The Sun.
London, England, 1850-11-05 00:00:00

THE SUN,

mony, and not more dignified than correct ! What
true-hearted friendship towards the departed states-
man does it discover ! It has done us good to read
it, and it reflects additional lustre on the mind and
character of the illustrious personage who pronounced
it. It is the finest wreath dropped on the bier of him
whose loss England and Europe so much lament.
Long may the Prince who uttered such noble sen'i-
ments at York be continued among us as a nation, to
be a blessing to our Queen, a counsellor and guide to
his illustrious children, and an ornament to the
empire. I remain, Sir, yours truly,
Bridport, Oct. 31. T. WALLACE.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.
Sin,—ln your report last Friday of the person who
threw himself off London-bridge, I am made to
appear as having been spending the evening at the
Grapes public-house, in company with the deceased
and his friend ; I beg to say I was merely crossing
the bridge on my return from Edmonton, and had
never before, to my knowledge, seen either Mr.
Woodland or his friend.
An insertion of the above will be esteemed a favour,
as the report makes me to appear as frequenting pub-
lic•houses, and which is totally contrary to my habits
and inclinations.--I am, Sir, &c.,
FREDERICK EDWARD JUSTINS.
59, Fenchurch-street, Nov. 2.

into the northern waters frustrated, have sailed away to
the southward. I must say the whalers are a splendid
set of fellows, and at times suff.n. much. They deserve
Brest ere,ht; they are r --iert for lin erne, gency.
" From vv;olc: I (;.ot u-td, i'corty Iva! bc.t
to explore Jours Sound, an.l wi.i ther
us Wellington Cnannel.
" I sincerely hope that out of the many expeditions
rent in search of Sir J. Franklin, something certain may
turn up. I feel, as far as lam concerned, quite sanguine
as to their being found, if not all, some alive. I fear
scurvy has been their greatest enemy.
" This will be our last chance for sending letters."

iore (2zit;_r be

themselves, in order to protect their liberties, and t 3
uphold their religion and their rights. Tae question

..„
that an exfAmple g^ 11')/-0

X 91:! L%u i(1

rgy of tb

C we'd., riot prk:,
off-r a suggestion to the clergy of the Church of
England, out prefer to address themselves to the laity
of the Church, and to the great body of the Protes•
tants of the empire. They reserve for a future time
the exposure of the claim thus arrogantly and unex,
p,cted intruded, and the results which it assuredly
involves. At present they singly and emphatically
would urge promptitude of action.
It is asserted that this foreign usurpation cannot be
reached by any existing law. We do not stop at pre-
sent to canvas this. It is said that this division of
England into Romish sees is innocuous, that it con-
tains nothing to offend or alarm us, that it is a par-
celling out of a spiritual realm in which conscience
rules, and where temporal sovereignty is silent. Oar
answer is, that it is the duty of Englishmen to make
that harmless which, if left alone, will be fatal, and to
drive back an usurpation which, if it stands un-
checked, will grow into practical and intolerable
tyranny.
Tne object professed by the See of Rome is this,
to provide for the Roman Catholics of England spiri-
tual supervision and episcopal control.
With their religion we do not intermeddle. With
their internal discipline we have no concern. We
neither wish nor care to interfere with it.

But when they parcel out our country—assign to
their bishops our dioceses—commit to their jurisdiction
our parishes, and allot to them as their subjects our
people, this is a matter vphich does concern us—which
invades our rights—which grasps the oldest and
plainest powers of the Crown of England.
The history of the Church of Rome abundantly
attests that claims, originally absurd from their ex-
travagance, become real from neglect, and that daring
usurpations: grow into prescriptive rights.
On all sides it is asked—" What is to be done ?"
The first step is to lodge a protest as public as the
claim—as sovereign as its author—as distinct as its
terms. _ _

