The Sun.
London, England, 1850-01-29 00:00:00

DRINKING !
(From .Eliza Cook's Journal.)
Whether it be attributable to our chilly northern
skies and foggy atmosphere, or to the strong native
appetite for stimulus which, from time imme-
morial, has characterised our race, certain it is that
the people of Great Britain are a very drinking
people, consuming enormous quantities of ardent
spirits, wine, and fermented liquor of various sorts.
They seem to have a hot spark in their throats, which
stands in need of perpetual cooling, or to be troubled
with a thirst which is perennial, or almost un-
quenchable.
The drinking of intoxicating liquors enters into
and pervades our entire social system. We drink
at births, marriages, and deaths. We drink in celebra-
tion of our successes, and we drink to console ourselves
for our defeats. We drink to enhance joy, and we
drink to drown sorrow. When friends meet they
drink, and when they part they drink. Men drink
because they are together, and they drink because
they are alone. Political rejoicings, social meetings,
party gatherings, are all crowned with drink. Com-
mercial men treat their customers to drink, working
men gain.their " footings" by drink, Members of Par-
liament secure many " most sweet voices" by drink.
In winter we drink to keep out the cold, in wet wea-
ther to keep out the wet, in summer to keep out the
beat. We drink to make our food digest ; we drink
to " qualify" this, that, and the other dish ; we drink to
keep away the cholera—in short, one would almost
imagine, from the various uses of the kind to which
drink is put, that it was the immortal Catholicon,
the Grand Universal remedy. But excuses to drink
in every way and on every occasion, are always ready
at hand ; and when it is employed in such a variety
of ways, and on such a multitude of occasions, it
needs scarcely be matter for wonder that the quantity
consumed in this country should be so very prodigious.
We consume yearly about thirty million gallons
of ardent spirits alone. The average annual con-
sumption is above two quarts for every man, woman,
and child in England and Ireland, and about two
gallons a piece for every man, woman, and child in
Scotland. In the latter country whiskey is cheap,
the climate raw, and the people " drouthy ;" and
hence the enormous consumption of the natives—
each Scot consuming as much ardent spirits yearly as
every two Irishmen or every three Englishmen. The
favourite potation of the latter is bear and stout, of
which the consumption in England quite as much
exceeds that of Scotland as the latter ex-
ceeds the former in its consumption of ardent
spirits. About twenty-five million bushels of grain
—equivalent to some fifteen hundred million pounds
of bread (were the grain converted into bread instead
of malt)—are consumed annually in England in the
manufacture of beer, porter, ale, stout, and such like
drinks.

Englishmen are generally quick at counting the
cost of things ; and a word may be said on this head.
A little "Rack Book" was recently published, show-
ing the cost of the Government at something like
sixty millions a year—truly a formidable sum—the
details of which have excited no•small amount of in-
dignation. But shat will the people say when they
are told, as we now tell thew, that not less than forty
mi!liona a ~'ear are voluntarily spent by them upon
drink ? We do not def-md the former excessive ex-
penditure, nor can we say anything in defence of the
latter. But we must remember, that for the expen-
diture on the purposes of Government, we have at
least an admirable post-nice, an army and navy,
cAirts of law, diplomatic and consulafestablishments,
penitentiaries, Q,-.!een, Lords, and Commons, and a
great deal more. And what have we in return for
our other expenditure ? Oily a prodigious quantity
Of poison, producing poverty, demoralization, and
crime ! A searching reform in our public financial
affairs may he very urgently called for ; but we think
it will be admitted, that •there is even a still more
imperative necessity for an •equally searching ref)rm
in one personal and social expenditure, in respect of
drink.

From the year 1801 to the year 1846, the people
of the United Kingdom spent nearly fifteen hundred
miilions of pounds sterling in intoxicating drinks;
about 800,000,0001. on spirits, 176,445,0001. on
wine 7, and 595,904,0001. on malt; or equal to about
double the amount of the present national debt ! The
duty alone which was paid on the above articles
during thes.e forty -fire years, amounted to
644,968,553/., or equivalent to about five-sixths of
the national debt.

Our army costs us about ten millions a year, which
we think a great deal too much ; but then we volun-
tarily spend about fifteen millions a year on whiskey,
gin, brandy, and their villanous- compounds! Our
navy costs about eight millions ; but our beer, ale,
and porter, cost from thirteen to fourteen rnilliona!
We pay less than a million for our admirable post-
office, and more than four millions for our wines!
The taxes we • pay for our courts of law and justice
amount to a little above a million : the taxes we pay
on our tobacco and snuff are above four millions !
Financial rtf ?rim in surely needed, hut at home and
in the public-hou-:.e as much as anywhere else. Under
two millions a year are., spent on Life and Health As-
surance; and lbout :1)i-ty millions on drink of all
kinds. Are not these Itets most discreditable to us as
ntion ?

