The Sun.
London, England, 1844-06-14 00:00:00

TIIE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, JUNE 14, 18,t11.

lifter a short discussion, it was decided that the evidence
could not be received.

Mr. ERLE then proceeded to read letters from the Duke of
Sussex to Lady Murray, written on board the Endymion, in
January, 1801, as to the manner in which she should be
treated ; and a letter to Sir Augustus D'Este, containing
advice as to his conduct.

Letters from Lady Murray to the Rev. Mr. Gunn, and
from the latter to the former were also put• in; and Mr.
Gunn, the son of the Rev. Mr. Gunn, was called to identify
those written by his father.
Letters of ordination by the Bishop of Norwich, admitting
the Rev. Mr. Gunn to priest's orders, were also put in evi-
dence.

A letter of his Royal Highness to Lord Erskine, was then
about to be read, dated 1798, stating at full length the liti-
gation which had gone on with respect to the marriage, and
desiring his assistance ; but it was excluded on the same
ground as the will.

A officer of the Ecclesiastical Court produced a copy of the
proceedings there, which was received in evidence.
Lord Northwick, examined by Sir T. WILDE—Had fre-
quently visited Lady Murray and his Royal Highness in
Lower Grosvenor-street in 1800. His Royal Highness al-
ways treated her Ladyship as his consort, and she was called
the Princess Augusta.
The Rev. Mr. Crow examined by Sir T. WlLDu.—De-
posed to having officiated for the Rev. Mr. Gunn in 1792, on
account of his going abroad. He returned to England in
1793.

Evidence was gone into for the purpose of showing, by
correspondence, that the Rev. Mr. Gunn was at Rome at the
time of the marriage.
Sir T. WILDn said he now proposed to prove a declaration
made by Mr. Gunn, in reference to the marriage of his Royal
Highness the Duke of Sussex. He did so on the ground that
the individual had peculiar means of knowledge, and that it
was his interest not to misrepresent the fact. Ile had already
offered evidence as to Mr. Gunn's being at Rome at
the time of the marriage. In 1831 Mr. Gunn was
required to give evidence on certain Chancery proceedings,
and he declined to answer the interrogatories, on the ground
that he might thereby bring himself under the penal conse-
quences of the Royal Marriage Act. He proposed to show
what declaration he had made on the subject of the marriage.
He had an interest to suppress his own share in the matter,
and he was, as he (Sir T. Wilde) was prepared to prove, in
a state of alarm on the subject up to the time of his
death, to such an extent that his health was affected. Ac-
cording to the rule, therefore, in such cases, he contended
that he should be allowed to examine the witness, to show
what declaration Mr. Gunn had made on the subject of the
marriage.
Mr. ELME followed on the same aide. The principle of the
law turned on the question, whether the party had a motive
to speak the truth? and in this case the party being under
the greatest apprehension, his declarations ought to be re-
ceived.

The LORD CHANCELLOR said .he thought the proposition
laid down at the bar could not be maintained. He would
snppose this case :—A was indicted for murder; B, on his
death-bed, made declarations that he was present
at the murder committed by A. Was it possible to
say that, on the indictment of A, the declarations
of B might be received against him ? In the
case of the Berkeley Peerage evidence of this kind had been
rejected. It was not true that declarations must always be
received when they are against the interest of the party by
whom they were made ; and he was of opinion that in this
case the declarations were not made under circumstances
which rendered it necessary that they should be received in
evidence.

Lord Brougham, Lord Campbell, Lord Denman, and Lord
Langdale, concurred in the opinion expressed by the Lord
Chancellor.

The evidence was accordingly refused.
Lord Illacclesfield, examined by Mr. Ent.F., deposed to
having seen the Prince with Lady Dunmore and her daugh-
ter at Naples, in 1793.
A register of the baptism of the claimant was then put in.
The further hearing of the case was postponed until Tues-
day week.

IRELAND.

