The Sun.
London, England, 1850-08-10 00:00:00

LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, AUGUST 10, 1850.

of those islands by 19,0001, and his own salary by 5001.
a year; he had, in fact, gone on in tkegovernmetit of those
islands in that direction which his career in that House
should have led them to expect.
Lord C. HAMILTON, from his own personal know-
ledge c f the people of the lonian Island=, contended
that the inhabitants gave to Sir H. Ward that credit
for just and high-minded conduct which the House
had a right to expect from him, and which ho
had, undoubtedly, exhibited in his entire administra-
tion. The inhabitants had testified to the humane
and merciful manner in which Sir H. Ward had acted
throughout the difficult circumstances in which he was
placed.
Sir DE LACY EVANS said that from their long
experience of Sir H. Ward in that House, they ought
to be ,low to censure his conduct. As to any argument
founded upon the military operations, he must remind
the House that 400 men, stationed as the insurgents
were in the mountain fastnesses, could hold out for :long
time against ten times their number. The small number
of troops killed hail been urged as a proof of the trivial
nature of the insurrection; but it this were made a
ground ot. cerfture, :;overnors would take care that st.c't
movrrnet.ts should make some headway before they ven-
tured to take any steps for their repression.
Colonel THOMPSON said great complaints had brew
made that Sir 11. Ward himself had not been heard in
his own vindication; but he contended that, in point of
fact, no one else had been heard. He had had it all his own
«a?—f tr not one allegation had be ea made by his Hog.
Frit:l2d the Member for Montrose which was not based
upon his evidence. Again, it was asserted that no po-
litical prisoners were made—what said the dispatch? It
aced that the political element had greatly preponde-
rated in the disturbances which had occurred. But the
prisoners were not charged with political crimes; they
were nut charged with what they had committed,
and therefore he thought a strong presumption arose
that they were charged with that which they had not
committed.—(Oh, oh.) He asked where was the law by
which prisoners were put to death by the troops of a
civilized country after their capture ? He would sup-
port the motion.
Mr. G. THOMPSON denied that the motion of his
Hon. Friend would commit the House to a vote of cen-
sure against Sir H. Ward. Full justice had been done
to his merits by those who supported the motion, who
only regretted that ho should on this occasion pursue a
course so much at variance with his previous conduct.
He supported this inquiry because he thought it the
only mode of clearing the character of Sir 11. Ward
from the attacks which had been made against it.
Mr. ANSTEY, who rose amidst loud cries for a divi-
sion, expressed his regret that a question of so much itn-
portance should be discussed at so late a period. He
wished to state to the House very shortly.—(lronical
cheers and confusion.) He wished to state very shortly.
—(Renewed cheers and confusion.) Well, then, if that
was displeasing to the House he would say he wished to
state at very great length the reasons which would go-
vern his vote on this important question. It was all very
well for the Noble Lord, who was the defender of Gene

ral Haynau. to uphold such acts.
Lord C. HAMILTON said this was the second time
that the Hon. and Learned Member had made this charge
against him. It was not the fact, and he could not suffer
him to repeat it.

Mr. ANSTEY appealed to the House whether, when
both sides concurred in expressing their indignation at
the atrocities committed by General Haynau, the only
person who rose to express his indignation, not at those
atrocitie►, but at the audacity of the Honourable Mem-
ber for Maryl.,bone, for daring to denounce them, was
not the Noble Lord? He cared not whether it was Ge-

neral Hayman or his master whose defenee he undertook
—for one or the other he was assuredly the apologist.
With reference to the motion before the House be
begged to remind them that the acts referred to were
dona under a proclamation of martial law, and no
reasons had ever been stated in their justification. It
was for this reason he was anxious for as inquiry. He
was a sincere friend to Sir H. Ward, and wished to re-
lieve his name from the suspicii,n which at present rested
upon it. For this reason, though most reluctant to take
any step which might be construed into a censure on
that gentleman, he would support the motion.
Mr. HUME replied.
The House divided, when there appeared—
For the motion ... ... ...
Against it ... ... ••• ...
Majority .. ••• ••• •••
Mr. HUME moved that the evidence taken before
the Select Committee on Ceylon affairs this session be
laid before the House.

