The Sun.
London, England, 1844-04-23 00:00:00

TIE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY MORNING, APRIL 23, 1844

the schedule. If they created those thirty-five new
courts, with salaries such as to induce men of high stand-
ing at the bar to take office in them, together with a host
of registrars—he believed that then, if the courts proved
to be still the nuisances which they now were, and to ea.
pose the administration of justice to the reproach whicll
they now exposed it to—the effect of the Bill would he to
greatly increase the obstacles to their abolition.—(Hear,
hear.) Last session the Right Hon. Gentleman (Dr.
Nicholl) cited largely from the authorities, upon which
he rested his Bill at that time. But on the present oc-
casion
he alluded to those authorities in a very light and ,
trenchant manner.—e(Hear, hear.) But he would en- j
deavour to supply the deficiency from the Right Honour-
able Gentleman's own able and convincing speech.
First, there was the report of the Ecclesiastical Com- j
ruiseion appointed in 1829, upon which were the Arch-
bishop of Canterbury, the Bishops of London and Dur-
ham, Lord Tenterden,, Sir Nicholas Tindal, the Chief
Justice of the Conimon Pleas, Sir John Nicholl, and Dr.
Lusbington, &c. In this report the condemnation of
these (stuns was as strong as language could express it.
The Right lion. Gentleman admitted that some of the
surviving members of that Commission retained their
opinions, but others had changed them, and thought
they had gone too far. But could the Right Hon. Gen-
tlemen ask the House, on that account, totally to aban-
den the principles which, only last year, the House
adopted in a great measure upon the authority of those
Commissioners, of whom many retained their opinions to
the full?—(Hear, hear.) In the report, also, of the Real
Property Commissioners, the abolition of the courts was
recommended, if not as directly in terms, certainly as
strongly in fact, as in that of the Ecclesiastical Commis-
sion—and this, also, was one of the Right Hon. Gentle-
man's authorities. That Commission contained the
names of men of the highest eminence in the legal pro-
fession. He (Dr. Nicholl) produced, also, the authority
of the Committee of the House of Commons, moved for
by the Right Hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for
the home Department, and also the authority of the
Committee of the House of Lords, appointed in 1836.
The Right Hon. Gentleman was quite correct in saying
that a Bill similar in principle was introduced into the
House of Lords in 1836, but that Bill was far more
stringent in its reforms and better calculated to meet
the wants and desires of the country. However, the
peculiars were by the present Bill to be abolished, and
that was something gained, for he did not believe that
any one could be found to say a word in favour of them.
except, perhaps, the night Hon. Member for Oxford
(Sir It Inglis), who held everything in connection with
eselesiasticad matters to be sacred and inviolate. The
diocesan courts were, however. found to be too strong
for the Government, and to a power which they could
not or would net grapple with the country was to be
sacrificed. It might, perhaps, be difficult to trace ex-
actly and correctly the origin of these courts, but he
might state his own opinion, that their origin would be
found in superstition. But evert- ground whirl could
possibly exist for their jurisdiction had now ceased t
exist. Now the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir
Graham) had himself last year denounced and discard
these diocesan courts, and he wished now to ask him if
he abandoned his former opinions, or if he maintained
them ?—(flear.) Before these courts questions of the
utmost interest, both 'in tessamentary and mitrimonial
affairs would be brought—questions relating to the legiti-
macy of children, the rights of families, the happiness and
security of society—and he (Sir G. Grey) wished to ask
whether by this Bill such judges were secured as would
give the public a proper confidence in the administration
justice?—(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman
(Dr. Nicholl) had stated the Bill to be an experiment,
but why did he not give them the Bill of last year as an
experiment? The principle of last year's Bill was con-
centration—the principle of this Bill was distribution in
the jurisdiction in matters testamentary and matrimo
vial. And this jurisdiction was to be exercised by
judges not appointed by the Crown but by the Bishop.
They were to be barristers of five years' standing, and
the Right Hon. Gentleman thought that because they
were to be confirmed in their appointment by the Crown
that good judges would be obtained. But he (Sir G.
Grey) asked the House if it were possible, unless ample
salaries were attached, to attract competent men to these
judicial situations ? The fact was, they could not make
the diocesan courts efficient for the purpose the House
ought to have in view. To reform them was impos-
sible, and abolition was the only real cure for the griev-
ance.—(Hear, hear.) But let him remark that these
judges were not only to exercise jurisdiction in testa-
mentary and matrimonial, but they were to ba armed
with powers like to those intrusted to the judges in West-
minster-hall. For by clause 36 of the Bill, it was
enacted that for the better pUnishment of contempt the
power of committing to prison should be given to these
judges, the same as was entrusted to the highest judges
of the land.—(Hear, hear.) This was a most forint&
able power to give any one in a country district—such a
power, in fact, as he (Sir G. Grey) would only entrust j
to men of the highest qualification, judgment, and
character. Now, having shown that the principle of
this Bill was different from that brought forward last
year—the one being for concentration of power, the
ether for distribution—he thought the House had
right to know the reason of the change. Again. en
the bon'z notabilia, what was the reason for the change
of the views of Government from last year to this? The
evils connected with the bona notabita were now actu-
ally to be perpetrated and extended.—(Hear, hear.)
This evil had been the subject of just and indignant
complaint, and yet no effort was to be made to remove
or reduce it. It had existed for centuries, and it was to
exist still. The Bill was a bad and pernicious Bill in
every respect, and he opposed it not merely because it
was so, but because if passed it would be an effectual
bar to any attempt at improvement hereafter. Let it
but pass and there would be an end to all hope of eccle-
siastical reform. It was said, take the Bill as an instal-
ment. He (Sir G. Grey) should do no such thing; fur
he was satisfied there was no hope of future or further
payment. And for these grounds he had now to move
that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
Sir ROBERT INGLIS said his Right Hon. Friend
had stated that this Bill was a great improvement and a
step in the right direction ; and the Right Hon. Gentle-
man on the other side of the House said he would not take
it as an instalment. He (Sir Robert Inglis) thought the
Bill objectionable in many respects, ancLthe vote which
be would give would be very different from that which he
had come into the House prepared to give. His Right
Hun. Friend supported this Bill on account of its des-
tructive character, but Hon Members on the other side
aid not think there was enough in the Bill to gratify
their appetites for destruction. Lest year he had ob
jetted to the principle of centralization embodied in the
Bill—and he was free to admit that in this respect the
present Bill had been improved. He believed the object
of her Majesty's Government was honest and good, and
he would support the second reading, though the Bill
went much further than it should go. He would modify
the proposed Bill in one important respect—viz., great
the parties interested the option of applying to the in -
tropolitan or to the local courts, which would often
prose to be of very great convenience. Another sug-
gest:on he would make was, that an index of wills and
legacies should bs prepared, which could be done at the
expense of half a dozen or a dozen of clerks, and would
be vabtly baneficial to the public. He would give to the
supreme central court the power of regulating the in-
f,rior courts, so that there might be an uniformity of
practice. Ile Was in favour of the abrogation of salaries
altogether, and the substitution of a system of fees.
He was grieved to witness the gradual withdrawal of the
name and influence of the Church from testamentary inat-
ters, and he feared the country would have reason to regret
it. If they alleged that any institution was abused, they
ought at least to prove the abuse before they destroyed
the institution. Let them paint out* in what part of
their duties the Court of Peculiars had failed. There
were some of their duties which they could not well pre
cure any One but ecclesiastics to undertake, and if th,y
could not get others to discharge those duties, the)
would, in destroying the c-k.urt, have carried th- it prin-
ciple further Phan the interest of the community re-
guise's]. lie also excepted to the clause, which orgy red
that all or any fells, deeds, and documents, in these
courts, might be transmitted to Losclen, and refurree to
the Court of Arches or the Court of Chancery-I,e
thought this provision a needless violation of conve-
nience. He denied that the utility of the diocesan courts
was to be judged by the number of litigates! cases that
passed through them—it was from the amount of unliti
gated business they dispose I of that they were to be
judged. At the same time, he confessed that he looked
at the general principle of the Bill with a very diff, rent
api, it to that with
,which he regarded the measure of
last ye ar. The present Bid did not • sever the ec-
clesiastical juriAliction of England from that in-
titaate connexion with its -civil affairs which
iz fel. so long a period possessed, and did not
deprhte the Church of England of some of its most im-
p,r,am. and most ancient points of connection with the
I)" 111". ' lle did not believe that it was a matter of in-
OitYerenee to the people that the transmission of their
per. Weil property ahott:d be made in the name an 1
under the authority of the Church—by that admiuistra-
ti,rexNev.hiFlt the Church had been called on for centuries
t ,•cie. In this respect the Bill was a great im-
provement on that of last year, yet he still thought it
needlessly limited the-jurisdiction of the Church, alien
all that was requiredas an improvement of its admi-
nistration., ,

