The Sun.
London, England, 1828-03-31 00:00:00

BILL.

Mr. _Alderman THOMPSON presented a petition from
the inhabitants of Putney, against the Battersea Inclesure
Bill.

Mr. DENNISON moved the second reading of the
Wandsworth and Battersea Bill. He said au erroneous
idea had got abroad that the intention was to inclose those
parts of the commons of Battersea and Wandsworth, to
which the public now had access. No such intention
hoWever existed, the intention being only to inclose those
fields which were at present cultivated. He understood
that a majority of the inhabitants were opposed to
the inclosure of those lands. He should always oppose
any measure which,• by inclosing fields now open to the
public, curtailed the inhabitants of this great metropolis in
the enjoyment of air and exercise. He therefore moved
that the Bill should be read a second time this day six
months.

Lord ALTHORP supported the Bill. He said the in-
closure would not inlure the inhabitants of the metropolis,
who would still have the 'same opportunity of taking air
and exercise, as it was not intended to inclose the footpaths
or highways. It was only intended to inclose the culti-
vated lands. Fur his own part he had not a direct interest
Interest in the inclosure, but the interest he had was so
nearly direct, that he shbuld not vote.
Mr. D. W. HARVEY wished to know in what manner
they were to protect the Metropolis, if this Bill pissed.
If the land were not to be productive unless this Bill
passed that night be a reason for agreeing to the passing of
the Bill ; but the fact was that the promoters of the Bill
did not intend to make this land productive, otherwise than
of money to themselves, for their object was to build a new
city there : the ground was to be let to any person what-
ever who would build houses of soy description there,
to the detriment of the health of the inhabitants of the
metropolis. •
Mr. FERGSON said that he should oppose the Inu.
tion upon one ground, which was that there were no open
spaces near Londor. ; and he was, therefore, opposed to
the inclosure of any commons which now exist in the
neighbourhood of the metropolis.
Mr. SPENCER PERCIVAL said, that lie felt bound
to oppose the Bill, fer he could look at it in no other light
than as a Bili for establishing a general public nuisance.
Mr. ri EN Err thought the ground of opposing a Bill
on the ground of the keaith of the metropolis was the
most unjust ground of opposition that could possibly be
taken.

Mr. Alderman WOOL) said, that the health of the me-
tropolis was always considered a very strong ground of op-
position to any Bill for inclosing lands in its neighbourhood.
In tile present ease there could be no security against the
building of small houses.
Mr. CARTWRIGHT said he could not see why there
should be one law for laud near the metropolis, and another
for the rest of the country.
Mr. CALCRAFT said, that he came down to vote against
the Bill, but the arguments in opposition to the Bill were
so extraordinary, that he should vote for its going into a
Committee.
Alderman WAITHMAN said, that the land in question
was below the level of high water mark, so that any houses
that were built on the greater part of it must ba of an in-
ferior description. There were so few places of refeatian
about the metropolis, that he was opposed to the inclesnre
Of any other commons.
Lord NORMANBY said, that he also was opposed to
the inclosure of lands in the neighbourhood of the metro-
polis; but the present one differed from all others; for, in
point of fact, the land was in a state of cultivation, except
for about ten weeks in the year ; so that it could be of
little importance to the inhabitaxts of the metropolis.
Mr. BARING said, that ae the land lay below the level
of the river, the air could not be so salubrious as was sup-

k.
,

„.

,

posed. He felt bound to support ti:e Bill, which. he did
not think it at all calculated to injure the metropolis.
The House divided, when there appeared
For the second reading
Against it
Majority 2O
The Bill was therefore thrown.

Mr. BYNG presented a petition from the inhabitants of
the parish of Shoreditch, praying for a repeal of the In-
habited house Duty.
Sir J. SCAIILETT presented a petition from the In-
habitants of the parish of Bumar, in the County of Cavan,
praying for Catholic Fmancipation.
Mr, HUME presented a petition from the Catholic In-
habitants of Maryborough, praying that au alteration may
be made in the Sub .letting Bill, under which they suffer
many grievances.