84
-71

Lord J. RUSSELL had no objection to the motion.
Agreed to.
MERCHANT SERVICE.
Mr. LABOUCHERE ruse to move for leave to bring
a Bill tor the purpose of consolidating in one Act the

laws relating to Officers and seamen in the merchant ser•

vice, which
_ were at present scattered over six oreigh

different statutes. Ha had promised he would bring in
the measure this session for the purpose of having it
printed, in order that the subject might be consi-
dered in the recess. He did not wish to hold himself

committed to any definite scheme, and would willingly
receive any suggestions which might be offered on the
subject.

Leave was then given, and the Bill was brought in an
read a first time.

LABUAN.

Mr. HUME moved that copies of the orders of Rear.
Admiral Sir Francis Collier, naval commaader•in-chief
on the East India and Chinese station, to Captain A.
FLrquhar, of her Majesty's sloop Albatross, noticed in
Captai❑ Farquhar's dispatch of the 25th of August,
1849. to Admiral Collier, when reporting the capture
and destruction of 90 vessels, and the lime of 500 of the
Borneons, by the naval force under his command, be
forthwith laid before this House, as ordered March
21, 1850.

Sir F. BARING said he had no means of furnishing
the documents in question.

The motion was then withdrawn.
SAVINGS BANKS—IRELAND.

Upon the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EX,
CHEQUER a Bill was brought in to continue the A. ci
for amending the law of savings banks in Ireland.

LONDON-BRIDGE APPROACHES BILL.

The House resolved itself into Committee on this Bill

Mr. HUME objected to the 13111, as it imposed a heavy
ax upon the coal consumers of London. lie moved that
he Chairman report progress.

Sir DE LACY EVANS supported the Bill. It pro-
pc sed to compensate poor persons who had been de-
piived of their habitations in Westminster and other
places.
Mr. MOWATT stated that this was a plain proposi-

. -
tion to rob one part of the community for the benefit of
the other. Coal was a prime necessary of life, and they
might as well tax corn for the benefit of the landlords
of London. Hero they robbed the whole for the benefit
of a few; whereas, by the corn-law, the tax on food
went into the Exchequer for the benefit of the whole
community.
Sir B. HALL opposed this grant of public money.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, ob-
served that the coal duties were by law to be continued
until 1862. The Bill was nothing more than carrying
out the intentions of Parliament when it granted these
coal duties for the improvement of the city of London.
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY remarked that the fund for
these purposes did not consist alone of coal duties. There
were also wine duties. .

The Committee divided on the motion that the Chair-
man leave the chair, when there appeared—

For the motion 20
Against it ... . 59
Majority ... —39
The clauses were agreed to, and the House resumed.
To be reported this day.
RAILWAYS ABANDONMENT BILL.
The Lords' reasons for disagreeing to one of the
amendments of the Commons were then considered.
Mr. CHAPLIN remarked that the amendment had
been carried in the Commons by a division of 77 to 15.
He supported the amendment, which they had already
sanctioned by a large majority. The Hon. Member con-
cluded by moving that the Lords' amendments be con-
sidered that day three months.
Mr. LOCKE supported the amendment of the Hon.
Member. This Bill would place the railways at the
mercy of the landowners. The railway interest did not
ask for this Bill. The Government introduced the Bill
merely for the purpose of keeping the Railway Commis-
sion in its place. We owe nothing t> the railway inte-
rest that should induce us to pass a Bill for the purpose
of keeping it in its place. If this Bill passed in its pre-
sent state, he believed that no railway company would
avil itself of it.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL objected to the pro-
viso alluded to as much as any one. He thought it most
objectionable, and he had before spoken against it. But
the question for them to consider was, whether they
would have this proviso or no Bill at all. He denied
that the object of the measure was to keep the Railway
Commission in its place. He did not think that there
was anything in the Bill that would induce a court of
equity to compel the performance of a contract which
they otherwise would not be compelled to carry out. He
hoped the House would not consent to the rejection of
the Bill altogether.
Mr MULLINGS concurred in the amendment. He
was in no way connected with a railway company, and
therefore he could give a more impartial opinion on the
question. If the railway companies did not want this
measure, he thought it was the fairest course to reject
this Bill altogether, and to leave the law in the same
state as it was heretofore.
Mr. P. WOOD supported the Bill as it stood, as he did
not think it deserved the charges that were made against
it as being arbitrary and unjust. Why, the objects and
provisions of the Bill were to protect vested rights. He
viewed the Bill as one brought forward on public
grounds, and not to serve one particular railway company
or another. _ _