Lord BOBERT GROSVEN 70
R said he had been
one of those who destroyed the Bill of last year, in which
t tsli be was ably assisted by the Hwiotinl,ll-t.nd Learned Mem.
Ler for Oxford, who then voted
(Lord R. Grosvenor) would not • 3iimagainst it. Ile
Member in attachment to the' Church of to
that lion. '
England ; but
hfil Ornight the more its jurisdiction in civil
mat
taken from it, the better it would be for the
tstetars
li"as
meat. He could imagine what was the object obft
ov
Gernment in proposing this Bill, which went to ti:e'
eonstruet.the diocesan courts, which w re generally con:
detailed. He approved of the abolition of ecclesiastical
jurisdiction in civil matters, but this Bill went
to perpetuate it ; the proposal of last year, to
abolish it was hailed with satisfaction from all sides
of the [louse. They would not permit persons
to take out registrations where they chose, he-
cause they were afraid that Doctors' Commons would
lose some of its business. There was an excessive want
of a general system of registration. They had got
courts of registration already, and, instead of trying
to reconstruct bad diocesan courts, why could they not
pass a Bill making them courts of registry for wills,
deeds, and documents, and all kinds of property? That
would_ do more good than any reconstruction of the law
sliniaey could possibly devise. That suggestion bad been
made more than once, and had never been answered.
Sd
•
. GRAHAM said before the
decision on this Bill he thought house came to a
it. right that he 'should
have She honour of addressing it. Before he approached
the general question, li
from the Noble Lord he must notice what had fallen
understood ;he Noble _ who had just sat down. If 110
' Lord, Ile frankly
that he was or., of those who destroyed acknow:edged
year. He also stated himself to
_ the Bill of last
the Church as the .Mon. mesaberhefoas warm a friend to
proved by go'.ng further even thanr Oxford. This he
the Member for
Oxiord himself, as 114 suggestion would submit all the