A foreign state assumes to itself the right to divide
England into dioceses—and to assign them to its
bishops, and to commit to them our people. Nothing
can be more open than this act. Nothing more sove-
reign than the jurisdiction claimed.
Let the highest authority of the English State meet
this usurped authority of the Church of Rome. Let
the public document which records the claim be as
publicly repelled. Let the declaration of this foreign
potertate be met by a declaration from the lips of the
Queen of England.
The mode is plain. The duty urgent. The time
is at hand.
The Papal See has perpetrated this daring act dur-
ing the recess of Parliament. No British Minister,
alive to the integrity and independence of England,
would have borne this tamely for one hour.
But the functions of the Government are, it seems,

in abeyance ; not so the duties and the powers of the
English people. Let them rouse themselves, and
throughout the empire give but one indignant re-
sponse. Let them show the Romish See that the
spirit of England is untainted and unsubdued ; and
firm as when she repelled the threats and burst the
yoke of the Vatican, so firmly does she now defy the
usurpation of Rome, and rally her subjects in unyield-
ing allegiance round the supremacy of its Crown.
Let us demand this from Government. In three
months the Queen of England will convene and meet
the Parliament. Let her not then pass unnoticed an
attempt which, continually and successfully repelled
by our early English sovereigns, has for the last 300
years been unparalleled in British history.
Let the Queen speak the language worthy of the
spirit of her great ancestors. Let her declare from
her Throne that she has noticed this arrogant inva-
sion of her imperial rights, and marks it to her people
as an insolent usurpation. Let her declare that these
assumed offices have no rank within her dominions;
that she treats these intrusive prelates as if they had
no place within her realm ; that neither i❑ her Court,
nor in her Government, will she recognise their offices
or powers. Let her, in the language of the noble-
minded Elizabeth, England's first Protestant Queen,
declare, that she " thinks it foul scorn that foreign
prince, priest, or potentate should moil or meddle
within this realm of England."
Does our Government hesitate to use this language ?
It does. Does it shrink from its duty to its Sovereign
and to the people ? It does. It will not do this, nor
venture on it, unless,,it be compelled—compelled by
the pressure of a strong and united opinion. Let us
extort this from our representatives and from Govern-
ment. Let us demand this by meetings, by petitions,
by remonstrance.
If this royal protest be given, then may Great
Britain trust that her empire will be yet unbroken ;
and that this, like former acts of the Roman prelate,
will be vain—his emissaries without rank, precedence,
or recognition; that our Sovereign Queen Victoria,
bleesed by the continued protection of that King of
kirg', whose minister she is, and true to the princi-
ples to which she swore fealty at her coronation—
principles which placed, and which alone will pre-
serve, her family on the first of Protestant thrones,
may reign uninjured by the attempts of that malig-
nant power which seeks to establish its own rule by
trampling equally on the rights of sovereigns and on
the peace of nations.
This, then, is the practical issue ; and to this we
invite earnestly and urgently all who are true to the
Church, and who value the rights and liberties of Pro-
testant England.

By the Committee,
W. H. BELLAMY, Secretary.
National Club, Oat. 29, 1850.

STEAM COMMUNICATION WITH

THE WEST INDIES.

The following correspondence is extracted from the
Halifax Journal of the 14th inst.:—
Halifax, Sept. 13, 1850.
May it please your Lordship,—We the subscribers,
merchant shipowners, and others of Halifax (Nova
Scotia), beg leave to represent to your Lordship the
great inconvenience to which the inhabitants of this
province, together with the Canadas, New Bruns-
wick, and Prince Edward Island, are subjected by
the change in the route of the West India steamers,
recently sanctioned by her Majesty's Government,
whereby the communication between them and the
West India Islands via Bermuda, has been entirely
cut off, and no authorised channel provided for trans-
mitting their correspondence except the protracted,
circuitous, and expensive route via the United King-
dom, pointing out in the accompanying notice, issued
by the Postmaster-General, which will at once make
your Lordship aware of the injurious consequences of
this change to the commercial interests of the British
North American provinces.
Believing that it could not have been the intention
of her Majesty's Government, in sanctioning the pre-
sent arrangement, to leave the inhabitants of these
provinces thus virtually dependent on the uncertain•
departure of merchant vessels for the transmission of
their letters, we beg leave to suggest the establish-
ment of a mail communication by steamers between
Jamaica and St. Thomas, and Bermuda, to connect
with that now existing between Bermuda and this
port, in order that the postal facilities heretofore en-
joyed may be restored.
Your Lordship's knowledge of the public interest
involved in the re-establishment of this communica-
tion, as well as the desire you have manifested to
promote the commercial interests and develope the
varied natural resources of the different possessions of
her Majesty within your command assure us that your
Lordship's influence will not be wanting, and we
therefore most humbly and earnestly beg that your
Lordship will be pleased to urge upon the Lords of
the Admiralty the adoption of the suggestions now
respectfully submitted, or that some other arrange-
ments equally or more convenient may be made to
secure an object of so much importance as a regular
and direct transit of the correspondence between these
colonies and the British West Indies.
We have the honour to be,
Your Lordship's most obedient, humble servants,
Signed by all the pri Vncipal
Admiral, merchants of Halifax.
To Lord Dandonald, ice-
Commander-in-Chief.