Mr. TENNISON moved the Order of the Day for the
third reading of the Penryn Disfranchisement- Bill, fin• the
purpose Of postponing it until the 18th day of April next.
Several petitions in favour of the Catholic Claims were
presented by Mr. Spring Rice and Sir F. Burdett.
Mr. Secretary :I'EEL gave notice that on Thursday
next he should move that the House, at its rising, should
adjourn to Monday the 14th day of April.
COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY.

The CHANCELLOZ of the EXCHEQUER moved the
Order of the Day for the House going into a Committee of
Supply, and said that he should not do so on an evenigwhnen
an important debate was•expeeted, hut that the suns of
100,0001. was immediately required for civil contingencieS.
The House then resolved itself into a Committee, and
after a few words front Mr. HUME, the vote was agreed
to, and the House refflmed.
(Left sitting.)

TATTERSALL's THIS DAY

The Craven Meeting being fixed for Monday the betting
principally referred to the Riddlesworth, for which Ad-
vance has been hacked moderately. Although a great
deal of talking took place the betting, however, was not
brisk. . For the Derby the Colonel still holds the first.
place, but Navare had jumped up nearly neck and neck
with him. Druid has gone back, and both Zealot and
Bugle are taken against him. Prue has been selected. and
backed well at SO to 1. Latimer has arso jumped into
notice, and been backed by old hands against Mariner.
Nothing was done on the Oaks, and very little on the St.
Leger, they closed os follows :

- .
RIDDLESWORTII.
5 to 2 agst Duke of Grafton's two
3 to I agst Mr. Thornhill's Shoveller colt
3 to 1 agst Mr. Udny's Emi!y colt
to 1 agst Lord Exetcr's Advaice colt
5 to 1 agst Duke of Grafton's Bramin
5 to 1 agst Sir John Shelley's Cressida 1.
S to 1 agst Lord GI H. Cavendish's Ridicule colt

2000 GS. STAKES.
3 to 1 agst Lord Grosver;or's Navarin
Zi to 1 agst Duke of Rutland's Sorcery colt
5 to 1 agst Duke of Grafton's Omen
6 to 1 agst Mr. French's Palemon
DERBY.
6-?; to I agst Hon. E. Petre's The Colonel
20 to 3 ag,st Lord Grosvenor's Navarin
11 to I agst Duke of Rutland's -Sorcery colt
II to I agst Mr. Thornhill's Merchant
14, to 1 agst Mr. Nowell's Giraffe (Amy colt)
1S to 1 agst Latimer
IS to 1 agst Mr. Thornhill's Mariner
22 to 1 agst Duke of Grafton's Omen-,
30 to 1 apt Lord Anson's Prue colt
30 to 1 agst Lord Jersey's Mona colt
40 to 1 agst Mr. Rogers's Bugle
50 to 1 agst Scipio
100 to 1 agst Iflr. Batson's Cecilia

DONCASTER ST. LEGLR.
20 to I agst Lord Grosvenor's Navarin

LENT ASSIZES..

OXFORD CIRCWIT.—HEREFORD, 34.iitcu r.
INoxs V. ROBBINS AND ANOTHER.

This vas an action brought by a builder at Chel-
tenham against Mrs. Hobbins, the late landlady of
the Cross Keys Inn, Cheltenham, and her daughter,
to recover the sum of 341., being the balance of an
account for building a club-room attached to the
above-mentioned inn.
Mr. Sergeant RUSSELL, for the plaintiff, stated
'that his client, a respectable bricklayer in Chelten-
ham, had built the club-house in question, and that
the first-named defendant was the ',haft., but the
other defendant (her daughter) was entitled to the
reversion of the property on the death of her
mother.
Mr. Sergeant RUSSELL said that there was no
Learned Judge on the Bench whose opinion he
more highly respected than that of the Learned
Judge who now presided, but he was placed there
in the situation of an Advocate who must and would
do his duty towards his client, or he should be un-
worthy of the robe he had the honour to wear. The
Learned Counsel concluded by entering into a re-
view of the evidence adduced on the part of the de-
fence.
Mr. CAMPBELL, in continuation, observed, that
this action included Miss Hobbins merely as an after.
a thought,
verdict
rhdei
ci because t
ufroyi.fi t te,
byhp her
a somennitoi
fft h;'e had
1)u t
misapprehension,
a be f
tecrtme s ol
, r
di
reft ovurer n
tnt
ht
defendant.
MARCH 28.