Mr. LABOUCHERE was opposed to the provisio re-
ferred to, and voted for its rejeeti.m. The House of
(Li
oonred s,
s 01: ow
the ever, vaelrt, inserted i
etfh,i
iroviso a
House gain,
now awnad, s,having
done SO, the alternative lfc thss House now was, either
to accept the proviso or reject the Bill altogether. He
would be extremely sorry that a measure calculated to
confer such important advantages upon the public should
now b 3 rej2c!ed. As far as the railway interest was
c:)neerbeil, the Pleasure was perfectly optional, and
therefore th(re v,its nothinx to be apprAende6 by that
interest foni. its (greets..
Mr. MO WATT supported the rejection of the Bill.
Mr. TURNER said that the proviso complained of
was simply one that declared that nothing in this Act
shall release railway companies from any liabilities they
might have incurred For the purchase of land. He could
not understand, therefore, why such objections should In
made against it.
Mr. SCULLY thought that this Bill was of top much
importance to be rejected on account of this proviso.
It was a most valuable measure, and he would regret its
being thrown out on account of a proviso which after all
could not inflict injustice upon any party. ' - •
The House divided, when the numbers were—

For Mr. Chaplin's amendment ••• 15
Against it 32
Majority against the amendment —l7
The Lords' amendments "ere then agreed to.
The House adjourned at Two o'clock.

-
LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Aug. 9.
(Betore Mr. Commissioner FANE.)
IN THE BANKRUPTCY OF ALA.RIC A. WATTS.
His Horroua delivered the following judgment:—
This was an application for a certificate by Mr. Alaric
Watts, a gentleman well kuown in the literary world,
who has had the misfortune to become a bankrupt. No
opposition was offered; but as Mr. Watts asked for a first-
class certificate, and no discussion had taken place, I
felt it necessary to postpone my judgment, that I might
examine. the papers at my own house. The classifica-
tion of certificates was introduced by the law of last
year, and it is, in my opinion, a very valuable reform;
but, in order to maintain it as such, it is necessary that
great care should he taken that none should be admitted
to first class but the really deserving. It is a great
plassure to me to be ableto say that Mr. Alaric Watts is
luny entitled to this highly honourable distincion. His
present position is attributable, not to extravagant per-
sonel ex heedless speculations, or anything of
that nature, but solely anti entirely to an oir( r-deveton
to literary pursuits, and an over-confidence as to money
matters ia those with whom he was connected in his lite-
rary undertakings, and in whom, in justice to himself', he
should have reposed no confidence whatever. It would he
inconvenient to enter upon long details. One specimen will
suffice t i show to what treatment this unfortunate gentle-
man had been subjected. In 1841 he found himself disa-
bled from meeting his pecuniary engagements, and he
called his creditors together to make some arrangement.
The result was that his creditors agreed to accept a sum
of 1,500/. payable by instalments in three years in full
satisfaction of their demands, and in order to secure the
payments he bound himself by deed to insure his life
forthwith for 1,5001. for three years. I confess lam no
friend to these private arrangements. They are more
expensive than settlements under the superintendence
of a court. They conceal knaveries,
and deprive honest
men of a public attestation of their honesty, and they
are constantly defeated by petty underhand contrivances.
In the present instance the attention of the debtor was
not drawn to the legal stringency of the word " forth-
with." The deed required that he should insure his life
" forthwith" for 1,500/., and instead of doing so " forth-
with" be paid the first 5001. of the 1.5001. about the end
of the year, and then insured his life for 1,0001. Out of
this trifling departure from the exact arrangements of
the deed arose all his misfortunes; for his own attorney
took advantage of this omission, sued him for his whole
demand, and, by the technicalities of legal pleading, got
judgment for the whole sum in defiance of equity and
good conscience. The Learned Judge who de-
cided the case at common law on a demurrer