ADDRESSES TO MR. O'CONNELL-REFUSAL T 4

ADMIT DEPUTATIONS.
DUBLIN, JUNE 11.—A number of deputations from various
parts of the country arrived is Dublin to-day, to present ad-
dresses to Mr. O'Connell and the other State prisoners. In-
dividual visitors were admitted ; but it would appear, depu-
tations were excluded from the prison.
The following addresses were received by Mr. O'Connell
this day, but not through the deputations appointed to pre-
sent them :—From the Corporation of Dublin, Four Courts
Ward, College Ward, town of Galway, parish of Caltry,
county of Galway, town of Trim, parishes of Lisnariffy and
Clonfinia, Municipal Commissioners of Trim ; the parish of
Ahascra ; parishes of St. Peter's, Drum, and St. Mary's
Athlone ; parishes of Rollestown and Oldtown ; Belfast ;
town commissioners of Loughrea, and the repealers of
Loughrea.._

FIVE O'CLOCK, P.M.—The Er eniny Post, just published,
contains the following:—" A deputation from Bruff, in the
county of Limerick, having this day proceeded to Richmond
Bridewell, for the purpose of presenting an address to the
State prisoners, they were refused admission. Mr. Smith
O'Brien as Member for the county Limerick, immediately
addressed the following letter to Sir James Graham :

" TO THE RIGHT HON. SIR JAMES JAMES GRAHAM, BART.
" Dublin, June 11, 1844.
_ _

" SlR—Having been called upon, on the part of a portion
of my constituents, to accompany a deputation, with a view
to present an address to Mr. O'Connell this day, I was in-
formed by the Governor of Richmond Penitentiary, that the
board of superintendence have given directions that Ro depu-
tation be admitted to present addresses to the State prisoners.
" Taking for granted that the board of superintendence
would, in regard to such a proceeding, be willing to conform
to the desire of the Secretary of State, I take the liberty to
ask whether the exclusion of persons wishing to testify the
respect and affection of their fellow-countrymen to Mr.
O'Connell, and the other State prisoners, has your sanction.
"' I may, perhaps, be permitted to add, that the local ar-
rangements of the prison are such as to allow of the reception
of deputations, without, in any degree, interfering with the
ordinary discipline of the prison,
" I have the honour to be, your obedient servant,
" WILLIAM S. O'BRIEN.' "

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
(YESTERDAY.)
MA NSION- H 0 USE.

Three foreigners, named Benjamin Runtzman. Moses
Lebright Carl Lowenthal, and Isidore Guttecholh, were
brought before the Lord Mayor, in the cuto ly of In-
spector Waller, charged with having stolen a quantity
of silk from the warehouse of Messrs. M'Gill and Co.,
of No. 1, Bread-street, Cheapside, commission agents.
Mr. Richard T. Toms, one of the partners in the house
of and Co., stated that Runtzman and Lowenthal
came to the warehouse at about half-past one o'clock on
Monday, with the professed intention of making pur-
chases. Lowenthal acted as interpreter to Runtzman,
and, having :walked up stairs, they looked over the
stock, and asked a great many questions as to the
length, breadth, and price of silk handkerchiefs, and
other articles which they seemed desirous to purchase.
Lowenthal, as they looked over the goods, expressed
his regret that he had not such a knowledge of
the English language as to be able to make
himself intelligible, and used a great variety of
gesticulations, no doubt for the purpose of at-
tracting and monopolising witness's attention to him
away from Runtzman. After having spoken something
about a large discount, they intimated that they would
return next day, and make a large purchase. They
were asked for the address of the house, and Lowenthal
gave No. 7, Osborne-street, Whitechapel, as theirs. As
witness and the interpreter were speaking together,
Runtzman slipped off, and Lowenthal soon followed him.
Witness then got his hat and followed them, and upon
going into Cheapside saw Guttscholk join them. Upon
going into Trump-street, he observed Runtzman and
Lowenthal together, and immediately afterwards he saw
the former go into a cab, and gave directions to a po-
liceman to apprehend him, while he went to Lowenthal,
who said "Me no thief." Witness, not having found
that Lowenthal had any stolen goods . about him,
to all appearance, did not consider himself justified in
detaining the prisoner, but upon looking into the cab
which the policeman stopped, he saw Runtzman putting
down some pieces of silk on the seat. The silk, which
consisted of six pieces, each of the length of eleven yards,
had been in the warehouse before the two first prisoners
entered, and was worth 121. 7s. After Runtzman was
safely deposited in the station-house, search was made
for Lowenthal, who had stated his name to be Hert, and
the policeman found him in the neighbourhood of an
address which was taken out of Runtzman's pocket, and
was quite different from that which had been given
by him.
Hore'Guttscholk declared that he never for a moment
supposed the other two prisoners were men capable of
committing a robbery. He had, ho admitted, introduced
them to Messrs. Leaf, Coles, and Co., of Paul's-chain,
and Messrs. Powers, of Russia-row, and other houses
which he had been in the habit of supplying with pens,
but he positively asserted that he had been at home at
dinner at half-past one on Monday, when he was stated
to have been in Cheapside.
The LORD MAYOR asked the prosecutor, whether
Guttscholk could see the warehouse in Bread-street from
the place in Cheapside in which the prosecutor had
observed him in conversation with one of the other
prisoners.