It i 3 Tint, 110 WO,Vf 7, InfYir.!ly because of the
monoy which is worse tl,an wasted on all this
drink, that these facts are to be lamented;
but, because of the many broken hearts, ruined
characters, blasted homes, diseased frameS,
crowded prison!, vice, infamy, and moral ruin, which
hive everywhere followed in 1-ic track of drink. The
money consideration is the very least—though that is
not to ha overlef.:ked ; for the money saved from drink
might have made hundreds of thousands of families
happy end independent, but it is the moral wreckage—
the brutish degradwinn—the frightful social suffering,
that.have been produced by our drinking practices
that form the most prominent considerations in our

Let us bear in mind, toe, that by far the largest
portion of the above expenditure bus bean on the part
of those who could the least afford it, namely the
working classes ; for at least two-thirds of all the
drink manufactured in the United Kingdom is for
their use—and we cannot fail to see in the facts we
have stated still deeper cause f3r lamentation and
dismay. What hope is there for a people who aban-
don themselves to so extensive a use of intoxicating
drink ? Such is the question that at once presents
itself in appalling force to the philanthropic mind!
Drink destroys a man's self-mspect, eats away his
moral character, makes him powerless to resist the
insidious approaches of vice, saps the foundation of
his spiritual being, ruins his health, brutallizes his
intellect, impoverishes hiS family, desolates his home,
and spreads a moral pestilence throughout society.
Tne money now spent by us in drinking, might
found and maintain schools in every parish, and a
college in every county ; and it would leave a sur-
plus sufficient to provide public libraries for the free
use of the whole population
Or, employed in another direction, it would en-
able most working men to invest themselves with the
electoral franchise, to put money in the savings'
bank, or in the assurance office, and to provide for
the comfortable maintenance now, as well as in time
coming, of themselves, their wives, and their fa•
miles.

The time which many men spend in drinking
would, if better employed, enable them to master the
entire realm of knowledge, to read every known
tongue, to procure and study every excessible book.
The abolition of the custom of drinking intoxicating
drinks would empty our gaols and penitentiaries,
diminish our poor-rates, fill our churches, schools,
and mechanics' institutes, and effect a moral and re-
ligious improvement of the grandest character. It
would make homes happier, the people wiser, and
the world better in all respects.
Although drunkenness is gradually diminishing in
this country with the progress of intelligence (as
shown in a recent article in this journal), still a
great deal remains to be done in this wide field
of improvement. There is no field of philanthropic
labour we know of, that will yield more abundant
fruits than this. There is room enough for al
activities here. Those who would take part inl
this great
movement must aim at the habit, and
begin at the beginning.
"The diminutive chain of
habit," says 1):. Johnson,
o is scarcely heavy enoughle
to be felt, till it is too strong to be broken."
must begin with children. Abstinence from drink
ought to be taught in all our schools, in all our
churches, by all our teachers. It ought to be taught
in all our homes, by fathers and mothers. Arld
example will teach it more forcibly then than any
words can do.
When the habit is formed, comparatively little can
be done. Yet, here too is room for activity, and hope
of success. The teetotallers have shown what is to
be accomplished by well-directed efforts, in the host
of men whom they have made and kept sober, and in
the thousands of drunkards they have reclaimed. The
Teetotal missionary is one of the most beneficial
workers of the age ; and let no one discourage his
noble efforts to reclaim the erring and the lost. There
is really in politics no more vital qucstion than this ;
in physiology, none more important as regprds our
sanitary well-being ; in morale and religion, none
more urgent, as concerns the real virtue and happi-
ness of our race. Therefore, all who earnestly deFire
a purer morality, a more spiritual religion, and a
more happy social state, must fervently wish the tem-
perance labourers " God-speed.

PROTECTIONIST DEFEAV.—At a county meeting
held et Brecon on Sstarday, summoned by a protection-
ist reqnisit'on, a free-trac3 amendment, proposed by
John Lloyd, Esq., of Dir.as, rind seconied by J. Parry
De Winton, E:q., wal carried amPst. t -niendons cheer-
ing. A peition to PArliament WftS also adopted, em-
bodying the spirit of the amendraeat. At a protec-
tionist meeting also, at Stokesl4, in York:::hire, on the
same day, there was a very considerable majority in
faYOl4 Of the free-trade amendments.