expressed great regret at finding himself compelled
by strict rules to decide against Mr. Watts.
and intimated that it was a case for Chancery
relief. Mr. Watts was then compelled to file a bill. The
cause was heard by Vice-Chancellor Knight Bruce, who
decreed a perpetual injunction, on the ground that the
plaintiff-at-law had himself sanctioned the course pur-
sued by Mr. Watts. His antagonist appealed to the
Lord Chancellor, who, however, dismissed the appeal,
with costs. It is needless to say that against such ex-
penses it was impossible for Mr. Watts to bear up, and
the result was, first, imprisonment for debt, from which
I had the great gratification of releasing him, and then
bankruptcy. His conduct under his bankruptcy had
been in entire conformity to the law; and he has won
my respect, and that of Mr. Canaan, the official assignee,
who has charge of his affairs. One error, however, he
has fallen into, that of addressing a private letter to me;
but into that he was betrayed by an over-anxiety about
character, and to convince me that he was a man highly
respected by these who knew him best, for his letter con-
tained a vast number of testimonials to his worth from
persons of eminence. This slight departure from the
strict rule was, to a certain extent, justified by its
object, which was to show that he had a claim to a
first-cis,s certificate, as to which there had been no
public discussion. But, right or wrong, I cannot regret
it, because his letter records one more instance of the
kindness shown by the late Sir Robert Peel to men of
literary distinction when in circumstances of distress.
After mentioning that Sir R. Peel had, without any ap •
plication from him, appointed his son to a place under
Government, he adds, "a few months only befure his
death, having been induced to make inquiries respecting
me from having been told by Mr. Christie that my por-
traits of Mrs. Siddoas, by Sir T. Lawrence, and of Sir
Walter Scott, by Leslie (portraits well known to ama-
.

teurs), were for sale, he wrote me a letter, which he
dispatched to me in the Queen's Bench by the hands of

his private secretary, conceived in a spirit of the most
delicate generosity, offering me any pecuniary aid which
might tend to alleviate the discomfort of my situation."
I could not resist the pleasure of giving publicity to this
additional proof of the private virtues of our great states-
man. And I do so the more because I hope that the
opinion thus implicitly given by so great a man in fa•
your of Mr. Watts may come in aid of the judgment I
am now pronouncing, which is that Mr. Watts is better
entitled to a first-class certificate than any bankrupt that
ever came before me.

The CHIEF BARON having suircmod up, the jury, after
a short deliberation, returned a verdict for the plai.utiff—
Danisges, Is.
His Lordship refused to certify.

NORTH WALES ClRCUlT—Chester, Aul 8.
CIVIL COURT.—(lit.f ro Mr. Baron PAlucii.)
MILWARD V. LITTLEWOOD.
This was an action to recover compensagion in
damages for a breach of promise of marriage. The
damages were laid at 2,0001.
Mr. Evans and Mr. Wel6by appeared for the
plaintiff; and Mr. Sergeant Jones (alone) for the de-
fendant.

