The Sun.
London, England, 1845-07-17 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING, JULY 17, 1845.

Perhaps the Committee would allow me to suggest that I
should be very glad that the original letter, of which this is
a copy, should be given in, and I will state precisely why.
I have written thus far, but in the original leer to Mr.
Fearon you will find this sentence—" I could not stBte the pre-
cise words; I did not think of copying it : but yo will find a
sentence to this effect—' I shall be glad if you w I show this
letter to any person to whim you may have sho7.n Mr. Hig.
nett's letter;' that was in order to make my deal as public
and unequivocal as the charge. The followinz morning, I
found, of course, the answer from Mr. Fearon, and he en-
closed me this letter, which then, fur the first time, I saw.
The witness read the same, as follows :
" South-Eastern Railway Office, 35a, Great George-
street, Westminster, July 27, 1845.
" Sir—l have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your
letter of yesterday's date, and beg to forward you herewith a
copy of Mr. Hignett's letter of the 2d of February last to the
secretary of the South-Eastern Railway Company.
" I have, &c.,
"JOHN P. FEARON.

(Signed)
" Francis R. Bonham, Esq."
Have you ever held scrips or shares in the South-Eastern
Railway ? No—never in my life. I use the expression sub-
ject to the explanation about the shares of Mr. V 4 ray
never held a single share, or applied for a single share, nor
ever thought of applying for a single share.
Permit me to repeat the same question with regard to the
North Kent shares ?—I never applied for a single share. I
have held shares and hold shares. I bought the shares in the

market, and I hold them at this moment.
In what company ?—ln the North Kent Company.
Will you inform the Committee the date of the purchase of
those shares in the North Kent Company ?—I could easily get
it, but I cannot speak from memory, but it was very long since.
I should be perfectly prepared by to morrow to state the time.
I bought the shares in the market at a premium, and paid a
deposit.
Was the purchase of those shares suggested to you by any
one 2—No, it was suggested by my own opinion that it was
very good line, judging from what I had heard. Ido not pr
fess to have much knowledge of engineering, but the company
was a strong company, and from what I remembered and always
thought of the advantage of having a direct coast line to Dover
I thought that would be a good line. I considered myself as
much entitled to buy shares in that as any other line in
the market.
Have you purchased shares in the market in many com-
panies, not with a view to investment, but as a speculation ?—I
have not the least objection to answer the question. I have.
Have you ever had any joint transactions in the purchase of
shares with Mr. Hignett, the solicitor to the Board of Ordnance?
—Never in my life.
Whatever shares you have purchased in railway companies
have all been purchased in the railway market, entirely at the
dictation of your own opinion of the merits of the company
of which you have purchased shares ?—Every share I ever
bought has been purchased upon my own opinion, in the open
market ; and certainly I have had no shares in any company,
nor even any conversation which would lead to shares with
Mr. Hignett, and I have had no shares with any member of the
Board of Ordnance at all, or any person connected with the
Board of Ordnance. . . _ _

_
Mr. TANCRED—You have had no conversation with Mr.
Hignett as to shares?—No "conversation" is rather indefi-
nite. But I should say that I could have had no conversation
with Mr. Hienett upon the subject; one is not in the way of
seeing him very much. I think I might safely say that I had
never any conversation with him upon the subject.
Mr. ROEBUCK—You do not hold any shares in the North
Kent Railway that you have not bought ?—I do not hold a
single share in the Mirth Kent Railway that I have net bought
and paid for.
Mr. T. EGERTON—That purchase being a matter of invest-
ment, and not of speculation ?—I will endeavour to answer
that question as nearly as possible. I wish to answer it cor-
rectly ; it is a mixed question. I would rather answer that
question. I have no hesitation in saying that I had more
shares than I could pay up in full; and the advantage that 1
contemplated was, to hold a certain number of shares, as I
think the speculation a good one, and likely to be for my ad-
vantage, and by selling some to pay for the others.
CHAIRMAN—Can you state to the Committee the lines of
railway which pass in or near the Ordnance property, upon
which the Board of Ordnance have reported their assent or
dissent ?—I really cannot ; and, extraordinary as it may
appear to the Committee, I have never read one word of any
of the papers connected with any one of the railways. I
wish that answer to be put down. I have not read any of
the papers connected with any one of the railways, sot con-
sidering it any part of my duty.
Then, whether you have bought or sold shares in any of the
lines so affecting Ordnance property, you cannot inform the
Committee?—Yes ; I meant to state distinctly to the Com-
mittee that I had not bought shares in any other but the
North Kent Railway.
Mr. ROEBUCK—Nor held shares? Nor held shares.
Mr. Linnenn—May I ask you whether you ever attended
any meetings of the Board of Ordnance, where you pro-
nounced an opinion as to the merits of any particular lines ?
—Never, upon my honour ; nor have I been called
upon to do so ; nor still, further, have I had an opportunity
of doing so. Perhaps the Committee will allow me to say
this; it will appear more distinctly if the Committee will do
that which I think is due both to the public and to the mem-
bers-of the Board of Ordnance, viz., examine the highest
authorities in the department upon the subject ; I should be
most happy that Sir George Murray, Colonel Peel, and Mr.
Byham, who has been Secretary of the Ordnance for forty
years, should all be examined ; and I am sure they will all state
that I could have had no opportunity of giving an opinion, or
furthering or promoting the interests of any one of the railways.
I believe you have documents from the office, and you will see
my name signed to them. Many •f the documents contain
this indorsement, " Refer it to the Inspector-General of For-
tifications for a report." When we have a report of the
Inspector-General of Fortifications, it is submitted to the
Master-General for approval. The papers will be before you;
and I state it, subject to the possibility of stating anything in-
accurately, with all the:consequences before me. I have never
had any opinion to give, and never been called upon to give one.
In what capacity do you sign your name to these papers?
—As a Member of the Board ministerially. I may make
myself understood in this way : when a railway company
applies to the Board of Ordnance for permission to pass
through their property, Mr. Byham, the secretary of the
Ordnance, not waiting for any communication from the
Board, makes the minute : " Refer it to the Inspector-
General of Fortifications for a report," the Inspector-General
of Fortifications reports accordingly to the Board. In every
case, and on all occasions, the next minute will be, " Submit it
to the Master-General for his approbation." The Master-
General, you will find, always enters somewhat at large into the
question, and then he gives instructions to the Board to convey
his approbation or disapprobation of the line. That is the re-
gular official mode of doing business. We never have an aye
or nay upon the subject ; we have no opinion to offer; we can
offer none. It is a military question ; and the Master-General
states that, upon all:military questions, he reserves to himself the
entire power of deciding.
Then your signature, upon the occasions upon which it ap-
pears upon the papers, is purely in an official capacity?—
Purely official.
No discretion whatever is exercised on your part with re-
gard to the merits of any question which may come under the
consideration of the Board in those papers ?—No question
whatever on my part—no power of altering it in the minutest
degree ; of advancing the interests of one, and retarding the in-
terests of another.
Mr. HATTER—It is merely ministerial ?—Merely minis-
terial.
Mr. SHE Tuna er—Are the papers read by the members of
the Board ?—With regard to the other members, you will have
an opportunity of having both Colonel Peel and Captain Bole
dero before you ; but, for myself, I have never read a single
paper connected with one railway, for I have enough to do
without. Ido not understand engineering.
Mr. ROEBUCK—Can you explain how it was that on one oc-
casion Mr. Hignett had to report ?—With regard to these three
railways, there K ere three competing lines, the North Kent, the
South-Eastern, and the Croydon, and the Master-General, you
will find, has reported (for there is great misconception on the
subject), his assent to each and all of them, subject to certain
conditions ; that is, that a certain clause should be put in,
which he dictates. This clause, of course, must be put in by the
solicitor, and the solicitor is ordered to put in a clause for pro-
ject so and so ; for example, with reference to the North
Kent Railway, the Master- General reported his appro-
bation of the line. (I am speaking with regard to
Woolwich ; I do not remember what it was as to Chatham,
but I remember that with regard to Woolwich from a
discussion that occurred since.) The Master- General reported
his assent to the North Kent Railway passing through Wool-
wich •common by a tunnel; he required that the whole extent
of our ground at Woolwich should be tunnelled; that was the
first condition; and I believe also that the stations on each
side should be so far from the Arsenal as not ti produce incon-
venience by quantities of persons coming ; subject to those two
conditions he assented. That assent is reported to the solicitor,
and he is instructed to prepare clauses ; accordingly, Mr. Hig.
nett had to prepare those clauses.
What followed on the report being made by Mr. Hignett?