Mr. Toms replied, that he certainly could. Guttscbolk,
who was subsequently apprehended, said, in the course
of their conversation, you don't suppose I'd have intro-
duced these people, if I thought there was anything
wrong about them, to which witness replied, that lie did
now know how the two men could know about the
warehouse unless from the information of somebody who
was acquainted with it.
The prisoner Lowenthal said, I knew nothing about
the pieces of silk. What could I do, if the gentleman
took the whole of the stock in the shop ? I was merely
his interpreter.
The driver of the cab corroborated the statement that
Runtzman laid down the pieces of silk OR the seat of
the cab.

Runtzman said—" I never seed silk at all."
Guttscholk said the two other prisoners called upon
him, telling him they came from Berlin, and told him
so much about his father and mother, that he was con-
vinced they were respectable persons, and he introduced
them to the house in 'which they lodged upon that
ground, and also to the firms he supplied with pens.
After having heard more evidence to the same effect,
The LORD MAYOR committed all the prisoners for triaL
It was stated in the Justice-room that no doubt was
entertained as to the perpetration of numerous robberies
through the instrumentality of persons who went about
to warehouses for the ostensible purpose of selling pens,
quills, ink, &c., and whe closely observed the condition
and quality of the property exhibited for sale.

IMPEItIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS. June 13.

The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'clock.
The Glmgow and Coatbridge Rail, ay Bill was read a
third time and passed.
Petitions against the Bank Charter Bill were presented
by Col. Sibthorp, Mr. Allis, Sir John Troliope. and Mr.
Wallace.