Mr. Evans states] the case. The plaintiff was a
widow, and kept a puelic•house at Sutton, tear
field. The defendant is it machine broker. residing at
Cooper's-bridge, near Eludderstield, Yorkshire.
Mary Ann Barry was then called and examined by
Me. WELsBY —A m a servant with Mr. Wilson, tee dealer
and grocer in Macclesfield. Before living with Mr.
Wilson I lived wish Mrs. Milward. I lived with her
three years at different times. I went to live lase with
her after she left the Wheatsbeaf, at the latter end of
1549. R 'members Mr. LitLiewood coming to her
house at the beginning; of November to reside.
was a stranger at that time. He came and asked could
he have a bed for a few weeks, for he had bougt t ail the
machinery at Wood's factory; that is near the Wheat-
sheaf. He was told lie couli be anon:mode:et?, end
he became an inmate of the house, and t ruk hie meals
with Mra. Mil ward and the children; I should ttiuk he
was shout 45 and Mrs. Milward about :36. The next
day was Sunday; Mrs. Milward went to church arid Mr.
Littlewood stayed at home. As she was going out he
said " That's the one for me. I believe she's got some
money, hasn't she, Ann?" I said yes; and he asked me
how much, and I said that was my businesa Nothing
more was then said. 4 Ile paid great attention to Mrs.
Milward on Sanday night. He told her that he would
marry her, and that he would have no person but her.
She said she thought it would be right. Heard him say
that or words of that description many times. He always
appeared in earnest. He stayed about three weeks or a
month. Before leaving I heard him tell Mrs. Milward
that she must give up her house and sell all abe had, as
he had got a house in Yorkshire that he would take her
to, and her family, and make her comfortable. He said
he would buy the wedding clothes, and told the boys to
call him father. After that they used to call him father.
He said that Mrs. Milward was to call him Henry or
Harry. She did so. The house and fixtures were taken
by a Mrs. Stancliffe in December.
Cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant JONES —I lived with
Mr. Milward, first at Bollington about five years before
his death. Her husband died in Barnaby week, in 1849,
on the Saturday, at the Wheatsheaf. Mr. Milward died
in very good circumstances. I know Mr. Parrott, at-
torney, at Macclesfield. He was engaged in attempting
to settle the business. Have not heard that she was
anxious to compromise with her creditors. Don't know
of any person applying for their debts, and plaintiff not
being able to pay them. Never heard of plaintiff's in.
Lennon to part with the house until the second week
after defendant came to the house. Saw Mrs. Milward
on Monday last. She is now very near her confine-
ment. Can swear that defendant never slept with Mrs.
Milward whilst I remained in the house, because I slept
with her and never missed her. I only sta3 ed a week
after she went to the new house. Mrs. Milward seemed
very uneasy, and defendant asked her why she felt so
low? She said she was afraid he was going to deceive
her. He said lam not. Never saw anything wrong in
his conduct.
Elizabeth, lack confirmed the evidence of the previous
witness, as to defendant having made repeated promises
of marriage, and also that having been taxed on several
occasions with being a married man, he denied it
strongly. On the 22d of November, owing to certain
rumours and suspicions, witness and plaintiff went to
Oldham, and saw defendant's brother, who informed
them that defendant was a married man, and that his
wife was then living.
Other witnesses gave similar testimony.
Mr. Sergeant JONES addressed the jury at great
length on behalf of the defendant, contending that the
evidence for the plaintiff was so improbable that the jury
could not believe it. He should show that the plaintiff
had thrown herself on the defendant, and after she knew
he was a married man had surrendered her virtue, so
that in point of fact she was not entitled to even the
Hea thenmne
acablyledsethrgeefaenl:
is
owingmJaol lseesptwh amountlt Vnei lsssoens wo—fa s damages.c
called, and
JONES—I am a mechanic, and reside at Oldham. In
November last
dinner,
wasm l
ao
nddg:ai
dnngid theakltnseawi d
yV mlersh.
, eLaa
int
:ill
eehawnfoo. a
nthavedw
h6th,eamarried after
has
known the defendant ten years. Plaintiff asked me on
the
said yes, and have done for ten years. She inquired
was
o
daughters, one nearly twenty years of age. Nothing
more passed that day. I observed that they appeared
to be getting very loving. She wilted me several times
it he was married, and I said he was. She said " Married
or not married, I'll keep his company." They kept talking
and chuffing together. They remained friendly all
the time I was there; I mean by friendly that they were
very loving.
Peninale Littlewood—l am the wife of Thomas Lit-
tlewood, brother of defendant. We keep the Royal Oak,
in Oldham, and have kept it eleven years the 4th of last
November. On the 22d November, two women came to
my house, Mrs. Slack and the plaintiff. The latter spoke
to me first, and asked ms if fleecy Littlewood was there.
I said he is in Yorkshire with his wife and family; she was
a stranger to me then. She looked very earnestly at me,
and I said, " Cau't you believe me ?" I said his own
sister was in the cellar, and I would call her up; she
came up, and she said he was a married man and had two
children. They sat down to a glass, and I sent my master
to them. I had no more conversation with them. Daven-
port was there, and I heard one of them tell him, that if
he would go with them and show them where Henry
was, they would pay his expenses. They all went
away.