PROTECTIONIST MEETING AT
BEDFORD, AND SIGNAL DEFEAT OF THE
BENNETT'S PARTY.
(FROM A CORRESPONDENT.)
In pursuance of a requisition to the High Sheriff of
the county, a public meeting was held at the Shire-hall,
on Saturday, the 26th January instant, for the purpose
of taking into consideration the state of the agricultural,
and other interests, and to adopt such measures as the
meeting shall deem best for procuring equal and just
protection to everyclass of the community against foreign
competition.
The meeting was appointed to take place at one
o'clock P.N. Soon after the doors were thrown open a
tremendous rash took place amongst the multitude which
should be in first. In a very short time the hall was
completely crammed, which is estimated to hold near a
thousand people, and some hundreds were in the square
that could not gain admittance. In the morning the
town was parade) with placards, bearing the motto,
" No bread-tax," with a loaf of bread on the top, and
" All go to the meeting."
Silence being obtained,:the High Sheriff stated that the
farmers should be heard first, and that no one should be
allowed to address the meeting who was not an occupier
of land or a freeholder in the county, and that no amend-
ment should be proposed unless he assented to it.
There were present on the platform the High Sheriff,
the mayor of the borough (a Free-trader), the Hon. G.
R. Trevor, M.P., Mr. Lindsey, and Col. Gilpin, three
puny landlords, about half-a-dozen Methodist local
preachers, the tenantry of Mr. Trevor, and some valiant
Free-traders, who were fully prepared to again
show the Protectionists the error of their ways,
and teach them a lesson that the country would
never more submit to have their food taxed for
the aggrandisement of a few at the cost
and privations of the many. A great land monopolist, oc-
cupying eight firms, which f)rmerly supported eight
:amilies, named Pain, of Folmersham, now came forward
to address the meeting; he had not done so more than
three minutes when it was all uproar, and numberless
voices calling upon the sheriff to adjourn in the square,
which he positively refused.; Many mtempts the six aker
made to be heard but it was all in vain, voices con-
tinually shouting " Come outside," "Peel and Cobden for
ever." The sheriff, the mayor, Free-traders, and others
on tte platform, used every endeavour for parties to be
heard, but it was all of no avail; consequently, as the sheriff
would not comply with the request so repeatedly made,
numbers seemed fle4;ermined that no one should be heard
within. The uproar and confusion still continued, when
the sheriff deemed it the wisest course to dissolve the
meeting, or in all probability a general fight would soon
have taken place, and no one can tell what would have
been the consequence,. Shortly after the sheriff left, and
was followed into the street with dismal groans. The
Free.traders mustered a strong force, and there can be no
doubt that if all parties could have bsen heard the pro-
position of the Protectionists would have been lest by an
overwhelming majority.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF QUEEA'S BEACH, Jun. 28

THE CASE OF MR. WILLIAM HENRY BARBER.
This case, which came on fir argumert at the sitting
of the Court yesterday, seemed to have alracted a
good deal of attention, as the court was filled with bar-
risters, solicitors, and interested strangerp. Some ladies
were present in one of the galleries. Mr. Barber sat by
the side of his counsel, Mr. Sergeant Within?.
Sir F:ederieli Thesiger and Mr. 11)1i11 appeared for
the Law Society.