John Witherstoue was indicted for assaulting' Eli-
zabeth Fletcher, with intent to commit a rape.
Elizabeth Fletcher said that she was la years old
on '23d of February last. On the 4th of that month
the prisoner's wife was going from home, and re-
quested the witness's mother to allow her to go to
her house to take care of her child in her absence.
The, witness's mother having consented, she accor-
dingly went, and for the first two days the prisoner
took no notice of her. On the third day be was sit-
ting by the fire, and, as the witness was about to
put the kettle on, he pulled her into his lap, and
pr)ceeded to take liberties with her. The witness
then entered into a detail of the prisoner's conduct
to her, which fully established the charge contained
in the indictment. She did not call out, though she
struggled to get from the prisoner. She was afraid
if any one saw her in that situation, they would tell
her mother, and she would be angry.
this witness by order of the Mayor, proved that he
foulnir. Juliusdherina jstoanteesO a surgeon, who had examined
f disease, from the ill-treatment
she had received.
Mr. JUSTICE addressed the Jury for the 1,-;iso„er,
and contended that the prosecutrix was Unworthy
of credit, as it was evident from her own testimony
that if she had made that resistance which she ought
to have done, the prisoner must have been instantly
detected.
to the Jury, after a short consultation they
returned
a verdict of Not Guilty,
evidence
mrßaron VAUGHAN having recapitulated the
Mr. Baron VAUGNAN---" Prisoner, don't fancy
that your character is cleared by this acquittal; the
case on your part is most infamous." His Lordship
then addressed Elizabeth Fletcher, the daughter, and
her mother, and said that there was not the slightest
imputation whatever on their character or testimony.
john Williams, Harriet Williams, and An Grif-
fith: were indicted for assaulting Wm. Hazlewood
Smith, arid stealing from his
person 301. in bank-
notes.

The Jury having found the prisoners Guilty,
Mr. Bunn VAUGHAN sentenced them to be traw-
ported for life.

Thomas Williams was indicted for stealing a game
cock, value 10s. The bill was thrown out by the
Grand Jury, and a claim was made upon the coam°
for 25/. expenses. The Magistrate had certified for
expenses amounting to 11. 17s. We need scarcely
add, that the claim for the 251. was rejected.

NORFOLK CIRCUIT—BURY, MARCH
Lucy Gmont and John Gosling were indicted f 0...
having on the 15th day of November last, at Melford,
n this county, feloniously stolen a quantity of wood
and chips, of the value of 6(1., the property of Wm.
Ling.
From the circumstance of the female prisonsr
being a lady of independent fortune, and the widow
of a gentleman of a very aneumt and respectable
family in the county, this case excited great expec-
tation and interest. The Court wts crowded at at:
early hour, and the greatest anxiety was niau-
fasted to catch a glimpse of the accueed, She ova

BIRTHS.
On the 28th inst. the lady of Joseph Wood, A- v
01.•
Westbourne-plaee, Of a son.
On the 28th inst. the lady of Colonel Jahn Clithetol6
of a sun.

MARRIED.
Ou the 29th instant, at St. James's, Clerkenw—
Richaid Pittman, jun., Esq. of Paddington-green, to Jot
only daughter of J. R. Vincent, Esq., of Claremont-Or—
Pentonville.

FlithTitin and PUBLISHED by M. YOUNG at
SCN PFFICU, No. 112, Stand.