Wellesley, at Halifax, Sept. 23, 1850
Gentlemen,—Having read with interest and atten-
tion your very convincing representation of the con-
sequences to the commercial interest of these pro-
vinces as connected with their trade to the West
Indies by the withdrawal of the Royal mail steam-
packets from Bermuda, it will afford me great plea-
sure to convey to the Lords Commissioners of the
Admiralty your sentiments, in confirmation of the
representations which I have already transmitted
from the House of Assembly at Bermuda, and of the
opinion I bad previously given of the injurious re-
sults of that measure. I beg to assure you that I
sensibly feel the compliment you are pleased to pay
me by expressions of your opinion that Idesire to pro-
mote the commercial interests and develope the na-
tural maritime resources of the different possessions
of her 111ajesty within the sphere of my command,
and that it will especially gratify me to be the means
of contributing in any way to the advancement of the
welfare of this most interesting province.
I have the honour to be, Gentlemen,
Your obedient servant,
DUNDONALD7 Vice-Admiral,
Commander-in-Chief.
Messrs. W. Pryor and Sons, and the Merchants,
Shipowners, &c., Halifax.

The receipts of the Government Railway in Bel-
gium in the month of September last, were 1,619,8961. ; of
these 919,427 f. were for passengers, 508,917 f. from heavy
goods, the rest from parcels, carriages, cattle, &c. In August,
the total receipts were only 1,533,902 f., being an augmenta-
tion in favour of September of nearly 86,000 fr.

LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, NOVEMBER 5, 1850.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. 4.
(S: titikr; in E::1;:co, ',rod JERvis, 1

>. ~ ~. 3t. ;;.e;. ~ .;i.,~

••• • :)- • •
lrge states In the et,urit.) S ,11.cd, and tau

This was

T ~

;~

spi;

7,71-Im,

turnEd upon whether Thcdnas Bainbripze, the t-stator,
was in his right mind, and capable or transacting busi-
ness at the time of the execution of a certain testamen-