He is required to report to the Board, for the benefit of the
Master-General, how he has executed that duty. That report,
and you will find it among the papers, is sent to the Board; and
you will find a minute referring it to the Master-General for
his approval ; but one word of it we are net called upon to read,
because we have not the power to decide upon it.
Mr. LIDDELL—With regard to the North Kent Railway, you
have stated that you bought shares in the market, and paid for
them a deposit, upon the impression that that was likely to be
a successful line of railway?—Certainly.
Has the North Kent Railway come under the consideration
of the Board of Trade ?—The North Kent Railway came under
the consideration of the Board of Trade, and the South-
Eastern was preferred.
In the report of the Board of Trade the South-Eastern was
preferred ?—Yes.
May I ask whether, from the transactions that had occurred
at the Board of Ordnance, you had acquired any information
respecting the line of the Noith Kent Railway which induced
you to give it the preference?—Certainly not.
Was it then the character that it bore in the market gene-
rally, and with the public at large, which induced you to prefer
it when you bought those shares ?—I acted upon the advice of a
friend of considerable engineering knowledge.
You took that sort of advice which any person may legi-
timately take who goes into the market and buys shares?—
Precisely.
And that advice you consider to have been fairly given ?
Yes. I pledge myself, knowing what the Committee cannot
know, but what I am sure they will be satisfied of before the
inquiry is concluded—l am content to let the issue rest upon
this, with reference to any improper advantage that I may
have derived, that I was as fully justified in buying North
Kent shares as I should have been in buying Yorkshire shares,
where the Ordnance have no property at all. I am content to
rest my whole case upon the Committee coming to that
opinion when they know how the business of the Ordnance is
transacted.
Mr. DUNCOMBE—How many members is the Board of
Ordnance composed of ?—Three ; the Ma-ster-General is not
a member of the Board ; we never see the Master-General.
The surveyor-general, Colonel Peel ; the clerk, Captain Bol-
deco ; and the storekeeper, myself, are the three members of
the Board of Ordnance.
Have you any voice in anything which is proposed to the
Board?—Many things; everything but military questions.
The Master-General distinctly reserves, and states to the mili-
tary authority that he does, in those cases, act for himself ; I
believe you will find a minute to that effect. All cases of
ri utract, all commissariat cases, all store cases, many of
which must occur, and various other thing., of course come
before the Beard, and each member of the Board has a voice.®
If there is a difference of opinion in the Board, does the ma-
jority decde?—Yes ; I have been four years at the Board, and
there never has been a difference of opinion coming to a
point, coming to what may be called a division, or anything
of that kind, since I have be en there ; I have been in four
years ; I never miss, and I have not been out of town during
those four years for four weeks, and I have never known a
difference.
nance propert
Supposing it is proposed to carry a railway across the Ord-
; whether
rda an
yd
content
te arisesn t
he amongof thethe membersßoaßoard
o
f
the Board whey
shall
be given to that railway, whether they shall appear as consent-
ing or dissenting parties ; how will that question be decided ?
I answer iistinctly that the case cannot occur.
That is not a military question ?—lt is considered so; in a
certain sense it is not, but it is so, practically considered ; and
it never could occur, it never does occur, because all those
questions are referred to the Master-General.
Sir C. DOUGLAS--Any railway which went through Ord-

nance property would be under the military surveillance of the
Master-General ?—Yes.
And would not come before the Board ?—No.
Mr. TANCRED-Mr. Hignctt says, " On the 30th of May
the Board ordered me to have a meeting of the military officers
with the solicitor, myself, and then on the Monday following
we met near the Committee-room, in an ante-room, and dis-
cussed the matter, and on the 3d of June I made my report re-
commending the stations ;" did you not take that retort into
your consideration ?—Certainly not ; we referred it to the
Master- General.
Then it passed merely ministerially through your office ?
Clearly. I have endeavoured to exi-lain that no one case of that
sort ever came before the Board for their consideration. We
referred it to the Master-General.
He says, " Tile minute submitting this to the Master-Gene-
ral is signed by Mr. Bonham and Captain Boldero ?"—That is
exactly bearing out my point; that minute is submitted to the
Master-General.
Does not that minute contain a general approbation or disap-