The case cane before the Court oa an application by
Mr. Sergeant Wilkins to the Court, to direct the Master
to give Mr. Barber his cert ficate. The Master was
directad to report upon the facts, and accordingly this
morning he presented a report, which occupiel an hour
and a halt in reading, and which contained a vast num-
ber of affidavins bearing upon the facts of the case.
The report dealt with a number of cases in which
Mr. Barber had been professionally engaged. So num-
berless, indeed, were the instances reported upon, that it
was almost impossible to follow thew. The result of
the report, and of the affidavits put forth in behalf of the
Law Society, which opposed the admission of Mr. Barber
to practice, resulted in the opinion that Mr. Barber knew
!Pletcher was acting fiaudua ntly in the will for-
geries, and that he ought not to be admitted to prac-
tise as an attorney. Several minor charges were brought
against him.
The case, by the direction of the Court, reiticed itself
into a motion for a rule nisi.
Mr. Sergeant WILKINS was crowed to address the
Court first. He said, this case was a most important
one to his unfortunate and deepkaanjured client, and
fraught with the most important couseque aces to the
community. It seemed to him fiat the Incorporated
Law Society were ignorant of what was meant by the
term " parden"—ineeed, in opposing the admission of
Mr. Barber, they were usurping the royal prerogative.
According to Bacon, " pardon" implied that the man
pardoned was a new man, reinstated in his former posi-
tion, and taaa an action wouli re against any one who
called him a traitor or a felon; end other authorities
which he cited went is show that the King's
pardon placed a man in his farmer position, and ad-
mitted him to all the rights and privileges of citizenship.
The Master, he regretted t ) say, had unduly magnified
many f lets, whilst ho had perverted others. If a pardon
by the Crown did n. t have the effect he had pointed out,
the most grievous disabilities woali attach to a person
placed in toe position of his client, and the great privi-
lege possessed by the Crown would be altogether inop-
erative. The letter of Sir George Grey, whose conduct
`in this matter entitled him to the utmost praise, clearly
exculpate 1 his client from any guilty participation in
the wills' forgeries, though Fe, at toe same time, inti-
tra'ed that -more caution on the part of Mr. Barber
would have spared him the consequences with which
he had been visited. War t 01 skill and want of
caution were the only charges alleged against him, and
he defied his Learned Friends to show a case in which an
att rrney bad been otherwise punished for a want of skill
and caution than being amerced in damages to his ne-
glected and damaged c lent. Why, if Mr. Barber had
been pardoned within a year of his conviction, it would
have been unnecessary for him to make an application of
this kind to the Court. He would have continuA a so-
licitor as a right, and because by a mistake he had not
been pardoned for a year, on what principle was he not
to stand in the same position? With God's help he
would show that the conduct of Mr. Barber since
his conviction had been beyond all praise.
All mention of this the Master had strangely
omit t_A from his report. The enemies of
Mr. Barber had come too late, jet, Mr. Barber was
struck off the rolls. Pullen in his book said that the
courts had held that such an application came too late
after three years, and even after three term:. The Law
Society had, no doubt, through the instrumentality of
some person behind the scenes, traced out the conduct of
Mr. Barber from his boyhood. He had 200 clients, and
his income the year before his expa'riation was 3,0001.;
yet up to his conviction not one of them had urged a
complaint against him, and now but one of his clients
had a charge against him, and that had no relation to
his professional conduct. At the trial there were four
indictments; on the first Mr. Barber was declared not
guilty, but upon the second he was found guilty; and he
and the other counsel did all they could to induce the
prosecution to try the cite: cases, because it was
likely he would be found innocent of them, and teat being
found guilty of but one the prosecution would have been
placed in an awkward position. These t ,vo indictments
were entered upon and commented upon by the Master.
Fletcher had been proved to be a man of great sagacity
and of consummate cunning, and being a man of influ-
ence, property, and gentlemanlike bearing, was a man
very likely to impose upon a young man like Mr. Barber,
whose client he had be en for five years, and his partner,
Mr. Bircham, was equally blinded. Mr. Freshfleld, the
brokers, the proctors, were all deceived like his client,
though day by day they were engaged in genuine
transactions. The Learned Counsel here paused
to explain that only before the trial he was asked
by Mr. Bramab, Barber's solicitor, if he would hold his
brief for fifty guineas ? He said he would, and defended
him. Altar the trial some one called at his chambers
and paid fifteen guineas, which he appropriated to
buying Mr. Barber necessaries. He never made any
offer to conduct his defence on the principle of "no
cure no pay," and he would never so degrade his profes-
sion. There might be cases in which distress might
have claims upon his gratuitous services, but he would
never act in the way t which he referred.
It was part of Mr. Barber's business to find
out the owners of money formerly deposited in
the Bank of England, but in consequent. of no claims
baying bt en made had been handed over to the Commis-
sioners for the Reduction of the National Debt—acting
for parties who had claims upon such funds. Surely it
could riot be said that there was anything unprofessional
or unusual in this. Unless this were done, many poor
persons entitled to property Would be deprived of it.
It was not shown that Mr. Barber made any money out
of the forgeries. Indeed, he received no more than his
professional services, and left the country a penniless
man. (The Learned Counsel read cases to show
that the minor charges alleged against Mr. Barber
that he had not paid certain small sums of money which
had been entrusted to him for professional service?, had
been held by the Courts not sufficient to justify the striking
him air the roily, and had only required the refunding of
the money.) His client was charged with having re-
tained for his own use 571. which hadac debts
placed infi his
thillonusdscibalup'sleotcf
Mrs.her rwyait lcaswesslei:tiohcstvorteytohentie-t
of the females implicated in the c
person named Griffina
he had paid the money back to a
or:Fletcher, but owing to the loss of his books and papers,
he could not, a: this die taace of time, tell the date. -Thr;
Learned Counsel then referred at great length to the
affidavit of Mr. Barber, in which ha entered into the
whole, of the facts in relation to the criminal I attici-
pation in the forgeries imputed to him, and solemnly
swore that he was wholly and entirely innocent of, any
participation in them. Indeed, said the Learned Coun-
sel, the whole conduct •of Mr. Barber was that of an
innocent man, acting unconsciously and openly; that he
was an instrument in the perpetration of a systematic
fraud.

The Learned Counsel spoke until near five o'clock,
when his further arguments were adjourned until to-
morrow mornirg.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, Jan. 2.9.
(S'ttings in Banco.)
,T-11
TILE RELAY SYSTEM IN FACTJRIES. —RYDER V. MILLS.
This was a special application made by the Attorney-
General under the fol!owing eireunittances. For some
months differences lave existed between the mill-owners,
tho worlspeorle, and the Government factory inspectors
as to the power of the mil!-Jwners to adopt the nifty
system with rogard t) children and rung persons in
factories. The mill-Jwntrs contend that they have a
right to adopt t:-.e system, whilst the f_xtory inspectors
are of a mutt ary opinion, and the result has been art
agreement between them to bring a special case for the
opinion of this Court.
Tho AIToItZiEY. ENEII4I., is stating-the ease, said

the Factory Act required that the working of women
and young persons, male and females, in factories,
should be limited to ten hours a day, and the question
in the present case was as to whether, under the terms
of the statute, the working of all.of them was to com-
mence at a certain hour of the morning, and continue
consecutively from hour to hour, allowing an interval
for dinner, to a certain hour in the evening, when all
were to terminate their employment; or whether gangs
or shifts might not begin and end their work in one fac-
tory at different hour?, so long as each of them did not
work more than ten out of fifteen hours a day. He con-
teuded;there would be a clear violation of the 36th section
of the statute if shifts were allowed at intervals, because
the object of the Legislature was that these women and
young persons should, on the one hand, while they were
at work at the factory, be under the superintendence of
the inspector, and that on the other, when they had
ceased working, they should be enabled to go home and
be under the care of their parents—au object
which could not be accomplished if they had
to remain idle about the factory for hours
during tho day, and thus become more liable to conta-
mination and evil influence.