Other evidence having been given,
The Learned JUDGE went over the whole of the evi-
dence, leaving three questions to tho jury—first, did the
defendant promise marriage ? secondly, at he time he
so promised did the plaintiff know he was a married
man ; and thirdly, had the plaintiff been induced to sur-
render her chastity in consequence of such promise? If
the jury found in favour of the plaintiff on these points,
they would say what damages she was entitled to. If
the jury should be of opinion that the plaintiff had sur-
rendered her chastity, knowing at the time the defen-
dant was married, she was not entitled to any damages;
and if the jury should also be of opinion that she had
disposed of the public-house in consequence of her hus-
band's affairs being embarrassed, and not owing to the
promise of marriage, she was not entitled to damages on
that account.
The jury consulted together for half an hour, and then
found for the plaintiff on all issues—Damages, 2002

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MARLBOROUGH-STREET.
Henry Davis, Shepherd-street, was summoned before
Mr. Hardwick, charged with having assaulted Ellen
Thomas.
The complainant said she took a gentleman into the
defendant's house a few evenings ago, and agreed to pay
a shilling for accommodation. Halt•a-crown was handed
to the defendant, who said he would not return any
change, as trade was just now very bad. She remon-
strated at this proceeding, and was immediately assaulted
by the defendant, who called his daughter and woman-
servant to assist him. Complainant was much ill-used,
and her clothes nearly tern off her back.
The defendant said the story told by the com-
plainant was totally untrue. The facts were these.
The complainant belonged to that class of loose
women known as the " modest parcel" prostitutes.
She walked the streets at night with a parcel, and
dressed so as to pass for a lady's maid, or milliner's ap-
prentice carrying home a purchase. In the pursuit of her
immoral calling, she was constantly followed by a rough-
looking fellow, with whom she lived, who acted the
part of her bully. As soon as she succeeded in bringing
-a well-dressed person into a house, this bully rushed in,
asserted that the complainant was his wife, and seldom
failed in extorting a sum by way of hush-money from
the dupe. Having witnessed two proceedings within a
few days, of the same kind, on the part of the complain-
ant and her bully, he resolved to baulk the third attempt,
and accordingly when the complainant and the gentle-
man entered his house he warned the gentleman of his
danger, and insisted on the complainant quitting the
place. He was obliged to use force to accomplish this
object.
The defendant called one of his daughters, who was
present all the time, to confirm his statement.
Mr. !Lummox said the scene was one of unmitigated
Iniquity. The defendant was getting his living by
prostitutes, and without the least sense of shame or de-
cency, was bringing up his daughters to the same dis-
