The Sun.
London, England, 1845-06-24 00:00:00

GROUP LL.

THE LONDON AND BRIGHTON RAILWAY
(WANDSWORTH BRANCH).
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)

Mr. HILL, Q. C., with Messrs. Gurney and Mellor, ap-
peared in support of this Bill. He appeared on behalf of the Lon-
don and Brighton Railway Company, whose object was to form a
branch from their railway near Croydon, extending to Wandsworth,
where they would make one of their termini. The length of this
branch would be six miles and a half and 8 chains. The estimated
expense of cnnstrurting it would be 119,1911., so that the
average sum per mile would be only 20,0001. This eontrasted
very favourably with a Bill which came before the Committee, in
which he appeared for the South- Western Railway, and the es-
timated expenditure of which would have been 400,0001. per
mile, or twenty times as much. A great advantage in the projected
line was, that it did not materially interfere with private property. It
would not be found necessary to take down a single house. Only
two or three cottages would be removed, and those were already
the property of the London and Brighton Bailw.sy Company. The
plan only interfered with one plot of ornamental ground. With
respect to the engineering impediments, he would remind
the Committee that Croydon was very much above the level of the
Thames, or any spot on its margin, and consequently, however
they would approach the river, they must fall from a high level to
a low one. The gradients, positively speaking, were not good,
but comparatively they were so. The worst gradient was lin
100 for only half a mile; on the London and Croydon line there
was the same gradient for two miles and three quarters. The
worst curve was only half a mile radius, but that
was at the station ; otherwise the curves were good.
The line crossed no turnpike road on the level. Th,l
would have four stations—two at Nine Eln-s, one for passengers
and one for goods ; one at York-street-road, and one at Wands-
worth. That at Nine Elms would be most desirable, from
its contiguity to the river. There was an excellent wharf
t I ere, and there would be great facility for the t ran-
,hipment of goods. "the Learned Counsel went on to show

the advantages which the proposed line would afford, particularly
to the inhabitants of the west.end of the town. The only petition
worth noticing was one from the Directors of the London and
Croydon Railway, which sets forth that, "if the in-
tended railway troin Croydon to Wandsworth he carried out,
it wtil be carried through land over part of which the petitioners,

le of railway extends, and thereby cpera e to the detriment of

the rights and iinerests of the petitioners." They certainly did
interie:e with the Loadon and Croydon by crossing their
rAlwAy, but it would not cause them eves temporary iocon.
venienze. It would not stop their trains even for one hour.
The petition from them set forth that the lute would not confer
advantages ,quivalcnt to the damage it would cause, but this asset.

tion he would ciltprove by the most competent witnesses. He di,i
not deny, however, that it would to some extent " divert the
traffic from the London and Croydon line," which was another
allegation in the petition.
Mr Rowland Hill was then called—ls Chairman of the London
and Brighton Railway Company. Thought the present Londoa-
bridge terminus did not afford sufficient accommodation for traffic.
A west-end terminus was also much wanted. Thought the
proposed termini would confer great advantages on the public. The
station at Nine Elms would afford great facility for goods and
traffic. Approved generally of the projected line.
Messrs. Austin and Talbot appeared for the London and Croy.
don Railway Company.—The witness was cross-examined, but no-
thing material was elicited.
Mr. Thomas John Buckton, Secretary to the London and
Brighton Railway Company, proved the amount of traffic between
London and Brighton, at the London-bridge station, to be as fol-
lows :—Receipts from passengers from June 2, 1544, to May 31,
1845, 152.1071. ; the number of passengers, 377,672 ; the quan.
tity of goods, 17,646 tons.
Mr. Lewis Slight, clerk to the Commissioners, proved that the
intercourse between London and Brighton was great, and that It
was daily increasing.

Mr. Evans gave similar testimony.
Other evidence of a formal and uninteresting nature was given,
and the Committee adjourned at four o'clock.

GROUP 1.
THE =EEC r NOETHEEN LINE.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
Here the subject dropped, and the examination of Mr. Parke
was then proceeded with.

When the cross-examination of this witness had terminated,
Mr. Pitt, the witness on the traffic on behalf of the London
and York line, was recalled, to show that he had not, in his cal-
culations of that traffic, assumed that it would be doubled if that
line should be made.

After a few questions had been asked him, the Committee ad
journed.

GROUP Z.

THE GREAT WESTERN (DUBLIN AND
GALWAY).

The evidence of Mr. R. Stephenson (continued from our Afternoon
Edition of ye,terday)—Th ese discrepancies,where levels were required
of a "side-long " country, were of frequent occurrence when they
were taken by different parties. He has known engineers to differ
to the extent of twenty or thirty feet. That difference would
arise from the parties placing their staffs at points a few feet sepa-
rate, and the result would be a difference of twenty or thirty feet.
Had himself known a case of that kind where the discrepancy was
38 or 48 feet, he could not remember which. The country in
that case was of a " side long" nature and the error arose in the
way he had just' pointed out, that the engineers had
placed their staffs in different positions. This difference
Inuit necessarily arise unless the same point is selected by both
parties, and as that scarcely, if ever happens, by different parties, a
liscrepanc% will always arise in levelling a side-long country. It'
he gent(, men who were sent to check the levels made their
-ting point higher up than the gentlemen who took the
levels on which the sections were formed whlch had been depo.
led, a discrepancy might exist for several miles.