tary paper; but in addition to this it was charged that
if the testator was in his right mind, then that his signa-
ture had been obtaited by fraud. The case came on for
trial before Lord Campbell at the last assiz's for Staf-
ford, where a verdict was returned for the lessee of the
plaintiff.
Mr. KEATING, Q.C., now moved the Court for a rule
calling upon the lessor of the plaintiff to show cause
why the verdict found should not be set aside and a
new trial had, upon the ground that the jury had de-
cided against the weight of evidence. The Learned
Counsel stated that the matter arose upon an issue
directed by the Court of Chancery, and that the pro-
perty involved was of the value of 3,0001. a year. The
principal question was, whether a will made in the year
1818 was executed by the testator whilst he was in a
proper state of mind
.to do so. The testator came into
possession of the property in question upon the decease
of his father in 1798. During his father's lifetime it ap-
peared that he had formed an improper intimacy with
the housekeeper, which resulted in the birth of a daugh-
ter, who was called Elizabeth Bainbrigge, and of
whom he became so fond that he cut off the entail of his
estate and divised the property to her. In 1808 Eliza-
beth Brainbrigge was eighteen years of age, and about
that time she became improperly connected with a
coachman, and had a daughter, named Mary Ann. This
conduct enraged the testator, and in consequence ho al-
tered the disposition of his property, giving to Eliza-
beth only a small provision, and to her daughter Mary
Ann the bulk of the property for life, and he kept her in
his house. Notwithstanding what had happened, Eliza-
beth became again pregnant, the person connected with
her this time being a young man named Arnold, the
son of a tenant on the estate, and who afterwards mar-
ried her. On the part of the plaintiff a great deal of
evidence was produced at the trial, to show that the tes-
tator was not in a sound state of mind ; and, among
other things, it was-sworn that he had been seen with a
slaughtered bullock on the top of his carriage, and
that he had made
.es pig drunk by putting gin into its
victuals, and said it was not fit to eat when killed. for it
had the gout. He had also run a horse at the Derby
races, which horse was unfit in every respect for run-
ning, and was ridden by a man not dressed as a jockey,
but who et e; in his shirt-sleeves. This trans-
action, however, it was contended, was not
very material to the issue, inasmuch as it occurred as
early .as 1841. and before the execution of the codicil,
which, according to the plaintiff's case, was properly
executed. The testator was also stated to have fallen
out with the jockey who rode the horse, and refused to
pay him, upon the ground that he had not complied with
his directions, those directions being " to get first and
keep first." The testator, beyond all doubt, was a most
eccentric man, and behaved in a most extraordinary
manner, but not in such a way, it was submitted, as to
warrant the conclusion that he was mad. He was a most
violent temper, and upon all occasions swore fearfully,
and he drank to an enormous extent. His dress also
was remarkable, and had the eff ct of attracting the at-
tention of boys in the street, one part of it being a bat
crushed and broken, out of all shape, and his feet dif-
fered from each other in the style in which they were
clad, one of them being covered with a Wellington and
the other by a shoe and a gaiter. One witness stated
that he had seen the testator in his carriage, which
as in a deplorable state, with harness to match ;
end the driver was suited to the equipage, he having
on a smock Sreck and a het bound wide a hay band.
Another fact stated by the Solicitor-General at the
trial, in support of the testator's insanity, was,
that be had sentenced horses to transportation,
and undoubtedly he had shut one up in the stable, but
this occurred before the execution of the codicil of 1815.
An auctioneer was called, who stated that he had dined
with the testator in 1817, when he was suffering an at-
tack of the gout. On this occasion the testator ordered
a labouring man, who was in attendance upon him, to
bring in a bottle of porter, which he (the testator) en-
deavoured to open, when the auctioneer, who was behind
him, made a noise with his mouth, and the testator then
told his servant to take the bottle away and open it, for
the devil was in it, The servant, by some mistake,
dropped the bottle on hi; master's gouty toe, who ex-
claimed, " You have killed your master, and I subroena
all persons here to go to Stafford against you." Subse-
quently to this the servant dropped the saltcellar, and
then the testator flung a knife at him. On one occasion
during a fit of the gout, he had asked a witness if he
had ever seen the devil, and upon receiving the reply
" Never," ho said he had been with him all night; but it
was submitted by the Learned Council that evidently
all that was meant was that he had been suffering pa-
roxysms of the gout, and his allusion was not to the
devil, as that personage was originally spoken of,
but of the devil which had been tormenting
him. Ho thought this was nearly all the evi-
dence brought to prove insanity, with the exception Of
this, that the little girl, Mary Ann, being at the time
about eight or ten years of age, was sworn to have used
the most disgusting language, to have acted with most
precocious depravity, and to have conducted herself in
contempt of all the rules of decency. The way in which
this was used was this. It was submitted to the jury
that the testator could not have been sane, or he would
not have permitted such conduct, but there was great
difference between witnesses upon a material point bear-
ing upon this, for although some of them said that the
disgusting conduct was exhibited in the presence of the
.estator, others stated that the child was exceedingly