lay proprietors of the kingdom to the jurisdiction discipline passed the House. He stated at the time that
of the Church.—(Cries of " No, no.") Such would be : when the question was settled they might proceed
the effect of the suggestion of the Noble Lord. , satisfactorily with regard to those further settlements.
His other proposal, also, to which he intimated ; The present Bill, however, proposed to go back and to
the readiness of his constituents to accede, was . proceed incontradiction to all those authorities, and to all
that all the contested business might be removed to : the proposals which they made, and to establish diocesan
London, and all the mere formal business might remain 1 courts. He objected to those diocesan courts having the
in the country. That was only saying that all the pro- power which this Bill would give them—in the first
fitable business might be retained, and all that was , place, because it was contrary to principle that they
troublesome might be sent elsewhere.—(Hear, hear.) ' should have it. It arose only from the usurpation of the
The Hon. Member for Oxford had put it to him (Sir J. dark ages, and was contrary to all the requirements of
Graham), whether this measure was to be regarded as the present day. In the second place, he was opposed
an instalment of legislation only, and whether it was to to it because there appeared every kind of objectien
lead to further changes; or whether it was to be consi- arising from the constitution of those courts. No
dered the matured, determination of the Govern- stronger instance could be adduced than these
shown in •• cases of bona notabilia. If . a person
meat ? He did not hesitate to say at once, that I
he mainteined the opinion he had often ex reseed took out a probate in a different diocese from that in
in reference to principle of the Bill of p last which his bona notabilia were, the probate would be
year, in preference to that of the present measure. void. In fact, every kind of delay and disturbance arose
f
He did think that it would have been more expedient, from the complexity of the law. Another reason against
upon the whole, for the testamentary business of the
those diocesan courts was, that they had hitherto no buei-
country, both as to real and personalproperty, to have ness, and therefore the judees had not sufficient experi-
.
been placed under the responsible jurisdiction of a ence to enable them to decide upon the difficult questions
that at times came before them. It appeared that on the. judge nominated by the Crown and sitting in London, in
I preference to being placed under the control of the Ec. average, those courts had only six contested causes be-
-1
clesiastical Courts. This was the plan he (Sir James ' fore them—and yet it was proposed to give those judges,
Graham) should have preferred. But if his Hon. Friend who had so little business, an increase of power, and, he
asked him whether he contemplated any further legisla- supposed, adequate salaries. The deputy-judees had very
lation on this subject, he would say that, from the expe- trifling salaries. In the diocese of Bath and Wells, the
rience he had had of ecclesiastical Bills, both now and deputy's salary was 101. In that of Bristol 461. In an-
heretofore,
.
he could not conceive that, during his (Sir other place in the diocese of Bristol, 361
James Graham's) lifetime, he should ever undertake to in Chichester, 101., and in Llandaff, 6L That was cheap
bring in another. With respect to the details of the justice, at all events. But was it likely that judges so
measure he intended to introduce a clause by which no-
paid would be able to decide on the very difficult ques-
tice would be given to all proctors hereafter entering tions that would at times come before,thern? The objeet
Doctors' Commons, that if any further alterations should in bringing forward the prisent measure was to please
be made in thejurisdiction of that court, they should ac-
certain parties who had a vested interest in the subject,
quire no claim to compensation for the abolition of any and to give patronage to the bishops. From the means
office, or the loss of any business that might be the con- of rapid communication that now existed, both
time and expense would Le saved by parties coining
sequence of the change. At the same time, after the
t
best consideration he could give the subject, he was not to London, instead of going by a cross-post to a diocesan
prepared to say that the present Bill was the one he court, with the disadvantage of the bona notabilia, and an
should have preferred ; but he believed, from the expe- inefficient judge. In the present Bill there was a Most
rience of Lord Grey's Government, of the former extraordinary provision with respect to the removal of
Ministry, and of the present one, that it contained those judges. If a judge in Westminster Hall were guilty
as much of salutary alteration as, at the present of gross misconduct the Crown could be addressed for
the purpose of having him removed. But in the case of
moment, could be proposed with any reasonable chance
t
of success. There were other points of the Bill to be those judges, should any of them prove unfit for their
considered, but they were mere matters of detail. The office, if there were an address sent up. whom were they
Hon. Member for Oxford recommended that the judge to address—the Bishops or the Crown ? The Crown had
of the diocesan court should be paid by fees instead of no power to remove them; and what, then, did the Bill
by a salary, He quite differed from this recommenda- provide ? Why, that the Secretary of State should give
tion. The judge of the prerogative court at present to the parties sending up the address a certificate that he
only derived an income of 80/. a year from contested had applied to the Bishops for the removal of the judge.
wills, but from his fees on common form busi-
Was there ever a mere clumsy device ? The Right lion.
ness he received 3,000/. a-year. He preferred Gentleman gave a singular reason for not concurring in
allowing the judge to be paid by a fixed salary. the opinion of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners—namely,
The Hon. and Learned Member for Devonport said the thatthey took too long a time before they made their re-
present was an inadequate measure, particularly in re- port. The very reason, in his (Lord John Russell's)
ference to the diocesan court?, He had already declared opinion, considering the other duties which oc-
that he should have preferred the principle of the Bill of eupied the attention of the several Commsssioners,
last year. But to carry that principle to its full extent why additional weight ought to be given to their
was impossible. He admitted that on the second read- decision. All that was good in the Bill might have
ing of that Bill there was a numerical majority for the been contained in three or four clauses. The Right
Government; but the discussion plainly showed that the Honourable Gentleman said that it was to be a final
measure was a condemned one. Many Hon. Members measure on the subject. It was the ultimate decision of
wished to carry out the recommendation of the Real the Government, and one opposed to the measure they
Property Commissioners ; but he. had always consi- said last year they would stand by; and as there was no
dered it of importance to maintain a bar of civil hope of a better one, or that it would be amended in
lawyers in this country; if they took from their court Committee, he would vote for the amendment of his
the jurisdiction of real property there would be no time Hon. Friend.
in periods of peace to train up a bar of civilians. That Colonel SIBTHORP said that while the Noble Lord
was a matter of importance and ought not to be over-
was in his present uncomfortable situation he would be
looked. It had been urged by the Right Hon. Gentle- sure to cppoSe any measure brought forward by the
man the Member for Devonport that the amount of con- present Administration. He hoped he would never see
tentious business in the local courts wee small. Ile the Noble Lord and his colleagues in the place of those
(Sir J.'"Graham) admitted it. A great part of the per- who now sat as Conservative Ministers on the Treasury
sonal property brought into those Courts was funded benches. It was strange that the Noble Lord, who was,
property. The present Bill made it compulsory on the as it were, the child of the Church, and who owed all to
ordinary to nominate a layman duly qualified as the spoliation of the Church, should be first to rise up
judge. He believed that the measure, even, in its pre- against the Church. With these observations, he should
sent form, would be a great advantage. All peculiar reserve his assent to the second reading of this Bill.
courts were abolished, all consistory courts were Mr. ELPHINSTONE entirely concurred in the
abolished, all archdiaconal courts, with-the exception of opinion of his Right Hon. Friend the Member for De-
feur, were abolished. The number of local courts were vonport, that the Bill was exceedingly defective ; and
diminished from 330 to, he believed, 34. With reg sill the only point which could be urged in its favour was,
to jurisdiction, all jurisdiction with regard to defame- that it abolished those courts which, for so many years,
tion was taken away. The jurisdiction wi h regard to had been a disgrace to the country. He thought it a
minor civil affairs, in connexion with religion, was ma matter of regret that the recommendation of the Eccle-
terially diminished. He had already alluded to the siastical Commissioners had not been adopted, that
Crown with regard to the contentious jurisdiction and church-rates should be taken out of the ecclesiastical
the regulation of fetl, which was reserved to the Queen courts, should be referred to the ordinary tribunals, and
in Council. All sinecures were abolished by the Bill, that all questions relating to church rates should be de-
and ample security was taken for a complete registra-
cided in quarter sessions. The great mistake of this Bill,
tion. He would say that his opinion wag, that the pre-
however, was, that it re established these diocesan
' sent Bill was not so perfect as the one he had the ho- courts, thus acting in direct opposition to the recommen-
nourdation of the Ecclesiastical Cemmissioner.e? As the Bill
of submitting to the House last session, but he was
satisfied it was a great improvement on the existing law. now stood, there was given to the diocesan courts a
He believed that the complete transfer of local jurisdictions power to imprison any person who was guilty of con-
was a matter in which the feelings of constituencies should tempt in the face of these courts. This was a power
be taken into consideration when no great principle was which at present they did not possess, and he considered
it open to great objection. With respect to salaries, he
violated ; and he did not feel that it was derogatory to
thought it would be better that salaries of judges and
the honour of the Government to say that they yielded
to that conviction, and to ask the House to agree to the other persons should be made the subject of a separate
second reading of the Bill. He had a confident expects- Bill. That had been done in other eases, and he thought
tion that this Bill, coming down as it did with the sanction great advantage would be derived from it in this instance.
of the ether House of Parliament, was a great improve- Mr. WATSON perfectly agreed with his Right lion.
ment in the existing law, and he had a strong hope that Friend the Member for Devonport in reference to this
such a measure, on such a difficult and intricate subject, Bill. The principle of centralisation was that which
would be conducive to the best interests of the country. ought to have been adopt. If this Bill passed into a
Lord R. GROSVENOR explained. He had said that law, there could be no future amendment. The mischiefs
he approved of' the jurisdiction of those courts ; but he which were connected with the ecclesiastical courts must
was desirous of having a registry without reference to be admitted on all hands to be very great ; and he thought
that jurisdiction. the only correct principle on which to establish them was
After a few words from Sir J. GRAHAM, that of centralisation.
Lord J. RUSSELL said, that both the Right Hon. The House then divided, when there appeared—
Gentleman who proposed the second reading of the Bill For the second reading
and the Right Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, Against it •• • 83
seemed to feel the difficulties of this subject. He did not Majority for the second reading —69
wonder at it, for it could not be forgotten that the Right On our return .to the gallery we found
Hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of State for the Home Mr. T. DUNCOMBE addressing the House. The
Department, stated last year to the House that he would Bill, he said, which was brought in by the Right Hon.
not alter his mind on the subject—that he had given it Baronet the Home Secretary, last year, the Right Hon.
the greatest consideration—that he was persuaded the Gentleman declared to be an honest measure. That
plan he proposed was the best that could be adopted— Bill proposed to sweep away the diocesan courts, and also
and therefore felt called on to persevere with it. '1 he the courts at York. The present Bill proposed to retain
Right Hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government them. He opposed the original Bill, because it did not go
- spoke with great pride of the exertions which he far enough. In his opinion there should be no ecclesi
made some years ago for the improvement of astical courts at all—(Cheers)—they wanted no canon
the law, and with regard to this subject he stated law.—(Renewed cheering.) All the ecclesiastical
that he had proposed a Commission to inquire courts ought to be swept away. But that would
into it, and that he was determined on carrying into not suit the purpose of the Government or its sepporters,
'effect the plans which were recommended by persons of because at the same time it would sweep away the vast
the highest authority. The )3111 accordingly of last year patronage which was derived from those courts. For
carried into effect the plan recommended by those per- what purpose, he would ask, were those courts estab-
sons of high authority and of every description. That lished ? _ For the purposes of the soul ? Why the very
Bill passed a second reading by a majority of more than purposes for which they had been originally established
eighty, and the Bill was never again brought seriously were annihilated at the time of the Reformation. They
under the discussion of the House. It was totally altered ought, most certainly to abolish those courts in which
in a committee pro forma. The Right Hon. Gentleman the right of trial by jury was not recognised.
now totally abandoned the whole principle of that Bill, Sir J. GRAHAM—That right is recognised in the
which last year he had made up his mind to defend and Bill.
to carry ; and be it remembered, too, that the Right Hon. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE—Yes ; but then it was at the
Gentleman told them that this Bill came to them recom- discretion of the judge.—(Hear, hear, and cheers.) He
mended by the authority of the House of Lords, while, felt himself bound to protest that, so help him God, this
as far as they knew from the public reports, it appeared was nothing more than a gross job, and as such he
almost every person of authority in the House of Lords should give it his most strenuous opposition, because he
spoke against the principle of the Bill, and that the thought the Bill was brought in through dishonest
Only reasons for keeping up the abuses of the present' motives.
system was that the House of Commons would have it Sir R. PEEL said he would support the same state-
so. The Government had every reason to press the Bill, ment which he had made last session when her Majesty'e
hut they ran away from shadows of difficulty, and threw Government brought in the question.—(Hear, hear),
The Government foresaw the difficulties with which this
the onus of what was wrong in the present Bill upon
the house of Commons. The Right Hon. Gentleman question would be beset, and that the Bill would
whit proposed the second reading, said that some of the encounter serious opposition in consequence of
persons on the original Commission, who recommended the the many interests with which it was mixed
measere, had changed their minds, and that that some of up ; and, also, that there would be great opposition
the persone who voted for the second reading in the on the part of those who generally supported t'e Go- 1
;House of Commons meant to vote against its further • vernment, because they disapproved of the Bill on win
progress: The principle of the measure was opposed to ciple ; foreseeing this, her Majesty's Government still
the great authority of Lord Tenterden, Sir N. Tindal, thought it to be their duty to propose the present mea-
Lord Denman, Lord Lyndhurst, Lord Cottenbam, and sure. At the same time he felt bound to say that if her
Lord Campbell. It was opposed to the authority of the Majesty's Government could carry the Bill of last ses-
Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishops of London, sion, he and his Right Hon. Friend would persevere
Lincoln, Durham, and St. Asaph, and others of with it—but he could see no chance of that result.
the highest ecclesiastical authority. It was op They were opposed by his Hon. Friend the Member for
posed to the authority- of Dr. Lushington, Sir
J. Nicholls Sir Jenner rust, and other persons of the University of Oxford, who protested as stroncly
against it as the Hon. Gentlemen opposite, who
the greatest authority as civilians. But then the Right stood his antipodes in the political sphere. The Hon.
lion. Gentleman said that some anonymous persons had and Learned Gentleman the Member for Bath had
changed their. minds, and that some Members of the expressed his opinion that the Bill should be referred to
House of Commons, who had voted for the second read- a Select Committee.—(Hear, hear.) Now he (Sir lin-
ing, would not support it at another stage. Could any bert Peel) knew that during future stages of the Bill
Government have left higher authority than the name, they should meet with the most decided opposition.
he had quoted for such utterly unstable support ? his He would ask the House whether it would be right on
lion. Friend, the Member for the University of Oxford the part of the Government of this year if they were to
was ee ry much against the diminution of ecclesiastical propose the Bill of last year, when they were confident
tribunals, which lie thought would lessen the just slew of its failure, or content themselves with introducing
of the Church in the institutions of the country. 'I hat such a reform as they knew they would be able to carry?
was a very natural prejudice on the part of his Hoe. It was from those motives they thought it more con-
Friend, and quite consistent with his views on the sub- sisten on the part of her Majegy's—eovernment
jest. But lie (Lord J. Russell) must say, at the same to make certain of a minor measure of reform
time, that he did nut think the principle of than to make the same unsuccessful attempts as those
their institut'ons rested on any such grounds which had prevailed during the last twenty years. Why
of reason ; and the Eccleeiastical Commissioners the certainty was that if they proposed the Bill of last
or 1829, the Committee on real preperty in 1833, and year, they would have failed in carrying it. Why, there-
the Committee of the House of Lor.!s in 1836, were or fore, if it were so desirable a measure, throw upon them-
opinion that a change ought to take place with regard selves and the House the responsibility of rejecting it ;
to the made in which. those !batten: of ecclesiastical Lew the more particularly so, as her Majesty s Ministers were
were carried on. He believed that if a search was made met on the one side by the most decided opposition, and
into the origin of this authority, it would be found to on the other by a most lukewarm support? Therefore
hive commenced in the 14th century, by usurpation on they thought the best course to adopt, and the one which
the part of the Pope's Legate. It was not according to was most likely to be beneficial and successful,
the ancient principle of the law in this country. Was was to propose that which they had some
it at all according to reason that at this day when people chance of carrying. There was another point
h-ft large property in the Three per Cents., they should and a most serious one involved in this subject, and that
be governed by the maxims of the 14th century, which was the subject of compensation on account of what was
were directed by the authority of the papal power in termed vested interests in the several offices attached to
this country. It was obvious that ecclesiastics should those courts. The amount required fur compensating
not have authority in those matters. What then was the the individuals who held those vested interests would be
principle which the Commissioners endeavoured to esta_ necessarily very large. This was one of the most serious
Wish? That principleon which theßight lion. Gentleman impediments to the extension of this reform, for it
rested last year, namely,. that there should be a court in would subject the public to a vast expense. He thought
which the chief judge would be named by the Crown, the system of recrimination in public debate was much
and who would have the chief authority in the ultimate to be deprecated, and that one party should not say to
disposal of personal property and wills. It was quite the other,—l have this merit, while you lack it. This
another question, whether they would go further, ei.d
was a system which he never wished to enter into. But
melee this court similar to the Court of Chancery, or
even it' he entered into the views of the Noble Lord,
y
withotnoens()freal prop: ander sonalproperty %%on
those already existing, or one in which ques- the Member for London, would he supptrt (Sir Robert
i
„
• 1,1 be Peel's) proposition? It was true he never speculate lon
decided at the same time p
and ruled
by the same decisiota the support of the Noble Lord, or allowed himself to be
But this was matter for subsequent consideration. Now influenced by the view he might take of the question.
to be left to ecclesiastical tribunals: alt ther the judges I
the first plain a hether those matters a ere
yanedeclesirstical authority, or ap- ; He thought that nothing could be worse than to taunt
parties with taking a different course in this session
were to be appointed by
pointed by the Crown;
Th.et
Right Honourable
matters from what they had taken in another. For his part, he
civil matters weie 1 honoured the man,more who, having honestly altered his
to belle overned by rules whetherwntct 1 opinion, came forward and avowed the change, and took
. of ecclesiastical authority?
Gentleman agreed with him that the judges
Honourable consequently a different course, than the man who should
should I say, that " although my opinions are changed, I will
be named by the Crown. The Might Honourable ! adhere to the same course which I have already taken."
Gentleman said that the Commissioners were 1 —(Hear, hear.) Yet he thought that the course which
that there should be a separation of civil and ecofeloeps!nalbsiotoin: Noble Lord himself had taken gave a sufficient rea-
cal matters, and that the diocesan courts should be son why he (Sir Robert Peel) should be the less
fished. But he omitted some of the history which sub- ready to take his advice. The Noble Lord had
sequently occurred. The bishops, at least a great num- further objected to the Government's hay-
her of them, stated it would be impossible to regulate ing abandoned the Bill of last session without
matters
.e settled. Be believed that there were dif- Lord satisfactorily till the question of Church disci/3_ taking the sense of the House upon it ; but the Noble
line were
himself carried in the House of Commons a mea-
ferences of opinion amongst the bishops themselves, and sure for the purpose of paying church rates out of the
other ecclesiastical authorities,
as to the mode in which Consolidated Fund, and he carried it a majority of
the Legislature should proceed
in regard to Church 150. But afterwards the Noble Lord byabandoned that
discipline. It was not till 1840 that the Bill on Church measure, and gave as his reason that he found the feel-