Cross.examined by Mr. JAMES ---The errors very much de-
pended on the sidelong nature of the country. Did not know the
ehaiacter o the country through which the line passed. There
was nothing in the section to demonstrate that the country was
side-long. He assumed that the coindry was side-long at the point
where the greatest maximum error of 36 feet was stated to exist, from
information given to him from Capt. Msnrsoul. Errors in taking
levels were possible, and very frequently oecurrtd from taste.
Posing that errors existed to the extent stated of thirty-eight ter:a,
the increased expense would be 37,0001.
By Mr. TALBOT—Has made this calculation on the assumption
merely that the error existed.

Mr. George Bidder. engineer, agreed with the evidence of the
last witness so far as he heard. It was pos,ihle, in making a copy
of a section with tracing paper, that an error of considerable ex-
tent might arise. He knew an instance himself where a tunnel
was shown where there should have been an embankment, in con.
sequence of an error arising from this cause. He never knew a
case in Parliamentary inquiries in which sections of a line of side-
long country did not differ when the levels were taken at different
points.

Mr. James cross-examined the witness at considerable length-

Captain Moorsom, examined by Mr. TiLsor—Heard the evi-
dence of Messrs. Hannington and Boyle, and referred to the sec-
tions where the errors were stated to exist, At the road between

I Kilconncll and Lotighrea, a point where he could test the accuracy
of the allegations made by a comparison with the Ordnance sec.
Lions, there was only one foot of difference between them and the
railway sections, while with those laid down by the
opponents of the Bill there was a differenee of twelve
feet at the same point. There was the sane agreement at
another point (Ballinas'oe) between the Ordnance levels and those
taken for the promoters. The placing of the staff makes such a
difference that unless the same point is selected a difference must
arise in a side-lohg country. If there was a practical error of 3S ft.
it vvoutii be Impossible for that error to be worked out, or even to
exist at all, where the greater part of the section on which it existed

was correct.
This witness was examined at some length by Mr. JAMES.
Mr. Wrigge stated that he had taken the levels on a part of the
proposed line, and took great pain,: to ascertain that his observa-
tions were minutely correct. That portion of the line was correctly
laid down on the sections. It was quite correct in every particular,
and he had reason to believe that the other portions of the line were
correct.

By Mr. ROWE—Made notes of his observations on the spot. Hi=
levels were not checked by any other person.
Mr. TALBOT here said that his rebutting case was closed.
Mr. ROWE moved fur the production of the scroll sheets of the
line, and requested the Committee, in the event of their non-
production, to apply for a Speaker's order to enforce their pro.
duction.

The CHAIRMAN said that he was in a position to save the trouble
of any further question on the subject. He had already spoken
to the Speaker, who had given it as his opinion that they could not
be produced.

Mr. Rowe then suggested that, in the present conflicting state
of the evidence, it was necessary to send some one to Ireland to
ascertain the real levels on the course of the line.—(Laughter.)
He was not to be deterred by any laughter ; he felt that a question
of too much importance depended on him, viz., the interests of
his clients and the interests of the numerous charities and an-
nuitants connected with the canal, and he persisted in hoping that
the Committee would assent to the course proposed by him.
Mr. TALBOT said that he had heard with attention the course
proposed by Mr. Rowe. It was evidently the interest of the Canal
Company to suggest a course which would hinder the Bill from
passing this session. The session might only last six weeks longer,
and it would occupy more than that time to take the levels accu-
rately. If the Bill were actually thrown out it could hardly oc.
casion more inconvenience to the promoters than its postponement,
Mr. ROWE persisted in his application, and offered, on the part
of his clients, to defray half the expense of the surveying.—(A
laugh.)

The Committee here ordered the room to be cleared.

In about five minutes the doors were ;e..1;;;;;; ;;Id the Com-
mittee said that they had decided on hearing Mr. Rowe's summing
up on the general case tomorrow (this day).
The Committee then adjourned.