Would take the place of promissory notes, which
would be a much more dangerous state of things. In
point of fact, it was not correct to say that the coun-
try bankers did not regard the state of the ex-
changes in the management of their business more
than they did the snow upon the m iuntain.
The country bankers were governed in their dealings
primarily by the state and conduct of the London money
market, but ultimately by the state of the ex-
changes. Now, what were the opinions once, and for
many years, upon this subject of the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman opposite (Sir J. Graham) ? That Right Hon.
Gentleman had been one of the most able advocates
of the small note system, and, therefore, he (Mr.
Hawes) thought he had a right to claim his vote upon
the present occasion.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) That
Right Hon. Gentleman had said—" beware how you in-
terfere with the small note circulation—(Leud
laughter)—and in the Bank Committee he had
put leading questions to Mr. Rogers, with whose
opinions, the Right Hon. Gentleman then acknowledged
himself fully to concur, in order to draw from him
upholding testimony to the value of the country cir-
culation. One of those questions to which the anti-
cipated affirmitive response was given was this:—
"Do you not think -that any interference with the
small note circulation will cause a great shock to credit ;
affectingboth banker and customer?"_( Hear,and a laugh.)
These were distinctly the opinions of the Right Hon.
Gentleman, who now, however, was a supporter of the
scheme of the other Right Honourable Gentleman
(Sir Robert Feel), which was avowedly to end
in one bank of issue.—(Cheers and laughter.) He (Mr.
Hawes) had therefore now only to congratulate the
Right Hon. Secretary for the Home Department on the
intrepidity with which he had forgotten his former
opinions, swallowed his intermediate scruples, and sub-
mitted himself to the wisdom and the will of his Right
Honourable Colleague.—(Loud laughter and cheers.)
There was no man who wished to adhere more strictly
to the principle of a metallic currency, with a paper cur-
rency convertible at will than Mr. Tooke. For himself,
he stood by the Act of 1819. He thought no case had
been made out for any further interference with that
Act. No case of excessive issue had been shown.
An Hon. Friend of his, who had written on the subject,
was a warm supporter of the plan of the Right Hon,
Baronet. That Hon. Gentleman had alluded to the'
assistance afforded by the Bank in the year 1839, and
had quoted that as an instance of increased circulation
and of increased amount of accommodation to the
public.' Now the fact was, that it was rather a decrease
of accommodation to the public. The advance upon se-
curities had been increased certainly, from 9,600,000 L to
12,700,0001., showing an increase of 3,000,0001., but
that increase had, in fact, been a mere transfer to pri-
vate securities from the bill department. The discount
had been reduced to 3,400,0001., from 8,500,000/., so that
there was actually a decrease of accommodation t, . the pub
lie. By the present plan it was intended to attempt to
lessen speculation ; this it was impossible to accomplish;
and when, under the proposed system, the pressure
did come, it would produce a most violent action on the
public credit. What had occurred in 1825 and 1839
was nothing to what must occur under this system. If
this plan were adopted a pressure would be produced
upon securities which must produce a pressure upon de-
posits, which would necessarily counteract the action of
the Bank upon securities. The Bank must necessarily
make a sale of its securities in order to get back it-
bullion, and thus create a greater degree of pressure
on the money market than existed before. The Bank
would thus, in the event of such a crisis occurring as had
occurred in 1825, be placed in a much more perilous
position than it ever yet had been placed. The Right
Hon. Gentleman was a great advocate of the corn-laws;
now if he adhered to this strict management of the cir-
culation—if they were to have no expansion—how could
they possibly maintain the corn-laws ? He would say
to the country gentlemen, that if this system of banking
was adopted it would create such a sense of the injus-
tice of the corn-laws, that it would be impossible to con-
tinue them. He was sure that the alteration in the cur-
rency laws proposed by the Right Hon. Baronet would
inevitably lead to the repeal of the corn-laws ; and it
ought to do so.—(Cheers.) The only unnatural cause
operating to disturb the circulation was the corn-laws.
The trade in corn, under the present system, was neces-
sarily a speculating . trade. It was impossible to foresee
or to provide for contingencies. Whenever there was a
large import, as at present, the payment for that import
must be provided for by bullion ; and the moment the
amount of bullion in the Bank coffers was reduced, the
Bank would reduce its advances upon securities. As
long, therefore, as the corn-laws remained, they would
retain one great cause of the disturbance of the cur-
rency, and that would be an additional reason for press-
ing for the repeal of the cern-laws. He objected to
anything that tended to connect the trade of banking
with the State, and therefore he objected to the esta-
blishment of one single bank of issue. At present bank-
ing was unconnected with politics. No one inquired whe-
ther a bank director was a Whig or a Tory, but if 'they
established a single bank of issue it would give such
power to the State that party politics would become,con-
nected with questions, of banking, which could not Mil to
produce a most injurious effect. He, therefore, protested
against the establishment of a single bank of issue. He
did not think that the plan would work well ;. and in the
City of London he believed that there were many who
concurred in that opinion. He understood that thirty
London bankers had written to the Right Hon. Barimet,
pointing out what they conceived to be objections4and
objections which, according to the scheme he hadi laid
down, he would be unable to meet. In the country,; too,
the bankers entertained great objections to it. On these
grounds, then, and relying on the Act of 1819, he
thought the Right Hon. Gentleman had not made out a
case for further interference, and he should therefore
conclude by simply making his motion.
Mr. HASTIE seconded the motion. He agreed with
the principles the Hon. Gentleman had laid down, that
all promissory notes ought to be convertible, on demand,
into gold. With that provision, he thought there •was
no danger of over-issue on the part of the country banks.
The whole object of-the present Bill was to prevent those
panics which had given such a shock to the trade of this
country. since 1825, Now, in the first place, they had
not taken proper pains to ascertain the causes of these
panics, and he felt bound to'declare it as his opinion that
the Bill of the Right Hon. Gentleman contained more
elements of panic than any preceding one.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was not
prepared, when he received the notice given by the
Honourable Gentleman, to hear such objections as
those which he had urged in his speech. Enter-
taining the opinions he did, the Honourable Gentleman
should have moved for the total rejection of the Bill, for
that would have been the more manly and consistent
course. The Hon. Member approved of sound prin-
ciples, and admitted that the Bill contained some, but
studiously resisted the putting of them into operation.
The Hon. Member agreed in the principle on which the
report of the Bullion Committee was founded, but
thought its recommendations were injudicious. The
Hon. Gentleman attempted to prove, from the price of
sugar at the time of the war, that th. re was a redun-
dancy of currency at that particular time. Nothing
could be more fallacious than such a test, and the history
of the time proved it. In 1825 the country was re-
duced to such a condition, that Mr. Huskisson felt him-
self forced to declare that the country was brought down
to a state of barter. Did the Hon. Member forget 1839,
when, in consequence of the mismanagement of the paper
currency, the Bank was reduced to seek foreign aid, and
it was doubtful for some time whether the Bank would
have been able to pay in gold? If convertibility since
1819 was preserved, it was only by having a re-
currence to measures which pressed severely on
the industry and energies of the country ; and they
Were bound to consider it' they could not prevent a re-
currence of such evils. The Hon. Gentleman objected
to the plan, becau.e it was not preceded by sufficient
and competent inquiry. Why, what were Committees
of the House engaged about for two years, but inquiring
into the state of the currency?—(Hear, hear.) The
principle of the Bill presented to the House by his
Right Hon. Friend was' to have the currency of the day
in a fair proportion of gold and paper, and to make it
fluctuate as if the currency were entirely metallic. The
Bill guarded against those fluctuations which had been
so ruinous to private individuals, as well as to the na-
tional interests generally. The Bank of England, in
order to prevent those disasters, should have full
power over the exchanges; but hitherto paper issue took
place from a source over which the Bank had no control,
and which did not act in unison with the Bank. As
the Bank contrrcted, this source became more
copious, and hence the want of a proper
controlling check, and the result of that want.
But, argued the Hon. Member for Lambeth, your com-
mercial distress is not to be imputed to'the state of the
currency, or to any changes that may have taken place
in it. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) did not
deny that it would be unfair to charge all the distress
that had taken place at times to the fluctuations in the
currency—no doubt there were many prevailing causes
that also must be taken into account on that head ; but
this he was prepared to say and to maintain, that the