probation?—Certainly not.
Mr. SnxßlDAN—What is the nature of the report submitted to
the Master-General where do you make alterations or amend-
ments or suggestions?—There are various questions of course
upon which we make communications to the Master-General ;
it is rather difficult to answer that question. In fact, upon many
points of the general details of the Board the Master-General
would rather require us to give an opinion : for example, as to
the conduct of officers in various things. Very recently there was
the case of a gentleman in one of the Arsenals whose conduct
was complained of : we referred it to the Master-General ; we
thought it wiser to refer it to him ; and the Master-General sent
it back to us, and stated lie would be glad to have our opinion
upon it; but upon military questions we never (I state that
generally and broadly) presume to give an opinion to the
Master- General—and all railway-questions arc considered under
that category of military questions—and we never presume
therefore to form an opinion; and I will venture to say that,
having the documents before you, you will not find an opinion
in any case offered by the Board to the Master-General upon
military subjects ; but at the same time this will be much
more satisfactorily explained by others ; and I do hope that
you will have Mr. Byham, who has been in the office for half a
century, or the Master-General; those gentlemen will tell you
the routine of the office.
Mr. PAKINGTON—Upon a railway question, after the Mas-
ter- General has given his opinion, is that opinion submitted to
the Board, or is his opinion final ?—Final ; it is never submitted
to the Board.
Mr. T. EG ERTON—Your duty is merely to transmit it to
the parties ?—Exactly ; and the answers to those three com-
peting lines were sent to the solicitors of the different com-
panies; to Mr. Fearon, the solicitor of one ; to Mr. Stephens,
the solicitor of the other ; and to the solicitor of the Croydon ;
we never offered our opinion upon it.
Mr. ROEBUCK —SO that if, in your opinion, one of the rail-
ways was a very mischievous one, and the other a very good
one, that could make no difference ; you could express no poi-
nion ?—lt would be totally out of my power to express any of-
ficial opinion. I might out of doors, if I was fool enough to
criticise what had been done, express an opinion.
Mr. VERNON—Is the decision of the Master- General upon
the point submitted to him known to other persons as soon as
the members of the Board ?—Yes, because to other parties in-
terested it must be communicated.

V
. .. ....
Mr. LIDDELL—J❑ your official capacity, as a functionary of
the Board of Ordnance, would it be possible fur you to pro-
mote the interests of this railway or that railway at the Board
of Ordnance?—Clearly impossible. That answer I give most
distinctly, and I abide by it, always supposing that you will
take care care to have the parties connected with the Ordnance
before you to examine them.
- -

Mr. TANCRED—The Master-General does not act, except
through reports ?—Not except through reports, with the single
exception of the case I alluded to, of the officer, whose con-
duct was brought before us. I have not occasion to see the
Master-General for seven or eight months ; the clerk of the
Ordnance has occasion to see him on many points. I believe
he has occasion to consult him upon the question of the har-
bours of refuge. That is a case on which I know nothing ; and
his seeing him is, I believe, rather with a view to questions
coming before the House of Commons, that the clerk of the
Ordnance shoald be prepared to answer any question that may
arise. But they are Master-General's questions entirely ; and
unless it could be supposed that the Master •General was likely
to take my opinion upon a military point, it is totally impossible
that I could have the slightest influence, or indeed any member
of the Board, in the case of any single railway.
CHAIRMAN—WiII you turn your attention to a letter dated
" Office of Ordnance, the 24th of June" (the letter being shown
to the witness.) That letter, signed by Mr. Hignett, the
solicitor of the Ordnance, states :—" I am directed to add, that
the Company are not to vary the level of the railway by raising
the same ; but that the Master-General and Board consent to
any necessary deviation of the level of the railway by lowering
the same." Had the consent of the Master-General been

formally obtained at that time?—l believe I c-tn give infor-
mation upon that. The question was raised before the Par-
liamentary Committee whether the Master-General's consent
had been really given. 1 think a letter was sent up to Mr.
Byham, Secretary of the Board, to know whether the
Master-General's consent had been given or not. Mr.
Byham went down accordingly, and was examined before
the Committee : and he stated that the papers had been
sent to the Master-General, but his consent had not been

formally received. It was the board day, otherwise I
should not have known anything about it. Colonel Peel
and myself were at the Board when Mr. Byham re-
turned from the Committee. The moment he came into
the room, a paper was sent up by Mr. Elliott, the chief
clerk in the Mater-General's department, a different depart-
ment from the Board of Ordnance, containing the Master-
General's report, and Mr. Byham said, " I am very sorry that
this did not arrive before I went ; for being called upon, I
stated, that the consent had not arrived, for we had sent to
the clerk for it, and it had not arrived ; and it now appears

that Mr. Elliott received it last night, and had net sent it up
before I went." We told him that all he had to do was to
forward it to the Committee that day. Indeed that was his
own suggestion. He said, " The best thing I can do is to send
this to the Committee." We said, " Certainly ;" and it was
sent to the Chairman of the Committee, Mr. Lascelles, upon
that day. The Committee was up ; it had adjourned at two
o'clock ; and the following morning, the first step that the
Chairman of the Committee took was to read the report of the
Master-General of the Ordnance.
---C.Zld the solicitor of the Ordnance, without your know-
ledge, write a letter, staling that the Master-General had
consented to a variation of the levels, without the formal
consent of the Master-General ?—Certainly, without my
knewledge ; he was instructed to prepare this; he would not
come to the Board upon it, or have any communication with •
the Board.
Mr. ROESUCK—What is the meaning of the words, " The
Master-General and Board consent ?"—Those words you will
find always used ; in the, same way as you have an official
seal, so you have the terms, "the Master-General and Board
consent," to everything.
Then the Board really have nothing to do with it?—The
Board really and truly have nothing to do with all these ques-
tions ; but I apprehend generally, in any formal consent to the
conveyance of property, or anything else, they put " the
Board" as part of the formal words ; but it is, in fact, the
Master-General in military cases.
Do not you think that out of doors that is understood to
mean the Board of Ordnance ?—No, I should think not; but
if you consider that it is so, it is certainly desirable that you
should have information upon that from a higher authority
than I can pretend to be, or a more disinterested one ; that you
should in that way obtain accurate information ; but the party
to decide in questions of this kind is the Master-General; but
the words must be used on all occasions in every lease, and so
on, " The Master-General and the Board of Ordnance."
Mr. TA Ncxxn—ln the letter of the 10th of June there is
the same expression, " The Master-General and Board of
Ordnance being of opinion that the two stations for the Lon-
don, Chatham, and North Kent Railway," and so on ; you
have nothing to do with that 7—No.
Mr. DeNcounx—The Board of Ordnance are only instru-
ments ?—They are only instruments, but they are necessary in-
strumente.
Mr. ROEBUCK—If they were efficient, as they are supposed
to be efficient out of doors, what would be the result of any
one member of the Board being known to be a l•trge share-
holder in any railway passing through Ordnance property ?
I hardly know how I can answer that question ; I understand
what it is intended to convey, but I hardly know how to
answer it.