careful to keep her bad actions from his cognizance.
There was no doubt that the testator was eccentric, but
how did it happen if he was mad, that his relative took
no steps to protect the property, for here was an estate
of 3,0001. a year, and it was not often that a man pos-
sessed of an estate of that value went mad without some
of his relations interfering. In opposition to this case,
the counsel for the defendant (Mr. Keating) got up to
speak at nine o'clock at night, the plaintiff's case having
occupied the whole day, and requested that the trial
should be postponed until the next day. His Lordship,
who was expected on the following day (Saturday), to
.it at Shrewsbury, was compelled by his public duty to
request the Learned Counsel to proceed, and the result
was, that the Learned Counsel was obliged to address the
jury at that late hour, and did not conclude his speech
until nearly one in the morning.
Mr. Justice Mesuaz—Probably you were the only
person in court who was not fatigued.--(Laughter.)
Mr. KEATING could answer for the jury being fatigued.
When he commenced a fresh paragraph in his speech,
he saw despair marked upon their countenances—
(Laughter)—but he would do them the justice to say
'hat they did everything which men could do to keep
awake. Their Lordships, however, knew that human
endurance had its limits, and could fancy in what sort of
a sta'e the jury were to comprehend such a dry case as
he had to lay before them. On the next day the evi-
dence of the defendant was produced. In the course of
,he case, a great number of documents were produced,
and, among other things, the correspondence of the tes-
tator, and that showed that his mind was perfectly sound.
There were also books, in which he had made entries;
4n d although the Solicitor-General was allowed to take
those books home to his lodgings, and examine them, yet
he did not venture to comment upon a single entry in
them; a strong proof that everything there was perfectly
correct. A great number of witnesses—tenants upon the
estate, with whom the testator had entered into con-
tracts, and tax-gatherers arid collectors to whom he had
paid money, were produced, and they were all of
opinion that he was sane. There was also a deposi-
tion by Dr. Greaves, a brother magistrate of the testa-
tor, who believed him sane, but he would not speak much
as to the time shortly before the testator's death, in
1818, not having visited him, in consequence of his
having been offended with Dr. Greaves for not having
punished a servant of the testator who had misbehaved
himself with sufficient severity. The trial "dragged its
slow length along" until Tuesday morning at half-past
two o'clock, when it was finished, and ho put it to their
Lordships to say, whether they thought that under
these circumstances the case had been properly tried, and
whether in a cause in which such a large sum, and such
serious charges were involved, they would not grant a
new trial. One matter which had great weight with the
jury, was a deposition of a person who attended upon the
testator in his last illness, which deposition bad been
made by her just previous to and in anticipation of death,
and she stated that at the time of the execution of one
of the testamentary papers, the testator was incapable
of knowing what he was about. There was one circum-
stance, however, about this deposition, and that was,
that it was made thirty years after the event took place,
when the memory could not be so perfect, and that the
statements made were contradicted by numerous wit-
nesses. Then there was a statement by General Bain-
brigge of what he thought took place upon the
reading of the will, which, giving that gallant
officer every credit for sincerity, was manifestly
incorrect. The gallant general said that at the reading
of the will after the funeral, Mr. Blair endeavoured to
keep him as much in front as possible, so that he should
not see the document, but that being too old a soldier
to be taken in that way ho had gone behind and looked
over Mr. Blair's shoulder. That Mr. Blair then turned
his shoulder so as to keep the will out of sight; but that
he airain shifted his position, and then had a full view of
the will, and saw that there were several blanks and
pencil marks in it. He said, also, that he then beckoned
to his cousin, who came and saw it in that state also.
But what was unaccountable was, that neither the Ge-
neral nor his cousin ever said a word about it; that the
former went abroad, and the latter died; and that it was
not till ten years afterwards, upon his return from
India, that he bethought himself of it, and then upon
going to Doctors' Commons to see the will, ho fancied it
had been altered, and, as ho expressed it, that it looked
as if some loaves had been substituted. But if
their Lordships would grant the rule the will should be
produced for their inspection; and it should be remem-
bered that Me Rushton, who was then clerk to Mr.
Blair, but was now a solicitor practising for himself,
swore that he copied the will for execution from Mr.
Blair's draq, and that it was now in precisely the same
state as when ho copied it. The omission of Mrs. James's
name in the last will was much commented on, but after
all it was a small circumstance to weigh against positive
evidence. It appeared that old Arnold died in the latter
end of 1817, ant as the enmity was between him and the
testator, after Arnold's death Mr. Bainbrigge sent for
the son, and said to to him, "Though I have drawn the
sword I won't say that I shall never sheath it;" and
again, " I may do something for your family, but you
shall never have any of my money." Now. this was
sworn to, not only by Arnold, but by three disinterested
witnesses, who were present at these interviews and
heard the testator make use of these and the like ex-
pressions.
Mr. Justice MAIILE—Did the Chief Justice intimate
any opinion as to the state of the testator's mind?