ing of the public was against the measure.—(Hear.)
Still he (Sir R. reel) did not want to -justify his own
course by that of the Noble Lord ; for he had given to
the House the reasons for which he felt that he could
give his support to the present Bill, although it fell
short of that alteration in the law which was proposed
in the Bill of last year, and which, if he could succeed
in carrying it, he would prefer to have.—(Hear.)
Mr. C. BULLER gave the Right Hon. Gentle-
man the credit which he claimed for honesty, although
he could not at all agree with him as to the honesty
of this 1 till.—(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Baronet had
shown that he had taken out of the Bill of last session
everything that could be opposed by the gentlemen en
the opposite (the Ministerial) side of the House. The
very difficulty which the Right Hon, Baronet complained
of, as impeding all kinds of law reform, was the very
thing which brought him (Mr. Buller) down to the
House to oppose this measure. That was the difficulty
created by vested interests. But this Bill was to create
twenty-six new judges. Now, the effect of this would
be, that whenever it should be attempted to reform
those courts, in a manner worthy of the country, they
would have to contend with all these new vested inst.--
rests—(Hear.) The measure of last year was much
worthier of the views which the Right Hon. Baronet
now professed, and it would have found greater sup-
port in the House and the country. The Government would
have more successfully conciliated opposition by taking
out of the former Bill all that was really objection-
abh and suspicious.—(Hear.) The Right llon. Gentle-
man could have come forward and tested the House.—
(Elear.) He couid have said that he had now produced
a good and efficient measure, and he left to the House
the re,ponsibility of rejecting it.—(Hear.) But the Bill
of this night, far from grappling with the evils of the
Ecclesiastical Courts, kept nothing of the other Bill but
the increase of office and salaries.—(Hear.) What was
the meaning of those formidable schedules (not filled up)
at the end of the book—one of offices and the other of
salaries—the more formidable because they were not
filled up?—(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Baronet
talked of his desire to reform the institutions of the
country. But he would recommend the Right Hon. Ba-
ronet not to interfere with the old institutions until lie
could reform them effectually.
Dr. NICIIOLL wished to know what the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman considered suspicious in the Bill of
last year ?
Mr. BULLER'S answer was not heard.
The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to
be committed.

'LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, April 22.'
(Sittings in Banco.)
THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF MICHAEL SCALES L:

THE COMMISSIONERS OF SEWERS OF THE TOWER HAMLETS

In this case Mr. Michael Scales had obtained a rule, calling
upon the Commisgioners of Sewers of the district of the Tower
Hamlets to show cause why a certain sewers'- rate made by
them should nct be removed into this Court by certiorari, in
order that it might be quashed. Mr. Scales now applied to
the Court to be permitted to file an additional affidavit in
support of the rule. The application had been originally
made to Mr. Justice Wightman, who had directed Mr. Scales
to apply to the full Court. It appeared that Mr. Scales had
made repeated applications to be permitted to inspect the ac-
counts of the Commissioners, which had been refused. The
rule had been obtained on the 27th of January last, znd sub-
sequently to the obtaining of the rule, Mr. Scales had received
copies of the accounts by post. He had, in consequence, ap-
plied to Mr. Unwin, the clerk, and the attorney to the Com-
missioners to know if those copies were true ; and
also to be allowed to inspect the originals. Mr.
Unwin replied that he had received strict orders
from the Commissioners not to acknowledge the copies.
On the 18th of March last the Commissioners permitted him
to inspect the accounts, and he had, accordingly, done so, and
had taken copies of them. He considered that he could not.
safely proceed with his rule without bringing those accounts
before the Court. The information had been obtained since
he had obtained his rule, and, therefore, the affidavit which
he sought to fill related solely to circumstances which bad
since come to his knowledge.
Lord DEsma.w—Did you state to the Court, at the time
you obtained your rule, that you had been refused inspection
of these accounts ?

Mr. ScAuts—l did, my Lord. All I now seek is to lay
before the Court information which I have since obtained
from their own books.