CHAIRNIAN—Do you not think that any member of the
Board of Ordnance balding shares in a railway where the con-
sent of the blaster-General and Board of Ordnance would be
necessary, would convey the impression that the consent of the
Board would be obtained, and increase the chances of that line
passing ?—I raust leave every gentleman to answer that ques-
tion ; all I can say is, that I, as a member of the Board, con-
sidered myself as much entitled to bay shares in the North
Kent Railway as I should in any Oxford Railway. I may be
wrong, but that is my impression.
Mr. ROEBUCK—You came to that conclusion from the Board
being not really efficient, but merely nominal?—Yes.
Mr. LIDDELL—NominaI so far as these points are con-
cerned ?—Exactly.
Upon military questions you are a nominal Board, but upon
all other questions an effective Board ?—Yes.
Mr. HAYTER—WouId not the knowledge on the part of the
public that any members of the Board of Ordnance were
holders of shares :in one of the lines passing through Ordnance
property, create an undue prejudice against a rival line which
had no such advantage ?—in the first place, I do not know that
when a person buys shares in any line it will be publicly known
what shares he has.
Do von think that it oczes out through the brokers ?
Possibly.
Mr. DUNCOMBE—ShouId you think it right on the part of
the Master-General to have shares in the North Kent Rail-
way ?—Certainly not.
Mr. LlDDELL—Because the Master-General is the person
to pronounce upon the adoption or rejection of the line ?—He
has the absolute power in his own hands, and therefore, of
course, he should not hold shares. .
Mr. DUNCOMAE—What is the great use of this Board under
these circumstances ?—ln the first place, the Board transact all
contracts and commissariat business of every sort, and business
connected with landed property. We are, in a word, if I may
use the expression which was used by our old secretary, gene-
ral dealers. The India Company receive through the Ord-
nance their supplies of arms, clothing, and various things. The
contracts are all made by tender, and they are made through
the Ordnance.
Why should not your decisions equally extend to matters con-
nected with railways ?—Simply because they are military ques-
tions; and the Master-General, who is always a high military
authority, decides them ; and the members of the Board of
Ordnance are not supposed to be military men.
With the exception of two, the other two are military men ?
—Generally, they are.
Mr. %V. PATTEN—Two of the members at present are mili-
tary men ; but, on a late occasion, two out of the three were
not military men ?—I should say that there is never more than
one civilian at the Board ; at least, so far as lam able to speak
to that; there is a great deal of business for a civilian.
Mr. LIDDELL—During the time that Lord Mulgrave was
Master-General of the Ordnance, Mr. Ward was Clerk to the
Ordnance for many years ?—l-le was.
Mr. SHERIDAN—Were Mr. Hignett's letters submitted to
you b..fore they were forwarded; for instance, this letter of
the 10th of June ?—No, that would not be submitted to us ;
Mr. Hignett receives instructions from the Master-General ;
the Master- General approves of the proposition, and sends it
to the Board " approved" so and so. I believe vou have the
original paper, which would show it better than I can.
Then it is rather incorrect for Mr. Hignett to say, " the
tunnell and other railway works at that spot are to be executed
to the satisfaction of the Board ;" he does nut there mention
the Master-General?—But "the Board" means the Master-
General.
Mr. VERNON —I suppose that your attention was more
directed to the merits of the North Kent Railway in consequence
of the communications which have been made on the subject,
and which had been brought under your knowledge in the pro-
gress of the applications to the Board ?—No, c..rtainly not ; I
should rather say that my opinions as to the North Kent Rail -
way were derived from one who is not a member of the Board,
but who is a personal friend of mine. I again repeat what
must sound very extraordinary, that I am persuaded, with re-
ference to this railway, I never read a single paper, for I was
no, called upon to give an opinion • and therefore it was no use
tor me to read any of the papers. I have plenty of occupation.
Mr. LIDDELL—Has the Board of Ordnance always been
composed of the same officers who now compose it, a surveyor,
a clerk, and a storekeeper ?—Yes ; they may be military men,
or naval men, or civilians; but there would not be more than
one civilian at the same time, I should think.

CHAIRMAN—WiII you state the number of shares you had
in the North Kent Railway ?—I had 100.
You purchased 100?—Yes.
You still hold them?—Yes ; that is to say, I had 125 ; those
125, it seems, were sold upon a profit of somewhere about half-
a-crown, or it moy be ss. a share.
Lord WORSLEY—You mean the whole 12> ?—Yes.
CH A r RMA N—Tken you purchased again 7—Yes, I purchased
again very recently 100, and those I have.
Did you buy them in the market? I bought them, at least
my friend who managed the transaction for me, bought them in
the market at a high premium.
They were not then bought in your name?—They were not
bought in my name.
Your name does not appear 7—No, it does not.
Then they are, in fact, held by him at this moment ?—They
are, in fact, at this moment held by him.
Are they held by him in trust for you ?—Yes.
You having paid the deposit and the premium?—He must
have paid the deposit and the premium ; they are held by him
in his hands for me.
In point of fact, up to this time, you have paid nothing?—l
have paid nothing upon those—they were bought only a few
days ago.
Was that friend any person connected with the Board of Ord-
nance ?—Not in the remotest degree.
Was it any person connected with the promoters of the North
Kent Railway ?—Not in the remotest degree.
Mr. VERNox—What was the date of the first purchase ?—I
cannot state the date,' but it must have been long ago, because
they were purchased at par ; it must have been very early in-
deed, several months ago, and they were sold again at quarter
premium.
CHAIRMAN—Did you pay the deposit and premium upon
those shares ?—Certainly.
Of those shares did you hold the scrip in your hands?—l
should say not—my friend held them in the same way.
Mr. LIDDELL—Do yoa happen to know when Captain
Boldero sold his North Kent Shares ?—I remember he came
into my room (you remind me of that which perhaps, 1
ought to have stated), and said, " I think this question is
likely to come unpleasantly before Parliament" (he did not
mean before the Board of Ordnance) ; " a question has arisen
about Woolwich-common, which is very likely to come before
Parliament, in which I must take a part, and I shall therefore
sell my shares." He said, " before Parliament," not " before
the Board of Ordnance." I beg you to draw the distinction.
That was early in June ; it was when the difficulty arose about
the tunnel question.
Was it the 9th of June?—Very early. It appears further,
of which I was net aware at the time, that I told this to my
friend, and he sold my shares also.
The CHAIRMAN—The first one hundred and twenty-five
shares were bought in the open market? All were equally
bought, I apprehend, in the open market ; I can have no doubt
about that, as they were bought at par. I shall be able to
inform myself correctly upon that. The last I know were
bought in the open market, and they were bought at a con•
siderable premium ; that I can speak with certainty to.
Your name appeared in none of these transactions?—No, I
should take for granted, in none.
Each time they were bought on your account ?—Yes ; not
on a joint account. My name, therefore, would not appear.
If on the papers to- morrow there should be any difference be-
tween them and what I have now stated, I trust I shall not
have any disservice from it. To the accuracy of the papers I
will pledge myself; the precise details I cannot vouch for, but
I will pledge myself that those details shall be forthcoming.
Was the person who was joined with you in the purchase of
those shares in any way engaged in promoting the North Kent
Railway ?—No, in no degree whatever.
Do you feel any objection to mention the name of the party
with whom you were joined in buying those shares?—l do not
know that I shall have the least objection to-morrow morning
to mention his name.
Captain Henry George Bolder°, a Member of the House,