forced expansion of the currency, at a time when the
natural tendency of things would lead to a contraction,
was a main and essential ingredient of those distresses
from which this country had periodically suffered.—
(Hear, hear.) And it was no answer to the proposition
which had been submitted by her Majesty's Government,
to say that because they could not remove every one of
those ingredients, and every one of those causes, they
were to be debarred from attempting to cure those
evils, the existence of which was palpable, and
the remedy for a considerable portion of which
they honestly believed thy had it in their
power to suggest.—(Hear, hear.) But the Honourabl,
Gentleman (Mr. Hawes), in confirmation of the views
he held, had referred 'o the kYinlis of the United States,
and asked, was not their currency quite convertible? He
asked, was it not there the principle that the no es ot
the many competing banks should be payable in gold.
and yet what happened ? Why; this had happened :
That, by their competition of issue, they had reduced
their country to that condition in which they alike over-
looked the precepts of morality and the obligations ut
honour, and caused wide-spread ruin around--(blear,
hear.) This was done in his (the Chancellor of the
Exchequer's) opinion, not from a want of convertibility,
but from a recklessness of competition and of issue,
and which had led to those wild shemes which none
regretted more—for none suffered more—than the
_

authors of such recklessness.—(Hear, hear.) One main
principle which the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hawes) had
laid down was, that Government should never be in a
position unduly to interfere with, or to'control the Bank

in its managements and issues. This power of inter-
ference did not exist in the present charter, and in that
which was now proposed as its substitute it was more
than ever effectually guarded against, for there was to be
not a quarterly, not a monthly, but a weekly return of
state and liabilities of the Bank, and this. not for the
mere uses of Parliament, but of ever: kiwi in the king-
dom, and it would then be ve7, soon ascertained if the
Bank were in any acting under the control of the
Government.—(Loud cries of "Hear, hoar.") But,
Said the Hon. Gentleman, them is no evidence to