Mr. MARTIN, who appeared for the mill-owners, said
as this was a case of very considerable importance,
affecting materially the interests, not only cf the pro-
prietors of factories, but of the workpeople, that a fair
and liberal and not a forced interpretation should be
put upon the statute, and if that were done, he appre-
hended they were fully justified in adopting the re-
lay system, provided the time during which each young
person was employed did not exceed ten hours;
The real question, in fact, was whether the Government,
who had failed to get an Act to limit the work of men
in factories to ten hours, should be allowed to accomplish
their object by means of a side-wind, fir the present
application amounted to nothing more than that the du-
ration of the work of adult males should be regulated
by that of the women. The duty of women in these
factories was of a very simple nature, having simply
to keep the threads in order in the process of
spinning and weaving, and it was found not only
mere economical to employ women, but the work
required such a delicacy of hand that it was more
suited for them than for men. If, therefore, they were
limited to ten hours the effect would be to put a stop to
spinning and weaving, which was done by the men after
that tirnP, and consequently if the men worked now
twelve hours their wages would have to be reduced.
Mr. Baron PARKE said it might havo been overlooked
by ParliamentAwhen women were classed with young
persons, that the employment of the women regulated
that of the men.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL observed that that was
taken into consideration when the Act was under dis-
cussion.

Mr. MARTIN said the construction which he put upon
the statute was this: that the labour of young persons
was to be confined between half-past five in the morning
and half-past eight hi th© evening, and that it was per-
fectly competent for the employer or the employed to
agree to carry on the work at the most convenient hours
during those periods, provided they were not engaged
altogether more than ten hours.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL replied; and
The COURT intimated that they would take .time to
consider the arguments in the case, and give their judg-
ment to-morrow week. The case had been most ably
argued on both sides, and tie Court did not think it ne-
cessary to hear the second case, involving the same
questions; but if the Court stli doubted, due informa-
tion would be given of their intention to hear further
argumentF.
(Sittings in Middlesex, at Nisi Prins, in Hillary Term,
before Mr. Baron ROLFE and Common Juries.)
The part-heard case of
SMART V. FINNIS AND ANOTHER

was resumed at the sitting of the Court this morning.
This was an action to recover compensation in
damages for the injury received by a horse, which it
was alleged had occurred by the means of the acts of
offieere, they being the officers to the Sheriffs of
London and Middlesex.
The defendants pleaded Not Guilty.
It appeared that the plaintiff is a gentleman, who
reel les in Percy-street, Bedford square, and that the
defendants were the late Sheriffs for Middlesex and
London, although the real acting parties were two
persons of the name of Daniels, their officers, who
having had a writ in their possession for some time
against one Edward Russell, of the Oval, Kenning-
ton, and of the Camberwell New-road, were on the
look-out for him in Bridge,street, Westminster, on
the Middlesex side, on the 11th of May in the
last year. At length they saw Russell coming
along towards the bridge, and upon a temporary
stoppage occurring in the string of vehicles,
in which Russell, like the others, had become en-
tangled, the officers rushed forward, and a struggle
ensued, in the course of which Russell stood up and
began lashing the hands of the man who had hold of
the reins, as well as the horse itself; the latter jibbed,
and after having reared turned round,: when the
wheel of another vehicle catching one of those be-
longing to the gig it was upset, and the animal con-
sequently thrown down; and it was for the injury
which he thus received by the overthrow that the
present plaintiff, its owner, now brought his action
fer the recovery of compensation in damages. Tae
occupants of the gig, Russell and Bennett, were
ejected into the middle of the street, when the officers
at once succeeded in capturing the men they had
been in search of. Some time afterwards an action
WAS brought by Bennett for damages for injury sus-
tained in this matter, but in that object he was de-
feated, for the jury returned a verdict for the de-
fendant, mainly upon the ground that the officers had
used no more violence than Russell by his conduct
had rendered necessary. Subsequently to this
R•in-
sell was indicted by the officers for the assault, of
which he was convicted at the Middlesex Sessions,
and had eventually to pay the SUM of 301. on account
of costs.

The following evidence was then called
John Bennett, of 1, Lilford-row, Camberwell,
builder, said he was on the 11th of May last in a gig
with B lward Russell, going from Pimlico towards
Westminster-bridge. Russell was driving. In
Bridge-street two men rushed out from the neigh-
bourhood of the Migpie and horse-shoe public-house
and laid hold of the horse by the head. The street
was much crowded at the time and several vehicles
were before the gig. When they laid hold of the
horse they said " Get out," and turned the horse's
head round towards Cannon-row, and nearly ran
against a carriage. Russell then whipped the horse
to avoid the other carriages, otherwise those coming
from the bridge must have turned them over. The
men still kept hold, and ran the gig against a dray
and into a carriage, which threw the gig over, and
Russell and himself on the ground. The men kept
"jobbing" the horse's mouth. Russell told the men
to " leave go" the horse's head. When on the ground
the man laid hold of Russell by the collar. They
took him away in a cab. The horse was thrown
down on his haunches. Witress returned, and took
him to livery-stables in St. Martin's lane. The horse

