt as for a mare covered in
1841, when the occurrence really took place in 1840,
which evidently showed that he intended to make some
animal a year younger than it really was. Mr. Hicks
was aware that such a false receipt could only be re-
quired for some dishonest purpose, and he therefore re-
fused to give it. The Beiram colt was at that tithe a year
old, and if he had succeeded in getting the falsely dated
receipt it would have been evidence to show that he was
two-years-old instead of three at the period of the races.
The whole of the proceedings were very suspicious, and
there was strong reason to believe that Bloodstone was
in reality the Beiram three-year- old colt. It was not,
however, for the defendant to prove that fact, and it
was enough forhim to show that Bloodstone was not the
Bubastes colt foaled in 1842. The principal witnesses for
the plaintiff were all deeply interested in the matter
—the horse had been entered for stakes amount-
ing to between twelve and thirteen thousand pounds,
and they, of course, felt a strong desire to make out
their case, and this would probably account for the
manner in which they had given their evidence; and the
conduct of Richard Newman with regard to the letter,
which it was quite clear had been written by him. The
horse having been entered for certain races his name
would be placed in the Racing Calendar, and it became
necessary that some caution should be used with regard
to him; and, accordingly, in his first race for the New
Stakes at Ascot, Mr. Newman felt that if he won he
would excite attention and inquiry, and he therefore
gave Bell, his jockey, instructions to lose the race, in
order, no doubt, that he might be regularly entered as a
two year old ; and having been beaten it was thought
no inquiry would be made about his age, but he would
be acknowledged as a two year old horse in future.
Immediately after the race eminent veterinary surgeons
were called in, and they at once pronounced the colt to
be a three year old horse, and they would again to-
day repeat that opinion, not accompanied with any
evasion or doubt, but positively and certainly,
as they did at first. The Learned Counsel
then went on to state other facts, which will be detailed
in the evidence, and concluded by expressing himself
confident that the jury would award the stakes to the
defendant, who was the proprietor of Old England, the
second horse, and that they would be satisfied Blood-
stone was not the horse he was represented to be.
The following witnesses were then examined.
Mr. Henry Hicks, examined by Mr. SIIEE—I live at
Atherley, near Cheltenham. In the spring of 1841 I had
a stallion called Bubastes, which I had hired. In 1841