examined.

CHAIRUAN—You are the Clerk of the Ordnance ?—I am.
Have you read the petition presented to Parliament by the
South-Eastern Railway Company ?—I have.
Has you attention been particularly drawn to the letter of
Mr. Hignett of the 3d of February, 1845?—Decidedly.
Are there any observations or explanations which you wish
to make in reference to that letter?—The first intimation I
had about that letter was a letter I received from Mr. Fearon.
I received this letter from Mr. Fearon, dated the 26th of June,
1845 I docketed the time at which I received it ; it was half-
past three, but it might have arrived at the office sooner.
The witness read the same, as follows :
" South-Eastern Railway-office, 35 A, Great- George-
street, Westminster, June 26, 1845.
" Sir—l feel it my duty to inform you that under the ad-
vice of counsel a letter addressed by Mr. Hignett, the Solicitor
of the Board to which you are attached, to the late Secretary
of the South-Eastern Railway Company will be produced this
day at the sitting of the Committee on Group A. Your name
is mentioned in this letter, and it will no doubt appear desirable
to you that you should be present.
(Signed) " JOHN P. FEA RON,
" Solicitor to the South-Eastern-Railway
" Company.

" Captain Boldero."
Having received that letter, as I have stated, at half-pas
three, I immediately sent down stairs for Mr. Hignett to come
up. He was not in the office, and I left word that he was to
come up immediately he came in. About half-past four I
went into Mr. Bonham's room, and there I found Mr. Hignett.
I had the letter in my hand, and I said to Mr. Bonham,
" Here is a curious letter ;" or something of that kind. I
alluded to the letter from Mr. Fearon. Mr. Bonham told me
he had received a similar one. I then said to Mr. Hignett,
" What does this letter mean ?" because it was an ambiguous
letter. I could not make anything of it. He said, " Sir, I
do not know ; I have no copy of that letter." I said, " Very
well, sir, you will take this," (I gave him the original letter),
" and give me an explanation immediately." I mentioned
also, (this was at half-past four), that I hoped to dine at the
Carlton Club, where he was to send his letter. At seven o'clock
the following letter was delivered to me.
The witness read the same as follows :
" Office of Ordnance, June 26, 1845.
" Sir—l have perused a letter addressed to you by Mr. J.
P. Fearon, solicitor to the South-Eastern Railway Com-
pany, dated this day, adverting to a letter stated to have been
written by me to the late secretary of that Company in which,
your name is mentioned; and in compliance with your de-
sire to be furnished with some explanation, I beg to state that
I recollect having had some communication with the gentleman
alluded to, but it was a confidential one, and he has just in-
formed me that he so considered it, and so indeed did Mr. Fearon
so understand it from him. I remember applying to the Se-
cretary far some of the new shares four or five months ago, I
having previously held some of the old shares in my own name,
for individuals of my
family ; but I have no recollection of hav-
ing used your name in my letter to the secretary. Most assur-
edly I had no authority from you to apply for shares in your
name, or in your behalf, neither had I communicated with
you on the subject. If I did so it must have been inad-
vertently, and very improperly no doubt, in a letter which was
strictly private and confidential. I have, on the present oc-
casion, strictly conformed to the orders of the Master-General
and Board, and am exceedingly sorry for the annoyance which
this most unwarrantable breach of confidence on the part of
Mr. Fearon will occasion you.—l have, &c.,
(Signed) "J. HIGNETT.
" Captain Boldero, M.P., &c., &c."
I had previously made an arrangement with Mr. Bonham
to meet him after dinner. I met him after dinner : I should
think at half-past nine, and I said, " Steps must be imme-
diately taken to get a copy of this letter." We discussed
the question, and we mutually agreed that a letter should
be written to the Honourable William Lascelles, the Chair-
man of the Committee, requesting a copy ; but when writing
the letter (each was engaged writing his own letter), we
received an intimation that the Chairman of that Committee
(Group A) had refused to receive the letter; therefore, I
naturally said, " It is useless to write, still something must be
done." We discussed the question, and we thought that
the only mode open to us was to write to Mr. Fearon. I
drew a draft of the letter I intended to send : Mr. Bonham, of
course, wrote his own. I came down to the House of Commons,
and it was intimated to me that a petition was going to be pre-
sented that night from the South-Eastern Company. I went
into the iihrary and I altered the terms in which 1 originally
addressed the letter to him. I meant to have asked for a copy
of the letter of the 3d of February, but when I found that a
petition was going to he presented to the House, I had no doubt
that a copy would be produced, and, therefore, I did not ask for
a copy. This is the letter which I wrote. The witness read the
same, as follows :