was cut under the stifle. He was perfectly sound at
the time of the accident. Witness drove him to
Camberwell the same day. Saw him daily after the
accident, and he remained lame for a long time.
Cross-examined—The gig belonged to a Mr.
Jones, and the horse to the plaintiff. Witness has
had an action arising out of this transaction, and there
was a case before Mr. Sergeant Adams at the ses-
sions. Was not 'aware that the sheriff's officers were
after Russell. Russell did not whip the horse as hard
as he could. He whipped to keep him out of the
way of the dray. Witness did not know if he whipped
the man violently, or struck him with the butt-end of
the whip. Only saw him push a man off the step.
The man was not on the ground senseless. Russell
was put into a cab and taken along the Strand.
Reexamined—The sentence on Russell at the ses
sions was to pay 14., and he was discharged. The
horse has had capped hocks ever since the accident.
Edward Russell, a commission-agent, generally
confirmed the evidence of the preceding witness, and
then said,—l knew one of the men, named Coleman,
to be an officer of the Sheriff of Surrey, but did not
know that be was also an officer of Middlesex.
I did not know of any writ against me in Middle-
sex, but I knew of one in Surrey. If I had not
whipped the horse we must have been overturned. A
man I have since ascertained to be the brother of
Daniels jumped on the step of the gig. I did not
know him, nor had I ever seen him before. I had the
whip in my hand, and tried to push him off with the
same hand. It was not safe to allow him to remain
with the horse in the state in which be was at the

time. After the men took me they did nothing in the
least to assist the horse, nor would they allow me to
do so. The horse was three months before he went
out of the stable after the accident. He had capped
hocks after it. I sold the horse to the plaintiff for
401. in March previously.
Cross-examined—I only had the horse for a fort-
night before I sold him. I bought him of a person
at Chichester. I deal a good deal in horses on com-
mission. The plaintiff wished me to break him, and
I was doing so at the time of the accident. I have
the horse still in my stable. I was paid 401. for him
about the Bth of March. A person named Brett,
a horsedealer in the Kent-road, was present at the
time. Plaintiff never took away the horse in conga
quence of the accident. I was the first witness called
in an action brought by Mr. Bennett, arising out of
this matter. I do not now, and never lived or lodged
as Percy-street. I knew Coleman, the Sheriff's
officer's man, and bribed him about three months
before not to arrest me. It was on a writ at the suit
ot' a Mr. Billiter. I did not expect a writ in Middle-
sex. At the time the men seized the hose there was
a stoppage. The whip was a pony- whip, and could
not reach beyond the shoulders of th 2 horse without
standing up. I might have been able to reach the
man's head on the shaft. I did not see his hand
bleeding. I did not say anything about this being a
pony whip at the previous trial. If I struck that man
it was by accident. I struck the other man who was
getting into the gig with my fist, but not with the butt-
end of the whir, as was sworn to at the trial. I might have
said that it was a wonder that I had not knocked his head
in. I had to pay ls. fine at the sessions. The judge
recommend that the man should be compensa:ol. I
am a commission-agent. I deal in anything. I sell
wine, cigars, or horses. I am uncle to the attorney

in this cause. I have nothing to do with a house in
Albermarle-street, but I call sometimes at a house
there, No. 46. Fountain, a tailor, keeps the house.
Ido not know who is the proprietor of the upstairs
place. I call there for orders. They take wine and
cigars there,—(Laughter.) I have nothing to do
with this case except as a witness. The attorney in
this case is the same as in the action of Bennett, and
also in the next action. I took the benefit of the In-
solvent Debtors Act after the arrest.
Re-examined—The plaintiff has directed me to
sell the horse for anything I can get—not under 201.
I bribed Coleman not to.arrest me in Surrey. I have
paid him altogether about 5 1 —(Laughter.) Daniels,
his master, had me arrested in Middlesex, and thus
saved the honour of his servant.

Thomas Price, a veterinary surgeon, Park-street,
Kennington-cross, said that he had attended the horse
in question for the period of three mouths, from the
11th of May last, at Russell's stables, in the Camber-
well New-road. The amount of his charge had been
as much as 211. Tnat money had been paid to him.
The horse all that time was utterly useless. At the
period of the accident the horse was worth 501. or
60/. llis age was about seven, but in consequence of
the injury he received on this occasion he was unable
to do any work, and was so much blemished that no
one would ba likely to purchase him, unless it were
an omnibus proprietor, by whom probably 15/. might
be given for the animal, but not more. The plaintiff
had told him that if he could sell it fur 20/. he might
take 51 for his trouble. Ile had tried to meet with a
purchaser, but could not do so.
Olier witnesses having been examined on behalf of
the plaintiff,
Mr. MARTIN addressed the jury for the defendant,
and contended that whatever injury the horse might
have received was entirely owing to the violent con-
duct of Russell. lie further stated that he should
prove that there had been no more violence used by
the officers than bad been rendered absolutely neces-
sary by the behaviour of the man they had been in
search of.