gusting trade. There was no doubt that the complainant
had been severely assaulted, and ha should therefore in-
flict a fine of 40s. and costs.
SOUTHWARK.
William Spring, a horsekeeper at the Cross Keys Inn,
Wood-street, Cheapside, was brought before Mr. Bing-
ham, charged with stealing a small box containing a 101.
Bank of England note, six sovereigns, and a register-
ticket, the property of Jacob Hobart, a mariner.
The complainant stated that having recently arrived
at Liverpool from South America, he came up by the
train to Euston-square, and at an early hour that morn-
ing met the prisoner in an omnibus on the way into the
city. Complainant had a trunk in which was deposited
a small box containing the above amount, the hard-
earned wages of his voyage. Oa the road, in the omni-
bus, he had occasion to unlock the trunk and take a so-
vereign out of the small box, which the prisoner saw him
do, end then lock it. When they arrived at the Bank,
the prisoner offered to carry the trunk over London.
bridge to the North Kent Railway, complainant intend.
ing to go down by the train to visit his relations at
Gravesend. This was assented to, and when they got
to the railway station, complainant proceeded to
purchase a ticket, leaving the prisoner a short distance
off in care of his trunk, but whoa he, returned
he found that he had decamped, after baying broken
open the trunk, and taken away the small box
containing all the money . he had in the world.
Complainant immediatrly proclaimed his loos to an active
policeman, !lamed Sheeivau, cf Ate 1 I. divh ion,giviug as
accurate description as he could of the thief and the cir-
cumstances attending the robbery. The policeman lost
no time in making the requisite inquiries, and in the
company of the sailor proceeded to the Cross Keys Inn,
Wood-street, Cheapside, in the stables adjoining which
they found the prisoner at work, and he was identified
as the man who ,had committed the robbery. He (the
prisoner) at first assumed to be u stranger to the ewe.
plainant, and expressed his indignation that he should
be thought capable of perpetrating such an offence; but
the policeman, regardless of his protestations Of limo-
cenee, commenced a search in the stables for_ the stolen
Money, and in a very short space of time he succeeded
in discovering the sailor's small box, containing the

whole of his money, concealed under a quantity of straw
in ose Of tho mangers. The prisouer was then taken
int ) cus.;ody.
The prisoner, who said nothing in his defsmcz, was
committed to the Central Criminal Court iJr. trial.
The sailor, at the conclusion of the case, drew a sove-
reign out of the box found in the manger, and present-
ing it to the policeman, said that he was well entitled to
it, as but for his activity in the business he would-in all
probability never , have recovered any of the stolen
money.

FROM THE LONDON GAZETTE
OF FRIDAY.
CROWN-OFFICE, Atm. 8, 1850.
MEMBERS RETURNED TO SERVE IN THIS PRESENT PAR-
LIAMENT.
. _ _