- _
and he told me he would take ten guineas, of which I
informed Newman. SOOll after this John Newman called
upon me, and told me had received a letter from Mr.
Gibson, informing him that his mare Romaike had not
foal.ed, and he wished ice to tell him when the mare was
covered, and I gave him the date, the 4th of May. I saw
John Newman afterwards, and he told me the mare liar-
foaled, and that she had a very good colt foal. T
autumn of 1843 John Newman applied to me for a _
ceipt, for his two mares in 1E342. I told him I had had no
no mares of his in 1842, and I should not give him any
such receipt as he required. I was at Ascot races, and
Mr. Herbert told me it was his horse that had ruu, and
that he had bought it of Mr. Newman, and I understood
that ho had given 3001. for him, and was to give 5001.
more if he won the Derby. After the dispute about the
horse's age, Mr. Herbert told me that he should send the
horse to Tattersall's, and sell it for what it would fetch,
and bring an action against Newman for deceiving him
as to the age of the horse.
Cross-examined—The charge for the two mares was
7/. My charge was 8/. 17s. altogether. I have betted
5001. to 50/. upon the result of this action. I made the
bet for Mr. Gully in favour of Old England. I believe
Old England is his horse, and, of course, he is interested
in it. I paid down the money for Mr. Gully, and I have
no interest whatever in the bet. I should be a winner
myself; if Bloodstone were to have the stakes.
By the COURT—Bubastes never covered a mare for
Crook.
John House—l am a labourer in the employ of the
last witness, and recollect a chesnut mare coming to be
covered by Bubastes in 1841. She had a foal with her
—a very good sort of foal, likely to make a good
horse. I remember being at Ascot races, and hearing
Harmer say, " Here's a devil of a job—the Bubastes colt
has come in and beat them all ; but they have
proved him to be a three year old." I said I hoped not,
and that John Newman would have the stakes. Upon
which Harmer replied, " It is the Beiram colt which
was with her when she went to be covered by Bubastes;"
and he added, " that it was no more Bubastes' colt than
it was old Defence's." Defence is a horse that was
staying at Mr. Hicks's. Harmer then said that John
Newman owed him for two mares, and that if he did not
pay him he would toss him over the bridge. I after-
wards saw John Newman and Harmer talking together
at one place, and a boy was sent to listen to what they
said, but they moved away to another part of the yard.
Cross-examined—I am sure Romaike was the mare
that was sent to Bubastes in 1841. I wished John New-
man might win the race, but it does not matter to me
who wins. I was not aware until after the race that Mr.
Gully was at all interested in Old England.
Robert Pincher—l am in the service of Mr. Hicks. I
remember Harmer saying to me, " There's a pretty job,
Bubastes foal has won the race." I said, "Is it Bubas-
tes' foal ?" He replied, "Itis no more Bubastes'
colt than it is old Defence's, and if he don't pay me I'll
fling him over the bridge."
Mr. De Witt—l reside at Stockbridge, am an attor-
ney's clerk, and I was instructed to take the evidence of
Harmer and reduced it to writing. He told me
he was present in April, 1841, when Romaike
dropped a foal to Beiram. It was a chesnut colt with a
star on the forehead. and a near white leg behind. Some-
time in 1842, he said he saw Romaike in Newman's
paddock with Bubastes' foal, and he did not observe any
white about him. He also told me that he did say after
the race at Ascot that Bloodstone was a three-year-old,
and that he might have said that he should not have said
anything about it if John Newman had paid him his fee.
Cross-examined—The witness Harmer made the
statement of his own accord, and I took it down in writ-
ing. I was introduced to Mr. Gully on last Monday
morning.
Mr. W. Walker—l know Mr. Hicks, and called at his
house in April 1841, and stayed there all the night, and
during the night I was disturbed by a noise, and in con-
sequence of a communication'made to me I called at Mr.
Newman's, at Walton, and there I saw a mare which I
have since seen at Guildford, and which I knew to be
Romaike. The mare at that time had just foaled, and
the mother was very savage to it. I am
sure this foal was a chesnut ; and am pretty sure that
it had a white star on the forehead, and one white heel
behind. I have seen the horse Bloodstone, and, to the
best of my belief, he is the Beiram colt, but I will not
swear positively to it. I saw the colt afterwards at Mr
Newman's.