Lord DENmAN—It is very unusual to allow additional affi-
davits to be filed after a rule has been obtained. The Court
requires of a person applying for a rule to give all the in-
formation that may be wanted to support it. I state that as
the general rule. Under the circumstances, however, we
think you ought to have a rule to show cause whyyoushould
not be at liberty to file this additional affidavit.
Rule nisi granted.

COUNTY COURTS BILL-SUPERIOR COURTS
BILL.

Sir J. GRAHAM said that there were many provi-
sions of the Superior Courts Bill, introduced by the Hon.
and Learned Gentleman the Member for Chester, which
were far from interfering with the County Courts Bill,
but would, on the contrary, assist its objects and opera-
tion. He, therefore, would suggest that the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman should not press the second reading
of this Bill, but would allow the County Courts Bill to
go through Committee pro forma, with a view to recon-
cile the two Bills in Committee. He shou'd also wish
that the compensation clause should be brought up, and
the report received.
Mr. JARVIS had no objection to the course proposed.

Mr. WATSON wished to call the attention of the
Government to the •necessity of having barristers of
station and character to preside over quarter sessions.
Such appointments would greatly relieve the business at
the assizes, and tend to the diminution of the county
rates:

BAIL COURT, April 22.
(Before Mr. Justice CoLERIDGE.)
THE QUEEN V. THE JUSTICES OF KENT.

After a few words from Mr. W. Ellis, Sir J. Graham.
and Mr. Hawes, the Bill was read a sPcoud time.
IRISH REGISTRATION BILL.

In answer to question by Lord T. RUSSELL,
Sir R. PEEL stated that he did not propose to bring
on the Irish Registration Bill before the 6th of May.
The House then went into Committee on the County
Courts Bill, which went through Committee pro fin ma.
The report to be brought up on Monday next.
The Superior Courts Common-law Bill was then read
a second time, which was ordered to be brought up on
Wednesday week.
CLERK OF THE CROWN.

Mr. HENDERSON applied to the Court for a mandamus, di-
rected I o the Justices of Kent, requiring them to issue a dis-
tress warrant against a Company, called the Commissioners
of the Deptford and Crayford Navigation, enforcing them
to pay a sum of 24/. Ils. 2d., and certain costs. Under their
Act of Parliament they were made liable for any damage
done by them, under the sum of 25/., to an order of the Jus-
tices of the county to be made upon their Treasurer. In the
course of the works carried on by the Deptford and Crayford
Navigation, injury had been done to the banks of the river,
the consequence of which was, that at high tide the
neighbouring grounds were injured. The owners of
the property thus injured, brought actions against the
Commissioners, upon one of which a verdict had
been obtained which it was hoped might have put the
matter at rest. The present complainant had, however, pro-
ceeded under the 34th section of the Deptford and Crayford
Navigation Act, and the matter was fully gone into before the
justices, who decided in his favour, but hesitated to issue the
necessary warrant of distress until sanctioned in so doing by
the authority of this Court. In such circumstances the
Learned Gentleman hoped the Court would allow the writ to
issue at once in the first instance, as it would amount to a
denial of justice if it were limited to a mere rule to show cause.
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE preferred a rule to show cause, and
expressed his hope that the Commissioners would not put the
applicant to the expense of a mandamus.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, April 22.
(Sittings in Banco.)
The Court took the special paper to-day. The cases were,
of course, of a nature not to call for a special notice.

The report on the Committee of Supply was then
about to be brought up, when
Mr. BARING wished to know whether or not it was
true that the Clerk of the Crown was about to be salaried
out of the House of Lords ?
• Sir R. PEEL said the affair had not come under the
consideration of the Treasury, and, therefore, he could
not give a direct answer. _ _

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
(YESTERDAY.) •
MANSION-HOUSE.

Lord J. RUSSELL repeated the question. Surely
the Right Hon. Gentleman at the head of the Govern-
ment must know that an address had been presented on
the subject by the House of Lords to the Throne ?
Sir R. PEEL must repeat, that the matter had not
come under the consideration of the Treasury. He
must own he had heard of it, but he could not at pre-
sent give a definite answer on the subject.
Lord J. RUSSELL wished to explain, in reply to
some observations of, the Noble Lord (Stanley), regard.
ing the appointment of the Bishop of New Zealand, that
he hdd not pledged the House in any way to the subject.
After a few words from Lord STANLEY,
The Bailiffs of Inferior Courts Bill went through
Committee.—Report this day.
VESTRIES.

Edward Bathurst, the person who was brought before
Sir Peter Laurie, charged with havinc, endeavoured to
obtain 2,0001. Exchequer bills from Mr. Joseph Davis, of
the Stock Exchange, was re examined yesterday. Mr.
13.rradaile, and other mercantile men of eminence, were
present.
Mr. Wise attended as solicitor for Mr. Davis.

Mr. S. O'BRIEN rose to ask leave to bring in a Bill
to prohibit the holding of vestries in churches.
Mr. lIAWES objected to bringing in a Bill of such
importance, and which would entail considerable ex-
pense on many parishes, at that late hour, which pre-
cluded the possibility of discussing its provisions.
Mr. S. O'BRIEN said the Bill was not the same as
that of last year.
Sir R. PEEL said there were many cases in which
Bills were allowed to be introduced without entering
into a statement, and he did not see any objZction
against such a course being allowed in the present case.
He should reserve to himself the right of acting as he
thought proper when the Bill was read a second time.
On the motion of Mr. S. O'BRIEN the Bill was then
brought in and read a first tima.
The other orders of the day were then disposed of,
and the House adjourned at a Quarter-past Twelve.

When the pri.oner was placed at the bar,
Sir PETER LAURIE asked him whether any friends of
his w( n present? Bathurst—l have friends ; but they
will not ackowledge me in this condition.
Sir PETER LAURIE—Can you procure any bail ?
Bathurst—l fear nobody will will bail me.
Mr. Borradaile said that he attended at the justice
room, in consequence of the statement which apl eared
in the newspapers, having received a bill of exchange
drawn by the priscner from the Cape of Good Hope,
upon Sir Charles Cockerell and Co. The prisoner had
no funds whatever at the house, and had no authority
to draw upon it, and Sir Charles Cockerell knew no-
thing at all of him. The money had been paid at the
Cape.

flere Sir PETER LAURIE handed the bill of exchange,
which was regularly noted, to the prisoner, and asked
whether he know anything about it. Bathurst (with a
long sigh)—Yes. I do know it, unfortunately. (A
laugh.)
Sir PETER LAURIE—Why did you represent at the
Cape of Good Hope that you hal authority to draw upon
Sir C. Cockerell ? Bathurst—lf I had my papers here,
I would show you that I had a correspondence upon the
subject, and that I had no improper design in what I
had done. lam merely unfortunate—certainly not
minal.