" Ordnance, June 26, 1845

" Sir—l have received your letter dated this day, wherein
you state your intention to produce before the Committee now
sitting on Group A (Railways) a letter addressed by Mr. Hig-
nett to the late Secretary of the South-Eastern Railway, in
which my name is mentioned. I thank you for the information ;
I am ignorant of the contents of Mr. Hignett's letter, except as
far as he has since communicated them to me, and 1 have to as-
sure you that he had no authority from me, direct or indirect,
to make such an application. But, whatever correspondence
has taken place between the contending parties, and sanctioned
by the Master-General and Board, I, as a Member of this
Board, am content to share the responsibility.—l remain, &c.
(Signed) " H. G. BOLDERO."
I think you came to me and stated that you wished to speak
to me, and you then said, " Here is the petition." That pe-
tition you offered to me, and you said that the
.petition you
would not have presented, unless you had the original letter.
You offered me the petition; I declined it, and asked for the
original letter. That was my first knowledge of that letter.
Will you now allow me to call your attention to a paragraph
in a letter of the 3d of February, which is to this effect :—" I
think you should not overlook Captain. Boldero (a member of
this Board) in your allocation of the forthcoming shares ; you
can address them to him at this office, and mark it private."
'I he Committee understand, therefore, from the letter that you
have put in, that Mr. Hignett had no authority whatever to
use your name ?—Not a shadow of authority.
Are you a holder of shares in the North Kent Railway ?—I

am not now ; I was.
Did you buy them yourself in market?—l did not buy
them myself in the market.
Will you state the particulars of that transaction to the Com-
mittee ?—Decidedly.
The date when you became a shareholder in the North Kent
Railway, and the date when you got rid of those shares?—Until
the beginning of this year I never held a railway share of any
description ; my first transaction in speculating a little in rail-
ways commenced thus :—A friend of mine asked me if I would
buy some shares in the Chester and Holyhead. I said " Yes,
provided they are moderate in price." It was finally agreed
between him and me that I should buy twenty shares of
him, and he would deliver them in the course of four
or five days, if I would give him a cheque for 1401. I sent
for the newspaper, and I found the shares quoted in the market
at tip. He said, " Well, if you will give me a cheque for
1401., that will include brokerage and everything ; and I
bought the shares. On the 10th of March I asked Mr.
Hignett to buy me ninety shares more in the Chester and
Holyhead. I knew no broker; I was never on the Stock
Exchange, and I therefore asked him to buy them for me.
Mr. PAKINGTON—And you got those shares?—Yes; he
bought them for me at my desire. On the 7th of March
Mr. Hignett was at my room, and we spoke about the North
Kent Railway ; he said he thought it was a good speculation;
the premium was very low, and I requested him to buy me one
hundred shares. He bought one hundred shares, and of course
paid the premium and paid the brokerage, and I paid him for
them; I kept them for a short time, and sold them.
When did you sell them ?—ln a fortnight, I think.
Mr. W. PATTEN—Do you recollect what the premium was?
—No ; it was not a very profitable one.
CHAIRMAN—You gained by the sale of them ?—I think I
did ; yes, I may say that I did.
Mr. ROEBUCK—Were the whole 100 sold ?—The whole 100
were sold; it was a heavier stake than I liked.
Cuataata r;:---Can you state what the premium was ?—I will
endeavour to ascertain by to-morrow at what the market price
was; I forget what it was at this moment.
What was the date of the sale ?—That I will make good to-
morrow.
Had you a broker to sell those shares?—Yes.
Do you reme tuber the broker's name ?—No, I do not.
Mr. ROEBUCK—Have you got the note ?-1 do not know
whether I have, for I had closed my transactions upon that
point ; but I will look into all my papers for the Committee.
CHAIKHAN— Were they sold in your name ?—No, I believe
not.
Mr. PAKINGTON—The whole bu'iness was transacted by
Mr. Hignett ?—lt was • he bought and sold them for me. The
next transaction was, I think, in April. I took up a paper,
and I said, " Mr. Hignett, I have selected three lines, and I
should like for you to buy tne twenty shares in each:" (I am

stating things as they occurred: ) " twenty in the Man- '
chester and Leeds, twenty in the North British,
and twenty in the Glasgow and Edinburgh," all six-
teenths. I think the Manchester and Leeds I hold now, and
these are the papers. ( The witness produced the same. )
There was a premium paid in the market. And these are the
North British. ( The witness produced the same.) The
Glasgow and Edinburgh I have not got ;,I sold them in
the market.
CUAIRMAN—Did you at any time subsequently purchase
any shares in the North Kent ?—I did.
What was the date of that purchase, and the number of
shares ?—That was in April ; the next and only other trans-
action that I had in the North Kent, som?thing occurred in
getting the Bill through the Committee ; some objections
were got over, and a friend advised me to re-invest in the
North Kent. On the 25th of April I asked Mr. Hignett to
buy me fifty or sixty shares. In the afternoon he came and said
that be had bought one hundred and twenty North Kent shares.
I said, " That is more than I want," and I took seventy.
There was 2/. premium paid. I asked him also to buy twenty-
five shares in the North Kent for a connexion of mine, wl.ich
he did, at 2/. premium.
Sir C. DOUGLAS—Were these twenty-five over and above
the seventy ?—Certainly.
Mr. T. EGERTON—Did you pay a deposit with the pre-
mium ?—They were sold in the market at 2/. premium on
the deposit ; the shares were, I think, at 1/. 15s. each, and 21.
was the premium added to the deposit. I sold thirty of those
shares in April, and I kept the remainder until the 9th of
June. On the 9th of June I sent for Mr. Hignett, and de-
sired him to sell the whole sixty-five.
Mr. PANINGTON—Your remaining forty, and your friend's
twenty-five ?—Exactly. There were thirty sold first, and on
the 9th of June I sold sixty-five. Here is the paper—
" Sixty-five North Kent shares, 9th of June." I sold them at
2a premium.
CHAIRMAN—You have ceased to be a shareholder in the
North Kent Company ?—I have.
You have not had any shares since ?—No.
Your purchases and sales were made in the name of Mr.
Hignett?—They were.
Under your direction ?—Certainly.
Your name not appearing in the transaction at all ?—I sup-
pose not. I told him,to buy and sell, just as I felt a disposi-
tion to speculate. The reason why I sold on the 9th of June
I will explain. Finding that evidence was being received by
the Committee contrary to the spirit and wishes of the Master-
General, it struck me that possibly some question might arise
in which I should be called upon to offer some explanation, and
that induced me to sell.
Mr. DUNCOMBE—Where did you expect that explanation
would be called for ? In the House ; there might be some
petition or discussion about it. I saw that as the matter was
going on I had better be out of it. But previously to
this, the Master-General having given his consent to the
three competing lines, unqualified to one, and conditional
to the other, which conditions had been accepted, I did not
think it possible that any question could arise in the depart-
ment affecting the merits of either line. The Master-General
having left it to Parliament which of the lines was the best,
his assent being given to all three.
CITAIRILAN—You have stated that a friend advised you to
re-invest in the North Kent shares in April, you having sold
those shares that you previously had in March ; was that friend
any Member of the Board of Ordnance, or anybody connected
with the Board?—Certainly not.
Was he in any way connected with the promoters of the
Bill ?—Not in the slightest degree. He was a man specu-
lating in them a little like myself; a connexion of mine.
Neither connected with the office nor the Railway Company ?
—No.