Mr. KEATING —No, my Lord.
tho jury ss n whole, and did not
n.t; iv.

3 pin:utliT

left the case to
the points nepa-

!Av.., jury

no bk,cawie ihere WAS a

Mr. KEATING—Lord Campbell did not give any
opinion on the testator's sanity, but he dwelt much on
his debility and inclmpetency from illness. Ile strongly
advised them ti look at the caso as a whole.
Mr. Justice MAULE—If the Chief Justice bad left
the issue in separate questions to the jury he must have
given them the option of answering them. They might
not have been unanimous as to either of the questions,
and yet be unanimous in finding for the plaintitE
Mr. KEATING was proceeding, when, after a brief
deliberation,

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said—You may take a rule.
Rule nisi granted.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, .Nov. 4.

(Sittings_ in Middlesex at Nisi Prius, in Michaelmas
Tenn, before Mr. Baron PLATT and Common Juries.)
The first sittings at Nisi Prius for the present term
were commenced this morning.
The cause-list contains one case less than at the cor-
responding sittings of last year.

SEDUCTION.—FOSTER V. HOWARD.
This was an action to recover damages for the loss of
services sustained by the plaintiff by means of the seduc-
tion of his daughter by the defendant.
Mr. it. Chambers, with Mr. Lush, appeared for the
plaintiff ; and Mr. Sergeant Wilkins was retained for
the defendant.
It appeared from the evidence of Mary Ann Foster,
the plaintiff's daughter, that she is now übout seventeen
years of age, and is one of eight children. Her father
is a brickmaker at Barnet, and the defendant, also oc-
cupied in the same business, lives at Hadleigh. They
were both en intimate terms, and the de'endant was in
the habit of visiting the plaintiff at his house. The de-
fendant, who is about forty years of age, is a married
man, and the father of four children. The witness had
known him about three months, when he went to her
father's house in the course of last year, and obtained
permission from her parents for her to go and live at
his house and keep his wife company. Ou the last day
of September, 184, the defendant fetched her away in a
gig in the evening. Passing through- the village of Bar-
net, he asked her to go into the Salishury Arms, to take a
glass of wine, which she refused to do. They then drove
on, and it appeared that the defendant purposely went
out of the proper road It was then quite dark, and
after they had proceeeded some way he took some im-
proper liberties with her. The girl threatened to leave
him and return home. He then desisted, and drove her
straight to his house. She was accommodated with a
sleeping-room immediately under the apartment occue
pied by the defendant and his wife. About fourteen days
after she had been in the house the defendant one morn-
ing entered her room between five and six o'clock, for
the purpose of removing some gig cushions. She was
then asleep, and when she awoke he was sitting on the
aide of the bed. He asked her to accompany bim to
London, and go to the play, but she declined to do so.
He then began to wrestle with her, and she threatened
to tell Mrs. Howard, and got out of bed, and went to-
wards the door, against which the defendant pla-e3
himself. After some parley the defendant threw her on
the bed and effected his purpose. The witness said
nothing of this treatment to any one, and in about ten
days atter the defendant again entered the room about
the same time in the morning, and repeated the
act. On that occasion he asked her to accompany
him to London, and offered to purchase her a gold
watch sad a satin dress, all of which she declined. She
soon after returned to her father's house, and the de-
fendant came there and requested her to go back, but
she declined to do so, and her mother said she need not
do so if she did not like to go. She said nothing of the
treatment she had received to any one, until it was dis-
covered that she was in the family-way, that was in the
month of March, and on the 12th of July following she
gave birth to a child. It appeared from her statement
that her father, the plaintiff, was so deeply incensed at
her conduct that he had not spoken to her.
The girl was closely cross-examined by Mr. Sergeant
WILKINS, but nothing material was elicited except the
clear est ►blishment of the fact that she had not called out
or made any effective resistance when the defendant at-
tempted to seduce her on the first occasion, or when he
repeated the act ten days thereafter. The window of
the apartment looked into the stable-yard, where the
defendant's man was at work, and Mrs. Howard was in
the room immediately above them. Nor had she made
any statement of the treatment she received to a single
person. She had an opportunity of returning to her
father's house by the coach which passed daily, but did
not avail herself of it. She denied that she had any im-
proper connexion with any other men, and in answer to
a question from the Learned Sergeant, expressly denied
that she had ever kissed the defendant while at break-
fast, or given his little son a piece of money to procare
his silence.
The plaintiff's foreman was called to prove a conver-
sation he had overheard between the defendant and the
plaintiff and his wife. Mr. Foster said, " Oh, Howard!
you have ruined my daughter." To which the latter
made no reply. When the plaintiff entered the room, he
said, You scoundrel, how could you treat me thus?
You have ruined my daughter." The defendant replied,
"Itis a bad job. Let us settle it as well as we can. I
would not that it had happened for a thousand pounds.
What will my poor wife say ?" The plaintiff rejoined,
" What will my poor daughter say ?"
Mr. M'Pherson, the landlord of the Woodman, at
Barnet, as a friend of the family, had seen the defendant,
and deposed to a conversation in which the latter ex-
pressed his willingness to pay all the expenses, and make
a weekly allowance for the support of the child.
The surgeon, who had attended the girl in her confine-
ment, stated the cost at from 8/. to 9/.
These witnesses all concurred in stating that the
plaintiff was very strict in the government of his family,
and that his daughter, prior to the occurrence referred.
to, was a prudent, modest, well conducted young woman
The seduction had deeply affected the father, who ap-
peared much depressed and seemingly heart-broken.
This was the case for the plaintiff.