Sir PETER LAURIE you showed me your correspond-
ence with Coutts' Bank, the particulars of which I did
not publicly mention ; but that only went to show they
declined to have anything at all to do with you. Bathurst
—I assure you I was authorised by Coutts house to do
as I was doing, when it was thought necessary to take me
into custody.

Sir PETER LAURIE—Where is your property of
which you have spoken ? Bathurst—l do de-
clare to you that I had once ample means.
My father was in extensive business in India,
but he died early, and I went out to secure his business
and conduct it, but I became overwhelmed with embar-
rassments and difficulties, and I arrived in this country
struggling with misfortune.
Sir PETER LAURIE—You now say you are in distress,
and still you went, in the midst of these embarrass-
ments, to take a counting-house and to instruct a broker
to purchase 2,0001. Exchequer bills. Now, how do you
reconcile these inconsistencies? Bathurst—l was, I de.
Clare, authorised by Coutts' to hypothecate these bills;
but I admit I have acted very foolishly.
Sir PETER LAURIE—The fact is, you thought you were
too clever for us, and you were mistaken. I have made
inquiries, and I find that ryou have respectable con-
nections. I. find, also, that you have but very lately
arrived from the Cape of Good Hope, so that you have
not had much time to put impositions of this description
into practice ; and the picture which the press has drawn
and is likely more fully to. draw of you will, in all pro-
bability, stop you in a career which might, if unob-
structed for some time, end in a trial in the Central
Criminal Court.

Bathurst—My friends have all turned their backs
upon me, and I have a wife and children to support. I
have offended the members of my family. Believe me it
was not my intention to defraud anybody.
Sir P. LAURIE —Why, )ou have defrauded a party at
the Clapp, as this bill of exchange testifies, and you
certainly aimed boldly at defrauding Mr. Davis, but he
would not be cheated.

Bathurst—l did not suppose they observed such
strictness in business here.—(Laughter.)
Sir P. LAURIE--I fancied on Saturday that you were
insane, but I entertain a different opinion now. How-
ever, you have got into kind hands. Mr. Davis, who
might punish you severely, is disposed to take a very
lenient course, and I shall be satisfied to take your own
recognizances, to the amount of 1001., to appear here
when required. Do not abuse this kindness.
Bathurst—l shall not, indeed, Sir. All I wanted was
to establish just the form of credit.—(A laugh.)—He
then very eagerly entered into his own recognizances
and was discharged.
A gentleman applied for advice under the following
circumstances. Be stated that about a month ago he
handed a bill of exchange for 1001. to a friend of his to
get discounted, that his friend handed it to a person who
was a clergyman of the Church of England, and repre-
sented himself as having c ntrol over large sums of
money, on account of which representations the bill was
entrusted to him, and that the address this Money-agent
gave proved to be incorrect, as the house was unin-
habited, and the Reverend Gentleman was not known
there. It was presumed as he had broken several ap-
pointments promising to give the cash for the bill, that
he had obtained the money and tnisapprop:iated it.
A summons was immediately issued.
C LERKEIV WELL.

THE LATE ABDUCTION CASE.— William Burton New-
enham was brought up for final examination, charged
with the abduction of Frances Louisa Wrntham, daugh-
ter of a widow lady residing in Gerard-street, Coburg-
road, Islington.
The bench and every other part of the court was
crowded with spectatrirs, amongst, whom were several
county magistrates, and a great number* of, professional
gentlemen, whose interest was probably excited by the
contention between the Court of Chancery and this
court for the custody of the prisoner.
The prisoner was dressed with • great neatness, and
fashionably. He wore his shirt collar turned over ala
Byron. Ile looked very pale, but seemed in full pos-
session of that confidence which he has on former occa-
sions exhibited.

Mr. Southee, of Ely-place, was for the prosecution,
and Mr. Humphries for the defence.
A great portion of the facts of' this case have been
already before the public. The following is a resume of
the supplementary evidence.
Mrs. Wortham, mother of the young lady, who looked
exceedingly delicate and depressed, was sworn. Some
letters were handed in which had been written to her by
the trustees of the property (Messrs. Hawkins and Pem-
berton) to which Miss Wortham had become entitled.
These letters she had shown to the prisoner, one of
them regarded the making Miss Wortham a ward of
Chancery. (A copy of the deed of settlement by which
Miss Wortham became entitled to the property—be-
tween 4001. and 5001 a year—was handed in.) Witness
showed that deed to the prisoner, who said he would
take it to his attorney, Mr. Hammond, of Furnival's Inn,
and he took it thither accordingly. On witnesses return
to her house on the day of the abduction, 13th of Octo-
ber, 1843, she found a letter on the table written with
pencil, of which these were the contents—" My dear
Jane, we are gone to Furnival's Inn, yours affectionately
—Williatti." The reading of this laconic epistle caused
much laughter in Court. Witness proceeded to state
that he never addressed her in that familiar strain before ;
had always called her Mrs. Wortham, and been very
respectful to her.
Mr. COMBE said there was no necessity for putting
that evidence on the face of the depositions.
Mr. Southee wished to have it appear there.
Mr. COIIIBE—IC is not material. The prisoner is now
charged with felony : on former occasions it was mis-
demeanour only.
Her daughter had on only a light walking dress at the