A number of witnesses were called, most of them
the inhabitants of that part of Bridge-street where
the scuffla occurred, and they all stated that but for
the violence of Russell the accident would not have
arisen.

Mr. HUMFREY replied.
Mr. B3ron ROLFE then left it to the jury to say
whether in truth this result had not accrued by means
of the conduct of Ituszell, rather than from the be-
haviour of the officers, who it must be borne in mind
were bound to execute the writ.

The jury retired, and after an absence of about
half-an-hour, returned with a verdict fir the de-
fendants.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Jan. 28.
(Before Mr. Commissioner lioLuorp.)

THE ST. ALBAN'S BANK--IN RE GIBSON AND STBRT.

The hearing of this necessarily protracted case was
to-day resumed.

Mi..Lawrance, at the commencement of the pro-
ceedings, put in the following medical certificate :
" This is to certify that Edward Gibson, Eig., of
this place, is now suffering from a sudden and severe
attack of nervous irritability, with febrile distur-
bance of the system, which confines him to his bed,
and renders him totally unfit to attend at the
)urt of Bankruptcy to-morrow, to undergo further
examination.

" J. M. LIPSCOMB, M.D.
" St. Alban's, Jan. 27, 1850."
After the reception of some evidence, the hearing
of the case was Again adjourned fm a fortnight.
(Before Mr. Commissioner GouLnuttN.)
IN RE GEO. EACKFIAM.

The bankrupt, described as of Southdown, Suffolk,
wine-merchant, came up on the question of certificate.
He had been in business but a short time, and now
owed 1,7191., the assets being 428/.
a, His profits were
put down at 2,0471., the trade expenses being 1,8691.,
personal ditto 307/., losses, chiefly arising upon sales
by auction, 856/.

Mr. Lucas appeared for Mr. G. Harrison, wine-
merchant,and seven other creditorsoppose; Mr Link-
lakr supported the bankrupt, a young man.
The main grounds of objection were reckless trad-
ing, and obtaining money by means of forced sales. •
The b ►nkrupt said he had been assistant to a wool.
len draper, and had had a commission from a wine•
merchant for four or five months prior to starting for
himself, without capital. He first commenced by
buying low-priced wines in London, and selling
them by auction in Yarmouth. He had bought
wine in pipes, &c., and soma in bottles which had
been sent as far as Wisbeach—a distance of 40 miles
for sale. He never made a loss on the sale of his
wines, but the expense for the conveyance was very
heavy. It was not a very unusual thing to sell wines
by auction.

His HONOUR—The question is, was it wine ?
(Laughter.) I suppose you represented the wine as
the private stock a some gentleman, and must be sold
immediately.
The bankrupt said that this was not done; and he
believed the merchants knew he sold by suction. At
invoice price his wines would have paid the creditors
15s. in the pound. The wines were sold at a great
sacrifice under the fiat. Abiut four months before
the date of the fiat he bought wines of M-Isrs. Gray
and Robertson ; about a fortnight before the fiat he
sold a horse and gig for 401.
His Hozioua %iished to knew what introduction tho
bankrupt had to all these wine-merchants ? The
bankrupt replied, none that he knew of. He had
travelled for Mr. Dickenson, and was introduced to
them. They sought his custom. He believed that
they knew he was beginning without a farthing.
Mr. LINKLATErr urged that it was the custom in
every town in the country to make these forced sales.
His HoNouß said it was a custom much more
honoured in the breach than the observance.
Mr. Lucas urged that the bankrupt's expenses
were excessive, and that he had carried.on nothing but
a speculative business.

His HoNoun, did not think that the bankrupt had
been guilty of fraud, but the mode of trade he had
pursued was most injurious, sending a liquid called
wines round the country, and selling them by auction
for what they would fetch, in the meanwhile keeping
no proper books. But regard must also be had to
merchants forcing these sales on a young trader, so
as to get rid of the drug. When persons heard of
sherry at 141. a butt, it was quite apparent what sort
of article it was. He had not parted with his pro-
perty, but as the books had been negligently kept,
the certificate must be suspended for twelve months
from the date of the fiat, March last, with protection.
MIDDLESEX SESSIONS, Jan. 28.

(Before Mr. Sergeant ADAMS, Assistant-Judge.)
The Court sat yesterday specially at the Guild
hall, Westminster, for the purpose of hearing ap,
peals against parochial assessments.