n th

Cross-examined—l have been in the hop and seed
trade, and also a farmer. I was a bankrupt, and also
took the benefit of the Insolvent Act. I was in Worcester
gaol before I took the benefit, and I made an attempt to
escape from the officer who was taking me to gaol. I
sold one cow to Mr. Hicks shortly before I went to gaol.
Re-examined—l was unfortunate in a hop speculation
eighteen years ago, and it occasioned me to become bank-
rupt. I have not the slightest interest in the result of
this cause.
Joseph Walker—ln 1841 I lived close to the Messrs.
Newman, at Walton. I recollect the chesnut mare
coming to Walton in foal in 1840, and I was informed
that she was in foal by Beiram. She foaled in April,
1841, and I saw the colt when it was a yearling. After
the mare foaled she was very vicious, and would not
take to her foal at first. I observed that the foal had
a star on his forehead, and that he had or.e white heel
behind. I have seen Bloodstone, and I believe he is the
Beiram colt. He is the same colour and has the same
marks about him, but I cannot swear he is the same. I
know the witness Crook. He told me he had been
offered 100 L by an agent wrapped up in paper, to tell
some stories about cutting the Beiram colt, and he said
that he had spurned the offer.
Cross-examined—l have twice taken the benefit of
the Insolvent Ace.
Mr. Gibson—l reside at Castle Bromwich. A chesnut
mare was sent to my place in 1842. It is my habit to
record the time when every mare is brought in a book
(produced). The mare in question came on the 31st of
March, 1842. Before the mare was brought, I had
received some letters from a Mr. Crook, who represented
the mare to be his. (These were the letters represented
to be written by Richard Newman.) The mare was to be
put to Liverpool, a horse that was then in my possession.
(The letters were read. In one of them the mare
was described as a half-bred one that had never run.)
Examination continued—When the mare came, she
was in foal, and very poor. She had been dressed for
the riff and mange before she was brought to my house.
It is a catching dis9rder. When I saw the mare I was
satisfied she was nearly throrough-bred. Crook repre-
sented himself to be the owner of the mare. The mare
dropped a foal on the 17th April. It was a very. small
shabby foal, with upright shoulders, and short in the
quarters, and had not a white hair about him, except,
perhaps, a small spot on the forehead. I never saw the
man Crook in my life, and he never made any inquiries
about the mare. John Newman came to my place, I
believe, after the mare had foaled, and he saw all the
foaling mares that we had, and also the horse Liverpool.
lam certain that I showed him this mare. She was
taken away, with her foal, on the Bth August, 1842.
Since I have been in Guildford, I hare seen Ro-
maicke, and I am sure she is the same mare which was
sent to me trom Mr. Crook. I have also seen Blood-
stone, and he is certainly not the foal that was dropped
in April, 1842. The circumstance of the mare being
sent to me as a half-bred mare excited my suspicion,
and I showed her to certain gentlemen, and we were all
satisfied that she was thorough bred.
Cross-examined—The mare in question was in a very
bad and diseased state when she was brought to me.
Re-examined—l am quite certain that the mare I
have seen in this town is the same mare. I have no
doubt of it.
Mr. G. Gibson—l am the son of the last witness, and
I recollect perfectly well the mare being sent to us, in
the name of Crook, on the 31st of March. I made an
entry in the book kept for that purpose, and described
the mare as half-bred. The witness then read from the
book the remark that the mare foaled a chesnut foal,
without any white, on the 17th of April. I have seen
the mare Romaike, and the horse Bloodstone. Romaike
is the mare that was at our place, but Bloodstone is cer-
tainly not the colt that she dropped in 1842. I never
saw anything of Crook.
George Swan—l am groom to Mr. R. Gibson, and
remember the chesnut mare being brought to his place.
She bad a foal while she was there. It was a very
small colt—a chesnut, and had no white about it. I
have seen Bloodstone. He is not the horse foaled in
1842. Romaike is the mare. She had the mange very
bad when she just come, but was getting better when
she went away.
Mr. John Fowler—The mare was shown to me by
Mr. Gibson, and I recognised her as a mare that had
run at Warwick races for the Guy stakes, and I knew
her to be Romaike, and to be a thorough bred mare. I
saw the same mare several times at Mr. Gibson's, and I
saw the colt, she dropped there. It was a chesnut colt,
and I don't think it had any white about it. I have seen
the mare in Guildford, and am sure she is the same.
The horse Bloodstone is not the colt that was dropped
at the time in question, April 1842.
Mr. T. L. Evans—l saw a chesnut mare at Mr.
Hicks's in the spring of 1841, and I have no doubt that
I afterwards saw the same mare at Mr. Gibson's. The
same mare is now in Guildford.
Henry Bell—l rode Bloodstone at Ascot. Before the
race I saw Mr. J. Newman, and he told me to ride him
a quarter of a mile, and then pull him up, for he would

not have him win on any account. I told this before the
race to Captain Rous and Colonel Wyndham's training
groom, and consulted them what to do, and they told me
to win.—(A laugh.) I did win.—(Renewed laughter.)
I had no difficulty to win. I won in a canter.
Cross-examined--I believe the horse fell lame on
the day before. I was riding him a gallop at the time.
A mare named Carissima ran with me, but I don't know
whether she hurt herself.