Have you ever had joint-share transactions with any per-
sons, with the exception of Mr. Hignett, connected with the
Board of Ordnance ?—I do not call those joint-share transac-
tions with him. He bought when I asked him, and sold when
I asked him. . _

Have you had any similar transactions to those with any
other person connected with the Ordnance ?—No ; and ex-
cept that he bought and sold for me in those two cases, with
those two exceptions, I have never touched any shares in the
North Kent Company.
Mr. T. EGERTON—The reason that you employed Mr.
Hignett was, that you had never had any dealing in shares?—
Exactly.
You said that you bought those shares after the assent of the
Master-General had been given to one line, and the conditional
assent of the Master-General had been given to the other; will
you be kind enough to state when that assent had been given ?
—The answer to that ought to have been, that I bought the
shares after the assent of the Master-General had bean given to
all those three lines ; the assent to them was given, and they
were all before the House of Commons with the assent of the
Master- General.
Mr. W. PATTEN—Before you bought any shares ?—Yes.
Mr. T. EGERTON—WiII you be good enough to give the date
of the assent of the Master-General ?—The assent of the Master-
General to the London and Croydon was given on February
the 7th, to the South-Eastern on the 29th of January, and to
the North Kent on the 20th :of January ; a conditional
assent was given, and then went to Parliament.
Mr. Liddell—The sixty-five remaining shares that were in
your possession after the purchase, you directed to be sold on
the 9th of June ?—I did.
I understand you to say, that the reasons why you directed
that the sale should take place were, that certain proceedings
were going on before the Committee, in consequence of which
you thought that the propriety of your holding those shares
might be questioned ?—Decidedly. I had previously enter-
tained the opinion that no possible question could came before
us. I thought that the present conditions of the Master-Ge-
neral, would, in this case, as in every case which we had had
before, be insisted upon by the Committee to which the Bill
went ; I had never known any instance to the contrary.
Mr. TancitEn—Have you had frequent instances of Bills
in which the consent of the Master-General was necessary ?
—Yes, we have frequent instances of Bills that affect Ordnance
property, and the Master-General makes one rule in such
cases ; he will never throw any unnecessary impediment in the
way of a public improvement, whether it is by a railway Bill,
or a dock Bill, or any other; he decides all those questions;
they are military questions.
Mr. DoNCOMBE—The Board have not the slightest influence
in those cases ?—Not the slightest.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
HOME ClRCUlT.—Chelmsford, July lei.

CIVIL SlDE.—(Before Mr. Justice' COLERIDIE, and a
Common Jury.)
BROWN V. BREWER.

This was an action brought by Mary Brown to recover
damages from the defendant, William Brewer, for the breach
of his promise to marry her.
Mr. Sergeant Channell and Mr. Ogle were for the plaintiff,
Mr. Montagu Chambers and Mr. Bramwell for the defendant.
Segeant CHANNELL stated the case, and said the parties in
this action were persons in a humble condition of life, and the
plaintiff sought compensation for a very grievous injury that
she had sustained at the hands of the defendant by his break-
ing a solemn promise he had made to marry her. The plaintiff
was the daughter of a beer-shop keeper, near Braintree, and the
defendant had formerly been a footman and groom, but by the
death of a relation he would come into the possession of a con-
siderable sum of money. It might be as well for him to
state that the plaintiff was 44 years old. and he believed the
defendant was not more than 33, but he was perfectly well
aware of this disparity between their ages at the time he pro-
mised to marry her, and after going so far as to obtain a
license upon the Wednesday, and have all the dresses and the
wedding dinner provided, he without any cause whatever re-
fused to fulfil his promise, and the defendant, therefore, by
the advice of her friends, was compelled to adopt the present
proceedings.
The Rev. Mr. Scale, the minister and surrogate of the
parish of Braintree, deposed that he was acquainted with the
parties, and remembered the defendant coming to him for a
license to be married on the 4th of March, which was the day
he fixed for the wedding. On being informed whom he in-
tended to marry, witness told bim Miss Brown was a very good
girl, and she would make him an excellent wife. Witness
waited until twelve o'clock on the 4th of March to perform the
ceremony, but the defendant did not make his appearance. He
came the next day, and paid for the license, and then said he
did not intend to get married. Witness told him he had acted
very wrongly, and it might have serious consequences.
Cross-examined—Did not say anything to him about ec•
clesiastical censure, or about a white sheet.—(Laughter.)
Mr. CHAMBERS—How long ago is it since the plaintiff
was a worthy, good "girl ?" Witness Well, I should
think it is a good while since she was what may properly be
termed "a girl." She is now about 44 years old.—(Laughter.)
Mr. CHAMBERS—Yes, rising 45, is she not ?—( Renewed
laughter.) Witness—She may be. The defendant did not
come for the license in his footman's dress, but he was very
smart. Did not hear that the boys were following and laughing
at him. He gave as a reason for his not going to be married
on the 4th of March, that he bad to receive a legacy of 6001.
or 7001. on that day.
Mrs. Mary Carter deposed that she had been acquainted
with the plaintiff and the defendant for a good many years.
The defendant used to live with a lady named Ratcliffe, who
was his aunt. He was a sort of " servant of all work" to
her.—( A laugh.) When this lady died, he became entitled
to some !property. He used often to joke, and say that he
should get married, but he did not mention any one in par-
ticular, and witness told him that Miss Brown was a very nice
young person.
Sergeant CHANNELL—What did he say to that? Witness
—Why, he said he thought so too.—(Roars of laughter.) She
told him that she was older than he was, but he said that did
not matter.—( Renewed laughter.) After this they became
intimate, and the marriage was fixed to take place on the 4th
March. Witness was invited to the wedding feast at the plain-
tiff's mother's house, and she went there accordingly. A number
of guests were invited, and Miss Brown was dressed in her
wedding suit, and all the other preparations were made for the
wedding.—( A laugh.) A post-chaise was sent by the de-
fendant, and it was waiting at the door to take them to church,
but the bridegroom did not make his appearance.
By Mr. Cuasirszas—Had known the defendant's family for
several years. His father was a labourer. The defendant was
brought up as a labourer, and when a boy used to be employed
to frighten away birds, or anything else that he was asked to
do. The joking about marriage was after he had received the
legacy.
Mr. CHAMBERS—I suppose as you were going along he
said something about getting married, and you build, " Molly
Brown is a nice girl."—( Laughter.) Witness—Yes, she
happened to be standing at the door as we were going by, and
I remarked to him that she was a nice girl, and he said,
" Yes, I think she is."—( Roars of laughter. )
Mr. CHAMBERS—Pray, Mrs. Carter, will you tell us when
you consider a woman ceases to be a girl ?—( A laugh.) Wit-
ness—Not until she is married.—( Roars of laughter.)
Mr. CHAMBERS—Then they are all nice girls, I suppose,
until they are married ? Witness—Yes—(Renewed laughter. )
The witness then went on to say that there was a good party
invited on the wedding-day, and finding the bridegroom did not
come they resolved to dine without him. They aid not have
any dancing or singing, and, in fact, it was rather a dull affair.
She did not hear anything- said at the dinner about losing the
young man or the 7001. The plaintiff was there, but she could
not eat any dinner.—(Laughter. )
Mr. J. Harrington proved that he was invited to the in-
tended wedding, and he added that he was to have given the
bride away. The plaintiff was quite ready, but the gentleman
did not come.—( A laugh.) Witness dined, had tea, supped,
and stayed all night.
Cross-examined—As the defendant did not think proper to
come, they resolved to " keep it up" amongst themselves.—
( Laughter.) They ate up the whole of the wedding cake.—
( Roars of laughter.) They finished the wine and the brandy,
and enjoyed themselves.
Mr. CHAMBERS—Yes, and I believe you drank as toasts,
" Absent friends," and " Better luck another time."

