The Sun.
London, England, 1844-08-01 00:00:00

k LEFT SPIASING.)

SPIRIT Gt the PUBLIC JOURNALS.
FROM THE EVENING PAPERS OF THIS DAY.
GLOBE.—Captain Warner's wonderful invention was
introduced to the notice of the House of Commons last
evening by Lord Ingestre. A more complete exposure
of the affair can scarcely be imagined. Not the vestige
of a well-supported claim to novelty of discovery, or to
an improved mode of applying an agency already known,
was left to Captain Warner ; who, in nautical language,
was " blown out of the water." This was affected by
Sir R. Peel's straightforward, matter-of-fact explana-
tion ; followed up, as it was, by the narrative of Sir
Howard Douglas ; who described the proceedings of Sir
Byam Martin and himself, to whom Sir Robert Peel had
referred the application of Captain Warner. An oppor-
tunity to exhibit the extraordinary discovery he had
made had been afforded ; and the way in which Captain
Warner bad acted in the transaction was explained. The
Hon. W. Cowper, private secretary to Lord Melbourne,
when Captain Warner pressed the purchase of
his discovery on the . Administration of which his
Lordship was the head; also supplied valuable testi
mony as to the real merits of the discovery. Sir C.
Napier ably exposed the absurdity of Captain Warner's
claims to any new discovery in science ; or to any
valuable novelty of application of a power previously
known. With the bluntness of phrase and breadth of
humour peculiar to the profession, the Gallant Commo-
dore ridiculed the whdle affair off Brighton, as wonder-
ful only in the eyes of persons either wholly or partially
ignorant of what is generally known to nautical men.
The greatest wonder of the performance, in Sir C.
Napier's opinion, is, that any professional man could
have been deceived into the belief that there was any-
thing extraordinary in the transaction. Captain War-
ner's pretended invention of a new explosive power—
the possession of which would enable the nation that
exclusively possessed it to defy the world in arms—has
been extensively used for the purpose of attack upon
Lord Melbourne's Government, and also of reproach to
the present Ministry. Both Lord Melbourne and Sir R.
Peel, it was last night shown, adopted the course which
they were bound to adopt under the circumstances. They
referred Capt. Warner's discovery to the scientific de-
partments of the Government; directed that a commission
should issue, formed of the most eminent officers, by whose
skill the efficiency of the discovery should be tested ; and
upon their report determined to act. Instead of having
treated Captain Warner, or his invention, with neglect, it
clearly appears that both the late and the present govern-
ment acted with fairness, and even with liberality
towards both : they provided him with the means,
and afforded him opportunities of demonstrating the al-
leged powers of his invention. The only thing
they would not do—but this was the very thing
Captain Warner showed he was most anxious
should be done was, this : they would not pur-
chase without proof. Captain Warner had been
moet prodigal of professions—most prolific in assu-
rances. He had performed extraordinary feats, by means
of his powerful agent, at various times and in divers
places—of which, however, there were no persons ative
who could verify his statements ; and no records of
his doings in the public offices ; where, if the feats had
been achieved, they might be expected to be found !
Captain Warner, among other representations of
what his discovery had effected, stated to the Commis-
sioners that he had sunk two French privateers with his
invisibler shell toward the end of the war. No record,
however, no trace could be found of this extraordinary
transaction. With his "long range," he said, he had
destroyed rocks in the islands off Vigo Bay, at six miles
distance. In the absence of oral or documentary
evidence of these extraordinary performances, the Com-
missioners asked for ocular proof. They, possibly, thought
that Captain Warner had, in his descriptions of the
powers of his "long range," practised largely with the
long bow ; and they wished to see as well as hear. This,
however, was declined. As Mr. W. Cowper remarked,
in the course of_ his statement of what took place be-
tween the late Government and Captain Warner, rela-
tive to his invention—". Captain Warner was more
desirous of corresponding with the monied than with
the scientific departments of the Government—more
anxious to have his discoveries bought than tested."
the Prussian Government has, lit seems, been equally
unjust to Captain Warner. The scientific and patriotic
discoverer of this destruction-spreading agent—with
a far greater affection for pelf than for country—has,
it seems, been huckstering with a foreign State for
the purchase of his secret. If the Government of
Prussia would have entered into a blind bargain, and
paid the required sum without knowing whether it had
got anything in the shape of value for its money,
there would have been an end of Captain Warner's
applications to the Government of England to possess
themselves of the wonderful invention. We might have
read the sin of our incredulity by the glare of the fires
kindled by means of this destructive agent in our bar-
hours and arsenals—if, indeed, our " tight little island"
had not been blown out of the ocean, and England
been numbered among the nations which now exist
only in the pages of history. Sir G. Cockburn's ac-
count of the way in which he has reason to believe the
explosion' off Brighton was effected, agrees, in all the
material points, with the suggestion we ventured to
to offer as to the process by which it was accomplished.
Lord Ingestre seems to have been pretty consider-
ably laughed at in professional circles, for his gratuitous
attestations in behalf of a very questionable experiment,
the validity Of which be ought rather to have suspected,
than affirmed. Incapable of deception in any form,
Lord Ingestre, like many of his profession, is the more
likely to be deceived. Had Lord Ingestre seen what the
officer referred to by Sir G. Cockburn " distinctly saw,"
he would not have signed the certificate which bore his
name, and induced the public to confide in the extra-
ordinary accounts of the magical, if not miraculous, per-
formance off Brighton. The correspondence moved for
by Lord Ingestre is to be produced ; and we trust,
printed. To a new and enlarged edition of " Popular ,
Delusions" it would contribute an interesting chapter.