Mr. PLATT—Did she gallop with you the day before?
Witness—Yes.

two mares were sent to Bubastes. One of them was
Romaike, and she was covered by Bubastes. Romaike
was a chesnut mare ; the other was a brown mare. Ro-
maike came to me in the name of Mr. John Newman.
She had a colt at her foot, which Mr. Newman said
was by Beiram. Just before Warwick Races, John
Newman came to me, and requested me to ask Mr.
Gibson what ho would charge for half-bred mares
to be put to Liverpool, a stallion then in the pos-
session of Mr. Gibson. I asked Mr. Gibson, accordingly,

Mr. PLATT—Did she beat you in your gallop the day
before ? Witness—Yes, by sufferance.—(Laughter.)
Mr. PLATT—Were many persons present when she
beat you ? Witness—Not many.
Mr. PLATT—Just, I suppose, to take the news home ?
Witness—Yes.—(Laughter.)
Lord Stradbroke—l was one of the stewards of Ascot
races, and was present when Bloodstone beat Old Eng-
land. A complaint was made that Bloodstone was more
than two years old, and the stewards sent for Mr. Field,
the veterinary surgeon, from London, and another gen-
tleman, named Parry, from Reading. When Mr. Field
examined the horse, he immediately pronounced him to
be three years old, and gave a certificate to that Effect.
Mr. Parry gave a similar certificate.
Mr. John Field—l am veterinary surgeon, and have
been in practice twenty-five years. I examined Blood-
stone at Ascot. He was a three year-old horse. I have
no doubt of that fact. I have seen the horse since, and
there is nothing to alter my opinion.
The jury here intimated that they were quite satisfied.
Mr. Sergeant CHANNELL intimated his desire to reply.
• Mr. PLATT—We have plenty more evidence.
Another veterinary surgeon was then examined, and
he likewise expressed a positive opinion that Bloodstone
was a three year-old horse.

The jury again said they Were perfectly agreed upon
finding for the defeadaut.


Mr. Etarou have tutu, gootteni&l, 010 Y",
were of that opinion long ago, and I think you could
come to no other conclusion.
Mr. Sergeant CHANNEL]; then said that after the
opinion expressed by his Lordship, and what had fall
from the jury, ha shou;d not feel himself justified in
proceeding any further with the case ; but he claimed
the privilege of making a few observations in justifica-
tion of the plaintiff. He should have made some re:
marks with reference to the identity of the animal sell
to Mr. Gibson's with the mare Romaike, because he must
confess he was not quite so well satisfied with that
evidence as the jury appeared to be, and if that idea'
tity was not proved, the defendant's ease had completely
failed. After the strong opinion expressed by the :P*
however, he would refrain from making any observations
upon the evidence that had been adduced ; and he
would only observe, in justification of the conduct of Mr.
Herbert, that there was nothing whatever to, show that
he had not fairly and honestly bought the horse, with t".
his engagements, believing him to be a two years old,
and that there was no imputation whatever upon Mr'
Herbert's character, and he was sure that he never woo
have been a party to the present proceeding if he had
not believed that those who had given him the inforiav
tion upon which he relied were persons of integrity.
The foreman of the jury said they were of opinion thei
Mr. Herbert might have been deceived.
Mr. PLATT—WC believe that to be the case. It ij
very probable that he knew nothing of the fraud allegeu
against the other parties.
Mr. Baron PARKE expressed his opinion that the kill
could come to no other conclusion than the one they ha'
determined upon. The history of the case probably Wig
that it was the small miserable colt which died, and the
other was put in its place.
The jury returned a verdict foe the defendant.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE. "
(YESTERDAY.)
MA NSION-HO USE.
An Irish gallant, named Michael O'Grady, was brought
before Aldermen Sir John Key and Farebrother, charge(/'
with having refused to contribute towards the support Of
his wife, who became chargeable to the parish of Aid-
gate. It was understood that the defendant intended t°
plead that he had never been married to the complainant,
who happened to be considerably the older of the two. ,
The complainant produced an old, disfigured piece 0`
paper as her marriage certificate, which appearcd to be
of the date of May, 1827, and showed that the cererool
had taken place in Killarney, in the district of the pans
of Aglos, and been performed by the Rev. Doctor
NV:Naughton, a Roman Catholic clergyman. She said
the marriage was legal according to the Roman Catholic
creed, the religion• they both professed ; and she de'
(dared that her husband had fur a series of years treated
her with the most heartless neglect and cruelty. She
had, however, until lately, never required any assistance
from him ; but finding that her strength was failing her
and that her husband was able to support a youthful
substitute for her, she thought it but fair that he should
save the parish the expense that otherwise must necessa•
rily fall upon the authorities.
Sir JOHN KEY—Do you mean that he has married
another woman ? Complainant—She lives with hiniat
any rate, your Lordship. He gave me regular notice
that lie intended to leave me. He said, after looking ale
in the face for some time one day, your Lordship, that
I was too old and too ugly for him, and that he must
have a handsome young woman, and no other would do
for him.