I time of their departure, and upon examination she found
that not an;article in her wardrobe had been removed.
In_June, 1842, the period at which her husband died,
they lived in -Henningford-terrace, Islington. On the
Thurday after they removed to Mile-end. Lived a
month there, and went to reside in Stamford-street.
Remained a few months there, and. went to Swinton-
street, Gray's Inn read.
Mr. ComßE—And the prisoner met you in all these
places ? Witness replied in the affirmative.
Prisoner—l don't hear the witness.(and with great
asperity of tone) ; all through this investigation I have
noted a great dislike against me. (The prisoner made
some observations of a very severe, and, it is unnecessary
to add, wholly undeserved character on the conduct of
the Worthy -Magistrate.)
Mr. COMBE remarked that Mrs. Wrotham was in a
condition which precluded the possibility of her speak-•
ing in a very loud tone of voce, but, as the prisoner's
advocate could hear her, an able proressional gentleman,
he did not think there was so much need for the pri-
soner's interference: -What the prisoner said regarding
his (Mr. Combe's) magisterial conduct, he did not mind.
The witnesses must *leak as loudly as they could.
Prisoner—l want-to know how long she stopped at
each of these places. It is important.
Mr. Humphries—lt does not signify a pinch cf snuff.
You must allow me, Sir, to put the proper questions at
the proper time.
The prisoner shook his bead in sullen discontent.
Mrs. Wortham proceeded to state that she removed
from Swinton-street to King William street.
Mr. COMBE—Was your daughter with you conti-
nuity ? Witness—No ; she was abs( nt a position of
the tine. When I was living in King William-street,
the prisoner was arrested, and he requested us to go and
live in the country ; and we accordingly went to Walton
in Essex, where he lodged with us. Then we came to
th:t Lower-road, Islington, from which we finally re-
moved to Gerard-street.
Cross-examined—Toe prisoner had lodged with her
during her husband's life-time. Her husband had bor-
rowed money from him, but repaid it. Prisoner lent
witness money to pay rent and taxes. Lived for a
a while at Peckham, in a cottage taken by the prisoner,
but in her name. Part of the furniture there was
his. They sometimes quarrelled, but " made it up again."
He gave witness a gold watch, and half-a-dozen of silver
spoons, now in her possession. Had purchased some
dresses for her at Stephens and Co.'s, and Willis and
Co.'s, in Ludgate-hill, for her. She subsequently borrowed,
money from him-201. or 301.—which she still owed him.
Prisoner advanced money to pay for her daughter's
education. They had the use of his carriage at Walton.
In February, 1843, the prisoner paid 5/. 10s. for her
daughter's quarter in advance, at the school. Witness
has now in her possession seine furniture, pictures,
books, ornaments, of prisoner's ; also a pianoforte which
he gave to her daughter. Witness always looked on
Newenham as a brother. Her husband died in poverty,
and the prisoner knew that.
Mr. Hammond, a solicitor, residing at 16, Furnival's
Inn, deposed that the prisoner came to his office in
January, 1843, when he brought with him the copy of
the deed of settlement produced in evidence. He said
he came cn behalf of a poor widow to get professional
advice. Had previously known the prisoner profession-
ally. The prisoner engaged him for-Mrs. Wortham, and
dictated to him an abstract of the deed by which Miss
Wortham became possessed of the property. Witness
never heard from the prisoner, directly or indirectly,
that he had any intention of connecting himself with
Miss Wortham. The prisoner told him that Mrs.. Wor-
tham wished him to file a bill in Chancery. A bill was
subsequently filed. Was Mrs. Wortham's attorney in
the matter, and not the prisoner's. and was quite willing
to produce all the papers with which he had been en••
trusted.
Mr. George Dunn, a solicitor's clerk, residing in
Vine-street, Regent-street—Had known the prisoner
for 14 years. In the beginning of last year he called
upon witness, and said he was about being appointed
guardian to an infant girl, between 12 and 13 years of
age. He did not mention her name. He said she was
entitled to considerable property.. At a subsequent
period, in October last, the prisoner called upon him,
and said he had returned from Gretna on the preced-
ing Friday. He said he was married, and that he had
carried, or went off with (witness could not remember
which) a girl who had some money, and he was anxious
to ascertain whether or not she was a ward of Chancery.
Witness said, " Surely it is not that little girl' you
were telling me about?' He replied that it was.
It being now nearly six o'clock, the further hearing
of the case was postponed until to-morrow (this day).
The above witnesses had their depositions read over to
them, and were bound over in 401. each to prosecute at
the ensuing sessions of the Old Bailey.
MARYLEBONE.
George Roach, a stalwart Irishman, whose face exhibited
the marks of considerable violence, was placed at the bar
charged with a series of violent assaults.
• George Osborne, Unim-street, a shoemaker, said that as
he was going home at twelve o'clock last evening, observing
the prisoner coming up behind him and very noisy, he (Mr.
Osborne) crossed to the other side of the way to avoid him.
He followed, however, and on overtaking him asked him
where Booth's-court was? Complainant said that he did not
know where, and the prisoner then struck him a savage blow
on the head. A policeman was standing near, and he at once
interfered, and was beat, kicked, and otherwise abused before
°the' s came to his assistance.
Halton, 34 E, said that on interfering to save Mr. Osborne
be received a terrific blow over the eye (the constable's ey*
sufficiently proved the prisoner's violence), and the prisoner
grappled him, and, being a powerful man, threw him on
the pavement; he himself fell also. Witness drew his staff,
but the prisoner wrenched it from him and threw it to a dis-
tance. He then, to save himself from kicks and blows, drdw
his rattle, and struck the prisoner over the head with it.
Some constables came to his assistance, and it took their
united strength to get him to the station-house. He said he
would be hanged for some of. us.
Sergeant Cummings said the prisoner was " mad drunk."
He was fined for the assault on Mr. Osborne 405., gull for
that on the first constable- 10s., or in default to go to the
House of Correction.
Timothy Sullivan, another violent Irishman, was 'placed
before Mr. Rawlinson on a similar charge.
John Hall, 64 D, said that about nine on Saturdt9nlight
the prisoner came up to him in Upper Baker-street, and
asked his way to Portman-street. He (Hall) told him his
way, and the prisoner then said, " Well, Pll pay you for your
trouble, you —," and threw himself into a fighting attitude
Witness jumped aside, and avoided a blow made at his head
Another constable came up, and said that he had received,a
dangerous kick from the prisoner, but as he (the constable)
wished to go down to Windsor to his father's funeral, he did
not wish to be detained in attendance at the Court this morn-
ing, and therefore let him go on. He (Hall) took him into
custody, and on the way he aimed a kick at a boy, which, if
it had taken effect, might have injured him for life.
Mr. RAWLIESON fined him 205., or a month's imprisonment.
UNION-HALL.
John Davis, a young man, was charged before Mr. Traill
with discharging a pistol in the public highway.
It appeared that on the preceding afternoon, between four
and five o'clock, as two ladies were walking along Manor-
place, Bermondsey, they were very much alarmed on hearing
the report of fire-arms close behind them. They turned
round, and saw the defendant running away with a large
pistol in his hand, and on meeting a policeman they com-
plained of the circumstance to him, and at the same time
pointed out to him the direction in which the prisoner had
gone. The policeman accordingly kept a look out, and soon
afterwards observed the prisoner walk behind two gentlemen
and discharge a pistol close up to their heads, upon which he
ran away as before, but being pursued was taken with the
pistol in his possession.
The prisoner said that he went out for the purpose of'
shooting birds, and amused himself with firing off the pistol
to try it before he got into the fields.
Mr. TRAILL directed the prisoner to be deprived of the
pistol, and inflicted a fine of 10s. on him, or fourteen days'
imprisonment, to put him in remembrance of the circum-
stance, and not act so in future.
Edwin Willis, dressed like a midshipman, the son of Dr.
Willis, was charged with threatening his fatter.
Dr. Willis stated that his son had been at sea, but had been
at home now nine months, and insisted upon being supported
without applying to any profession. When requested to attend
to any business he refused, and carried pistols in his pockets,
and had threatened to shoot the members of his family. On
Saturday night he came home drunk, and was so violent that
it was found necessary to give him into custody.
Mr. TRACE told the defendant that his father was not corn •
pelted to support him, and that he had no business to remain
in his father's house against his inclination.
The defendant, however,- appeared to think that, although
he was of an age to support himself, yet that his father was
bound to maintain him in idleness.
The MAGISTRATE, hoWever; undeceived the defendant in
this respect, and adjudged him to find bail not to annoy or
molest his father.