Witness—Yes, we did.—( Laughter. )
John Brown, a brother of the plaintiff, proved that she had
purchased some wedding clothes and furniture, in anticipation
of the marriage. He also said that the defendant asked him to
be " Daddy," and give the bride away at the wedding.
James Digby, a post-boy at the White Hart, Bucking, proved
that the defendant engaged a post-chaise to take his intended
bride to church, and that on the sth of March he came and
paid for it, and gave him ss. for himself.
This was the plaintiff 's case.
Mr. CHAMBERS addressed the jury, and after making some
humourous remarks upon the nature of the evidence in support
of the case for the plaintiff, urged that the action was one of a
most trumpery description i; and that it was perfectly clear, from
the conduct of the plaintiff, that she had no affection for the
defendant, and that the only object she and her friends had in
view was to get hold of the defendant's mousy. Ho contended
that is point of fact th, plaintiff had sustained no real injury,

and although she might be legally entitled to a verdict, yet that
the smallest amount of damages would be a sufficient remune-
ration for the injury she had sustained.
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE having summed up, the jury found
for the plaintiff—Damag '9 80/.
CROWN COURT.—(Before Lord Chief Justice TINDAL.)
Jant,s Jenkins, 21, was ind;cted for stealing a handkerchief,
the property of Georp Howard.
It appeared that the prisoner was in confinement at spring.
field Gaol upon a charge of uttering counterfeit coin, and while
under committal for trial at these assizes he to )k the oppor-
tunity, while the prosecutor, who is the schoolmaster of the
gaol, was in one of the wards, to steal his handkerchief. A
fellow prisoner, who happened to see the act committed, gave
information to the turnkeys, who, upon searching the prisoner,
found the handkerchief in his possession.
The jury found the prisoner Guilty, and it was proved that
he had been before convicted of felony, independent of the
other charge of uttering counterfeit money.
Chief Justice TINDAL sentenced him to ba transported for
ten years.

OX1701?D Oxford, .luly 14.
CROWN COURT.—( Before Lord Chit f Justice DENMAN.)
John Watts, aged 22, and William Neale, aged 19, were
indicted for feloniously assaulting Henry Tebby, at the parish
of Heath, in this county, with intent to do him grievous bodily
harm.

Mr. Rickards appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Walesby
for the prisoners.
The prosecutor, who is a gamekeeper in the service of °Mr.
Rousby, of Cottestord, was out on the night of the 12ils of Ja-
nuary last, between six and seven r-as., when he heard a hare
scream. He was not watching the game, but merely on some
business of his master's ; he, however, turaed and went towards
the spot whence the sound appeared to proceed, and saw three
men, one of whom was named Jesse Willis. The prosecutor
asked Willis what he was doing there, when the latter struck
him a violent blow and knocked him down ; as he was getting
up he received from the other men several severe blows which
inflicted serious and lasting injuries upon him; in fact, caused
the loss of an eye, and also destroyed on one side of his head the
senses at once of sight, hearing, and smelling. He was not so
stunned as not to be able to recollect that he altogether re.
ceived seven blows, nor was he so deprived of sense by the
brutal treatment as to be incapacitated from swearing to the
best of his belief that the prisoners were two of the three men.
Willis was convicted of the assault, and sentenced to 15 years'
transportation at the last assizes. The effect, however, of the
blows was at last to render him insensible, as it appeared, the
weapons used were hedge-stakes three feet long and about six
inches round. On recovering himself he made his way to the
house of the Rev. Mr. Maguire, the Roman Catholic clergyman
at Heath, where he was most kindly treated. The brother of
Mr. Maguire received him ; on reaching the door he fell down ;
he was taken in and every kind of restorative administered, for
his state was weak and his wounds apparently dangerous. Mr.
Jones, a surgeon at the neighbouring village of Brackley, was
very soon in attendance, and from his account it would seem
that the left side of the head was broken, the left nasal and
cheek bones fractured, the left eye grievously wounded ; and
there was also concussion of the brain, the result of blows in-
flicted with a heavy blunt weapon. On the evening in ques-
tion, while at Mr. Maguire's the prosecutor named Willis as
one of the men, but a few days after named the others. Severe
as the injuries were, it would appear that he was not in any
confusion of mind when he first sought assistance at the chapel-
house. A an named Adams, the brother-in-law of the con-
vict Jesse Willis, proved that he had been himself with the
prisoners on a subsequent occasion, and that both of them,
after acquitting Willis of any share in the transaction, re-
peatedly admitted that they themselves were the guilty parties.
Nothing could be more perfectly explicit than this confession,
or more convincing, if the witness could be relied on.

It was also proved that the prisoners were seen in conversa-
tion with the witness on the evening and at the spot where he
alleged the confession to have been made.
Mr. WALESBY addressed the jury for the prisoners.
The Learned Judge summed up, and the jury soon found
both prisoners Guilty.
Lord DENMAN, after commenting on the enormity of the
offence, sentenced them to fifteen years' transportation, observ-
ing, however, that he would willingly have passed a lighter
sentence on Neale (who by confession appeared to be less
guilty), but that the statute was imperative, and he had no
option. His Lordship seemed to intimate that from some other
quarter a mitigation might be hoped for.
The only case of any interest in the civil side had not ter.
minated at the rising of the Court.