THE HUNGERFORD MARKET COMPANY V. THE POOR

RATE OF ST. I►IARTIN'S-111-TEIE -
Mr. Bodkin and Mr. Ballantine appeared for the
appellant, Mr. Pashley and Mr. Huddlestone for the
respondent.
From the opening address of Mr. Bodkin, and the
evidence of the secretary to the company, it appeared
that hitherto their premises bad been rated at 3,0501.,
an excess, as they contended, above the net rateable
value, of rather more than 2,0001. Taking as their
data the gross revenue for the year ending April,
1849, the company estimated that their income for
the current year, ending with April, would be as
follows :—Annual payment by occupiers of shops,
&c., 950/. 14s. ld. ; weekly and daily payments, om-
nibus standing, &c. (including a decrease in respect
of the first two items of 7311. 4s. 3d., arising from
the abandonment of the lower fish-market), 2,3211.
15s. hi. ; tolls, 2,1721. ls. 21. ; wharfage, 622/.
7s. 2d. ; and warehousing, 21/. 17s. 6d. Total in-
come, 6,095/. 15s. The expenditure for the current
year was also estimated upon the date furnished by
the preceding year. The principal items were—
Poors-rate, 317/. 14s. 2d. ; paving rates, 931.43. 63. ;
sewers-rates, 761. se. ; salaries and wages, 1,4941.6 x. ;
ordinary repairs of pier, 453/., and others, which
made up a total of 3,221/. 18s. sd. ; leaving a differ-
ence between the income and :expenditure of 2,8731.
16s. 73. Supposing the property were let to a tenant,
the return upon the capital embarked by such tenant
would amount to 1,1241., leaving 1,749/. 163. 7d.,
which sum a tenant would pay as rent, after deduct-
ing such a sum as would keep the property in such a
condition as to permanently command that rent.
Those deductions would be 2001. a year, as a sinking
fund, for the renewal of the floating pier ten years
since ; 500/. a year as a sinking fund to rebuild and
renovate the property sixty years hence; and in-
surance, 47/ ; leaving as the net rateable value,
1,002/. 16s. 7d. _

Mr. PASHLEY was heard at considerable length in
support of the present assessment.
Ultimately the Court fixed the assessment at 1,8001.
At the rising of the Court, several other cases were
adjourned.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
MANSION-HOUSE.
Tue conductor of a Camberwell omnibus was
summoned before Alderman Humphery, fur having
refused to admit a gentleman as a passenger into his
omnibus. The public are interested in the result of
the case.
A few days ago, at a quarter before five.
the compLanant went to the door of the omnibus, be-
ing desirous of being driven as far as Walworth, and
requested the conductor to allow him to enter. The
evening was extremely wet, but the conductor refused
to admit the applicant, and excused himself upon the
ground that all the seats were engaged, at the same
time that there was abundance of room in the vehicle.
the complainant represented the unfairness of the re-
fusal, and determined to have the decision of a magis-
trate up,:ni
no incivility or di6re,pect, in the words or manner of
the defendant, beyond the mere rejection ; but he

thought the principle of " first come first served"
ought not to be transgressed in such a matter, and
although he was subsequently offered the accommo-
dation he required, he woald not accept of it except
as a recognised right.
A gentleman who regularly takes a seat in the de-
fendant's omnibus, stated thtt the defendant was cer-
tainly expected by his reguar " whole of the way"
customers to keep seats for them, especially in wet
weather, during which alone the passengers to Wal-
worth or the Elephant ane Castle were disposed to
ride. The expectation was a very reasonable one,
both as regarded the Camberwell passengers and the
proprietors of the carriages. and if some rule of the
kind were not acted upon, wry great inconvenience
would be inflicted upon those who had the most un •
questionable claims.

- The conductor said, as hal been stated, the gentle-
men who were in the habit of favouring him certainly
looked to him for the secirity of their places, and
gentlemen who resided onlyhalf the distance shunned
the omnibus in fine weather, aid eagerly seized the seats
when the rain was pelting. He had acted upon the
feeling that the " whole of he way" passengers were
entitled to the first consil3iation, but he never at-
tempted to oppose tI entrance of a person who was
going upon the half-fare detance, if there happened to
be room.

Atdarman HUMPIIERY —The conductor is certainly
in the wrong, although his &fence is the most rea-
sonable that can be made. lie cannot refuse to al-
low an unexceptionable person into his omnibtv, pro-
vided that :person do not abject to pay the amount
announced inside the vehbls. This is certainly hard
up-on the gentlemen who art accustomed to go nil the
way, and upon the propriebrs too, who are obliged
to accommodate a casual passeenger, probably to the
greatinconvenionce of an established custmer, but
there is no doubt as to the law upon the subject.
Several of the regular amber well passengers ex-
pressed surprise and regrc that the accommodation
which they thought they lad a right to expect was
liable to be seriously dimirished by the intru'ion of a
threepenny or fourpenny fire. They wished to know
what they were to do if in wet weather the short
passengers should monopl...ize their places ?
Alderman HIIMPIIERT—You must do as I dr.,
when I want to go to Windaworth, which is a shil-
ling fare, I run for it, sad get into the omnibus
about five minutes before the time, and I often get a
seat just before a passenger to Vauxhall arrives.—(A
laugh.) I admit that what you complain of is a
very disagreeable altexnative ; but to give to an om-
nibus conductor such a r wer as that which has been
in this case assumed, w.sed be productive of much
more serious evil. As the conductor has-not been
uncivil, and as I am convinced the complainant does
not wish for the infliction of a penalty, I shall merely
require the conductor to pay the expenses of the
summons.

Tne complainant—l dc not by any means wish for
the infliction of a pena!ly. lam quite satisfied at
the decision of the Aldernan, who fully admits the
principle for which I cortend, and I shall nut take
from the conductor the Amount of the expenses in-
curred by the examinatin of the case.