SUMMER ASSIZES.
HOME CIRCUIT.—Lewes, July 30.
CROWN COURT.--(Before Mr. Baron PARKE.)
Gcorrge Marchant, a person respectably connected,
and who carries on the business of a wine-merchant, at
Brighton, surrendered in discharge of his recognizances
to answer an indictment, alleging that he feloniously
stolen a quantity of tame pheasants and partridges, the
property of the Right lion. Thomas, Earl of Chichester.
Mr. Johnson conducted the prosecution, and Messrs.
Clarkson and Creasy appeared for the defence.
From the evidence adduced it seems that the noble
prosecutor had a number of young pheasants and
partridges that had been reared by a hen, under the
charge of his gamekeeper, at Stanmer Park, and
on the 9th July, twenty-eight pheasants and fourteen
partridges were missed. ShOrtly afterwards, in conse-
quence of some information that was received, a Brighton
constable, named White, went to Marchant's premises,
and the servant showed him several young pheasants
and partridges. A warrant was then obtained, and the
birds were taken away, and on the prisoner being
asked to account for the possession of them, he said
he had bought some " small stuff" of a man who came
to his house, and that he gave half-a-crown for them.
The prisoner, it appeared, had been originally com-
mtted by the Brighton magistrates for receiving the bird.
feloniously, but that charge was abandoned, and ho was
indicted for stealing them. The evidence of identity was,
however, very weak, and there was very little testimony
to support either charge.
At the close of the case for the prosecution Mr. Baron
PARKE contended that there was no evidence to go to the
jury, and a verdict of Not Guilty was accordingly
recorded.

CIVIL SlDE.—(Before Mr. Baron GURNEY and a

Common Jury.)
PARRY V. NICHOLSON.
This was an action upon a bill of exchange for 2501.,
accepted by the defendant. The pleas set up on behalf
of the defendant were that no consideration had been
given for the bill, and there were other pleas to the
effect that it was a forgery.
Mr. Sergeant Channel and Mr. Peacock appeared for
the plaintiff ; Mr. Platt and Mr. Clarkson were for the
defendant.

The case in itself possessed very little matter of in-
terest to the public, but there were a few disclosures re-
lative to discounting and bill transactions which deserve
notice. It did not appear that any consideration had
been given to the defendant for the acceptance in question,
but it was endorsed by the party who received it to the
plaintiff, who is an attorney in London. There had
been other bill transactions in connection with the case,
and one of the witnesses said that a bill for 601., at two
months, had been discounted, and 10/. more charged as
interest. In cross examination by Mr. Platt, he said
that it was customary in discounting transactions to take
from three per cent. upwards, and that the generality of
the bills that were brought to be discounted were not
worth the stamp they were written on. There was some
appearance presented on the face of the bill that the date
had been altered as well as the amount ; and Mr. Platt,
in his address to the jury, contended that, under all the
circumstances, the defendant was entitled to a verdict.
The jury retired to consider the case, and upon their
return gave a verdict for the defendant.
Mr. PLATT subsequently applied to have the bill im-
pounded, as it was probable other proceedings might be
taken.

Sergeant CITANNELL expressed his opinion that there
were no grounds to justify the proceeding. There was
no evidence of any forgery having been committed.
Mr. Baron GURNEY said he should give no opinion
upon the facts. The only question was,
whether there
would be any objection to have OW bill placed in the

hands of the Court to insure its production in case it
should be required. His Lordship added, that there did
not appear to be any imputation upon the character of
the plaintiff in the present action.
Mr. PLATT said he did not intend to impute any mis-
conduct to the plaintiff, His only object was to secure
the production of the document at a future period.
The attorney for the plaintiff said he had no objec-
tion to the bill being impounded.
Mr. Baron GURNEY said as that was the case there
was no difficulty, and he directed that the bill should re-
main in the custody of the officers of the Court.