Borough of Dungannon.—Tne Hon. Thomas Knox,
commonly called Viscount Northland, who had accepted
the otliee c f Steward of her Majesty's Chiltern ilundr. ds.
Borough of Lambeth—William Williams, Esq., in the.
room ut Charles P.:arson, Esq., who has accepted ine
of Steward of her Nlajes-y's Chiltern Hundreds.
WAR OFFICE, Amu. 9.
14th 11,?giment of Light Dragoons—H':gitnental Ser.
gsant. M.,jor Thouias Bennett to be Quartermaster, vice
Shearon, deceased, Aug. 9.
7th lti,gitn,ut ut FoA—Major Lacy Walter Yea to I e
L'eutenant-Colonel, by purcoase, vice Brevet-Colonel
Farquharson, who retires; Captain the Honourable St.
Vincent Hope Cochrane Troubridge to be Major, by
purchase, vice Yea; Lieutenant George Chrktain Wil-
son to be Captain, by purchase, vice Troubridge,
Aug. 9.
13th Foot—Captain Alexander Essex F. Holcombe to
be Major, by purchase, vice Meredith, who retires;
Lieutenant George Talbot to be Captain, by purchase,
vice Holcombe ; Ensign Hugh Maurice Jones to be
Lieutenant, by purcha,e, vice Talbot, Aug. 9.
36th Foot—Lieutenant Daniel Tom to be Captain, by
purchas.., vice Lecky, who retires; Ensign John Edmund
Harvey to be Lieutenant, by purchase, vice Tom, Aug. 9.
43d Foot—Lieutenant Henry Ayshford Sanford to be
Captain, by purchase, vice Brevet Major Ford, who
retires; Lieutenant Frederick Sadlier Bruere' to be Cap-
tain, by purchase, vice the Honourable T. G. Cholmon-
deley, who retires; Ensign the Honourable Henry Wil-
liam Crosbie Ward to be Lieutenant, by purchase, vice
Sandford; Ensign Arthur Edward Valette Ponsonby to
be Lieutenant, by purchase, vice Bruere; Ensign Henry
Jackson Parkin Booth, to be Lieutenant, by purchase,
vice Paul, who retires, Aug. 9.
51st Foot—Captain William Henry Hare to be Major,
without purchase, vice Rice, deceased; Lieutenant Au-
gustus Henry Irby to be Captain, vice Hare; Ensign
George Oliver Nunn to be Lieutenant. vice Irby, Aug. 9.
56th Foot Acting Assistant- Surgeon Joseph Lawson
to be Assistant-Surgeon; vice Cashel, deceased, Aug. 9.
64th Foot—Lieutenant Neville Hill Shute, to be Cap-
tain, by purchase, vice Jeffery, who retires; Ensign
Augustus Applewhaite, to be Lieutenant, by purchase,
vice Shute; Ensign Thomas Archibald Mackinnon,
from the 92i Foot, to be Ensign, vice,Applewhaite,
Aug. 9.
67th Foot—Ensign Charles Matthews has been per-
mitted to retire from the service by the sale of his cont..
mis,ion, Aug. 9.
70th Foot—Captain George Durnford to be Major,
without purchase, vice Edwards, deceased, May 26;
Lieutenant Joseph Edward Addison to be Captain, vice
Durnford; Ensign Augustus Penton to be Lieutenant,
vice Addison; Ensign Leopold Brown, from the 89th
Foot, to be Ensign, vice Gray, promoted, Aug. 9.
77th Foot—Lieutenant,George Harry Smith Willis, to
be Adju; ant, vice O'Brien, promoted, Aug. 9.
82d Foot—Ensign John Gordon to be Lieutenant, by
purchase', vice Hutton, who retires, Aug. 9.
Royal Canadian Rifle Regiment—Ensign Patrick
Hopkins to be Lieutenant, without purchase, vice Frend,
deceased, June 26.
Erratum in the Gazette of the 2d Aug., 1850.
Tho date of Capt.iin William Edward Mulcaster's
commission, as Brevet Major in the East Indies, should
be Aug. 2, 1850, and not Aug. 2, 1805, as therein stated.
Commission by the Lord Lieutenant 'of Southampton.
North Hants Yeomanry Cavalry—The Honourable
Robert Arthur Arundell, to be Cornet, vice Fleming,
resigned, July 25.
Commissions by the Lord Lieutenant of Denbighshire.
Denbighshire Yeomanry Cavalry—John Williams,
M.P., to be Cornet, vice Lloyd, promoted; William Row-
land to be Lieutenant, vice John Roberts, resigned; Wil-
liam Henry Roberts to be Cornet, vice Rowland, pro-
moted.

Commissions by the Lord-Lieutenant of Cheshire.
The Earl of Chester's Regiment of Yeomanry Ca-
valry—Cornet Henry Potts to be Lieutenant, vice Fen-
ton, whu retires; John Huristone Leche, Gent., to be
Cornet, vice Putts, promoted, Aug. 5.