Sir JOHN KEY—How long is it since you parted
Complainant—About eight years, but we often parted
before that ;we have been always parting;—(A laugh.)
Sir Jous KEY—When did you last receive assistance
from Aldgate parish ? Complainant—This day I 014
obliged to apply, while he dresses out his lady in Silkg
and satins.

Sir JOHN KEY—Well, defendant, why do you
refuse to relieve this poor woman, who has
a legal claim to all you- can do for her
Defendant—Please your Lordship, I was never met'
ried to her. To be sure, we have lived together, and
better, more affectionate, or kinder-hearted husband
never breathed the breath of life.—(Laughter.)
Alderman FAREBROTHER—And to convince her of
the warmth of your attachment,. you turn her off and
take another woman into her place ? Defendant—Y(4lr
Worship, I really thought she was dead - or transported.
There was no use in my acting kindly, for away ell!
would tramp from me whenever she took it into be'
head. She has been the death of me fifty times at least.
Complainant—Oh, goodness! why, your Lordship, be
knocked me up stairs and down stairs till I was quits
insensible.
Defendant—l can call witnesses to my tenderness,
your Worship. _ I was the sweetest tempered man"
(Laughter.)
A professional gentleman, who attended for O'Grady'
said his client had never been legally married. Ile
begged to be informed by the complainant what was the
name of the chapel in which she had been joined in 111 W
trimony to Mr. O'Grady ?—The complainant said th
they were married in a house, and that it was as good
ceremony as ever was performed by a priest.
Mr. Goodman (the Chief Clerk)—And you are both
Catholics ? Complainant—Certainly we are.
Mr. Goodman—Then your testimony is quite sufficient •
as to the validity of the marriage.
The defendant's solicitor—He was only seventeen
years of age when he formed this connection.
Defendant—And I was so comfortable, and ace-
tionate, and tender, to her, your Lordship.
Alderman FAREBROTHER-And by way of showing]
all this you kicked her up and down stairs.
Defendant—l never touched her in my life, I'll be OP
my oath.—(Laughter.)
Sir JOHN KEY—Well, you will prove the sincerity of
your affection by taking her home, and sending Miss
Sniffam about her business.