Mr. Sergeant WILKINS 1:10w addressed the jury for
the defendant, in an eloquent speech, and contended
that all the circumstances of the case went to show that
the plaintiff's daughter must have been a consenting
party to the intercourse; for she not only had not
screamed out, or raised any alarm in the house, which
she might have done upon being awakened by the
liberties the defendant was taking with her on the first
occasion. The defendant's wife was in the house; the
ether members of his family as well too as the servants
of the house, all of whom she had had it in her power
to arouse by a scream. But she had not screamed.
Might it not, then, be inferred that she had been a con-
senting party to the intercourse ? Again, how was it
that ahe had remained in the house for some time after-
wards, and without mentioning what had occurred ?
Then, how had it harpened that after her return home
she had been altogether silent upon the subject, until
when, at the expiration of several months, the alteration
of her personal appearance had opened the eyes of her
parents to the fact? In what way was this silence to
be accounted for, otherwise than that she had
herself been a consenting party ? Had that
not been so, he was prepared to contend that
the connexion never could have been effected
so long as the girl had retained her strength for resist-
ance. And this position he took up upon the authority
of all the lending German and French surgical sages,
who had hid it down as a well ascertained fact that no
woman could he ravished whilst her powers of resist-
ance listed. Four months had elapsed between the
perfection of the intercourse and the girl mentioning
the aff.sir t 3 anybody, and even then there was no evi-
dence to show that she would have said anything upon
the subject had not her external appearance led to an.
inquiry. So much for the girl herself. And now he
came to the question as to what was the amount of
loss of service which the father had sustained. He
submitted that no loss had been proved. Her character,
her chastity, her reputation, his Learned Friend had
said, were gone, were lost, and he had added that she
was pure, spotless, and innocent. Was she? No. Then
should he treat this as a simple case of bastardy where
the reputed father had offered, rather than the matter
should come within the kno eledge of his wife and
family, to pay all the expenses and to make the girl a
weekly allowance. The acceptance of that offer, he was
of opinion, would have been a wise course. In con-
clusion, the Learned Sergeant submitted that whilst
there had been no corroboration of the girl's statement,
so there hal been no evidence of any loss of her
services having been sustained by the plaintiff, her
father.
Mr. Baron PLATT, in leaving the case to the jury,
said that this was one of the moat painful class of cases
which came within the notice of a court of justice. It
was that where a man who, being a husband and the
father of a family, had taken to his house the youthful
daughter of a friend and haul seduced her. But there were
features in the case which led to the conclusion that she
had not behaved in so satisfactory a manticr as she
ought to have done. She had not only not given any
alarm at the time of the commission of the offence, but
she hed even submitted to a second act of sexual inter-
course, and allowed some months to elapse without have
ing made any complaint, or giving her own family an
intimation of the treatment she had received at the hands
of one of that family's friends. The jury would look at
all the circumstances of the case, and say what amount
of damages the plaintiff was entitled to.
The jury retired for a quarter of an hour, and then
returned with a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, 2001.

SHIP NEWS.
QUARANTINE NOTICE.
Lisbon, Oct. 25.

The Board of Health of the 25th inst. declare that in
consequence of the inefficiency of the Lazaretto at Oporto,
vessels from infected or suspected ports will not be ad-
mitted in the River Djuro, but must proceed to Lisbon
or Vigo to perform the necessary quarantine.

LIVERPOOL, Nov. 4,—The tiovernor Varty, hence for
Buena Ventura, put into Monte Video the 6th of Aug.
leaky, 86c., having encountered a severe gale on the 29th
of July. The Alexander, ,Wise, the Tani O'Shanter,
and the Seraph, hence, have arrived et Montreal. The
Mary Sharp and the Mountaineer, hence, have arrived
at Quebec.
Wind W., strong, cloudy.