Defendant—And if I do, why she must go to the
parish. It's quite impossible for me to support 'eta
both upon my small means, and Sniffum is of some use t°
me; but Mrs. O'Grady used to take delight in followittl
me from situation to situation, and then abscond.
have not been in her company this eight years till now'
and I hope this is our very last meeting.
For a length of time the defendant resisted the apPli•
cation to allow his wife a farthing, declaring that he
should be obliged, if the authorities persisted in comp"
ing him to support her, to go upon his travels to other
countries. At length, however, upon the assurance (
the Alderman that his travels should be bounded by the
walls of a prison, of small dimensions, he entered jar
sureties to make the allowance demanded by the part
Sir JOHN KEY said he had received a letter from 14°'-
Strangford, stating that his Lordship, having observed in
the daily papers, an account of the impositions Prae;
tised by a person calling herself " Ellen Willoughby
and " Margaret Cope," and having received 16,
letter signed "Ellen Willoughby," inclosing a (no doubt)
forged certificate, similar to these described in the re•
port ; he had thought it advisable to transmit the sit°l,.;
to the Mansion-house. His Lordship added that i!J
had sent to Hythe, the place in which the writer sal
she was known, and to which she was desirous to ge;
and ascertained that no such person was known there 0
all. SirJ. Key stated that he had also received a letter /*ND
another nobleman, mentioning that a letter had beef
sent to his wife: (no doubt upon the authority of the ret`
book), directed to Brookes' Club-house, St, jarnes'6"
street, and subscribed " Fleming," to the same effect as
those, copies of which had appeared in a former tea.
sion ; that 11. had been sent to the writer before the sc,
port had been seen, and that the object in troubling
John Key was, that the Dublin police might endeavol
to get hold of the parties implicated in the ingenious
fraud which, if it had not been for the press, would tUr
questionably have very extensively succeeded.
Sir JouN KEY stated that he had received a sovereign
for the relief of John Thompson Irvine, the unfortuil
merchant who lost all his property at Hamburgh, urn.s
has been endeavouring for many years to support 01
children, whose mother has been some time, in couse;
quence of the pressure of adverse circumstances, tn.,.
lunatic asylum. The note inclosing the money Wra
signed J. 5.," and requested that the Alderman woll
acknowledge it in the Times. He likewise stated that
he had received for the same poor man the second hi':
of the five-pound note which had been transmitted by,.:
benevolent person who had seen the statement of tu"
distressing case in the newspapers.
CLERKEIV WELL.
Mr. George Williams, a middle aged man, proprieTr
.
of a hair-dressing establishment in Warner-street, Cle, r
ra ,
unwell, was charged with violating the person of Ell .o
beth Duckworth, aged 15. The case was remanded
further evidence.
Benjamin Beadle, a cab-driver was charged under the
following aggravated circumstances:—
On the 7th of June an unfortunate girl, namea ',ge-
-1 Hughes, was sitting in the Guy Earl of Warwick pilubo
house between five and six o'clock in the morning, or
the prisoner entered, and, after using language of a /et:).
rough and offensive character towards her, asking hero
drink some gin and milk. She refused, whereupon the
prisoner, without receiving further provocation, flunche
glass at her and broke it to atoms on her foreheatl. the
by
unfortunate woman was dreadfully mangled-bled
splinters of the glass. She became insensible, and a
profusely from the wounds. When she fell, he flung&
pint pot at her head, which fortunately did not talt°l at
Get. When the police were conveying him to the Ois
l3agnigge-wells station, he suddenly threw himself '?n
eel his
back and kicked Nott, police constable 99 G, so vioien
on a delicate part part of his person, that the oilife for
most fainted from pain, and was for some days unfit
duty. He was sentenced to a month's imprisonntel,

BIRTHS.
On the 2(11 inst., at Homerton Cottage, Hornerton-
rolf•
Mrs. William Frith, of a daughter.
On the 2d inst., at Clapton, Mrs. Walter Yenning, ocleVrill.
On the 3d inst., in Portland-place, the lady of
Tritton, Esq., of a son. St•
On the 3d inst., in Berkeley-square, Mrs. Humphrey
John Mildmay, of a daughter. °f
On the 26th ult., at Frankfort-on-the-Maine, the utof
Robert Koch, Esq., her Britannic Majesty's Vice-Cons
u'
daughter.
On the Ist inst., in New-street, Spring-gardens, Lady 313/1
Hoare, of a son.

DIED. ..,
On the 31st ult., at Richmond-hill, Bath, the l'e''' Johil
Parsons, of the Island of Barbadoes, Vicar of Marden. ~r, G.
On the 31st ult., at Avranches, Mary Frances, wife or
Gardiner, Esq., of the Bombay Civil Service. •
m Willia
On the 4th inst., at Clapham-common,
Esq., (d H iett, are-hill, Cheshire, aged 85. tbe
On the 4th inst., at East Acton, Middlesex,
llarr
wife of Mr. R. L. Evans. bter of
On the 3d inst., at Hampstead, Idonea, eldest dang
William Purton, Esq.
On the 2d inst., Mr. Joseph Waite, aged 7.5.
On the 3d inst., at Norwood, Miss Ann 8r00k5..., , sci.•
On the 4th inst., Mrs. Nash, wife of Sebastian ivlsm'
of St. John's-wood-road, Regent's-park. Wbbert,

os
London : Printed and i'-üblished by DIURDO ;12t
No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sun Office; ~.,I;ty 01
Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy. in the %iv
bliddlesez, Wednesday, Augazt.77 1844.