L &ev INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF QUEEN'S LIENCII,June 23.
(Special Jury Cases.)
THE QUEEN V. COMPERIZ AND OTHERS.
Mr. COCKBURN stated this was an indictment against Henry
Gompertz, William Witham, and Robert Witham, for having
conspired to defraud, under false pretences, George Pitt Rose,
eldest son of Sir George H. Rose, Bart., and late a captain in the
9th Lancers, of bills or acceptances to the amount of about
17,0001., for which the prosecutor was either now liable or had
been sued. These transactions had taken place in consequence of
Captain Rose's temporary inconvenience for the want of money,
which led him imprudently into a snare by confessing his embarrass.
merit to 11. Gompertz, wno, tinder the pretext of relieving him,
had, with others mentioned in the indictment, obtained accvt-
ances to a large amount from him in favour of H. Gompertz. for
which he had received only 1,500/., or rather 1,2001., as 390/.
was swallowed up in expenses, charges, and discount upon this
part of the transaction. The indictment had oriiiinally comprised
Charles Lewis ; but upon the intimation from Mc. nobler, the
attorney for the prosecution, that Lewis would serve thecase as a
witnoA,-:, he w..s nut proceeded against.
The first witness examined was thet:rosecutor.
Captain Rose, son of Sir George H. Rose, Barr,., and a captain
on half-pay in the 9th Lancers, stated, that he in July, 1841,
wanted some money, and was introduced to H. Gompertz, xt
Hatchett's Hotel, by C Lewis, the attorney, for that purpose.
H. Gompertz proposed they should raise money together. Wit-
ness declined to do so, as he wanted only a sum to pay his father,
in order that he should be restored to the entail of an estate which
he had cut off. It w.ts then proposed by Gompertz that the wit-
ness should accept a bib for 5,000/. He (the witness) said he
should not have money to pay the bill ; but he finally consented to
accept, Gompertz agreeing to make himself liable equally for its
amount when due, The object was to raise finally 40,000/. Gom-
pertz said he could get Captain Rose 30,000/. of it.
Afterwards another bill was accepted for 1,0001., and the
captain then received 1,5001. in cash, or rather 1,2001, the
expenses swallowing up 3001. of the 1,5001. advanced him
on the 6,0001. worth of bills. Gempertz told him he was to
get the'3o,ooo/ from a Mr. Parker, a client, it was said,
of Messrs. Witham, attorneys, of Gray's.inn.square. This hap.
pened in July, 1841. Mr. Parker was said to be a person of large
property, residing both at Cheltenham and at Paris, having some
trust.money of a lady who was a relative of his, and which he
wished to place out in productive loans to her advantage. In
August, 1841, the witness saw Robert Witham at the office of his
father in Gray's Inn. A proposal was made to him to take wine
warrants for his acceptances. The wine was said to be Witham'a
and worth 2,000/., and he yielded to the solicitation of Robert
Witham to take the wine warrants, and to try to raise mosey upon
them. He reluctantly signed stamped paper to the extent:ef 2,0501.,
501. to cover the expense; requiring, however, that Robert Witham
should make and give him a written statement of the transaction,
which was accordingly made out, stating that " our client," mean.
ing Mr. Parker, would complete the loan within a month. The
paper was signed R. Witham for Wm. Witham. The wine wai

rants witness never had, but he received instead certainly 2004
Afterwards an agreement was drawn up between the parties, con.
tracting that the 2,050/. was to be deducted out of the general
loan when effected. A new party now entered on the scene, and
changed the character of the whole affair. The witness was applied
to by an attorney named Parr, living at Poole, for a debt of 1,0001.,
due by the witness to a Mr. Slade. Mr. Parr received assurances
that his client should be paid out of the loan that was then almost,
they said, concluded, and an order was given him upon Witham
for 1,0001.. which, it was alleged, was not paid, because the order
had not also been signed by Gompertz, as agreed upon. Mr. Parr,
who had come up from Poole to town, where he had been delayed
by these assurances for some days, became angry, and left London
without receiving the 1,000/. He had not since been paid, owing
to the deceptions practised upon the witness, who had been much
annoyed and injured in other respects by the effects of this con-
spiracy to defraud him, and to possess his acceptances, without re-
turning him their value.

Mr. Montague Chambers and Mr. Hawkins were also engaged
for the prosecution; Mr. F. Kelly and Mr. Humphreys for William
Witham; Mr. Cowling and Mr. Watson for Robert Witham; and
Mr. M. D. Hill and Mr. Peacock for Henry Gompertz.
Captain Rose was subjected to a cross-examination, which lasted
for three hours. Mr. F. KELLY exerted great ingenuity and per-
severance in his endeavour to shake his evidence. The witness
acknowledged he had been some time acquainted with GompertZ,
and that when the loan of money was discussed between them,
that he had made the offer to produce his title deeds to his in-
heritance, as the ground of the loan he sought. These deeds were
the basis of his title. He had told Gompertz at the time that he
had cut off his entail to the inheritance, in consequence of his
being in want of the money it was valued at ; that sum (8,0004) he
had received from his father, Sir George Rose, who was, however,
disposed to let him re.purchase the entailed right when he could pro-
cure the money to pay his father what he owed him. In cansequence
of this proposition, thedeeds and a copy of the conveyance were sent to
Messrs. Witham's office, at Gray's lan. Mr. Sewell, the attorney
of Sir George Rose, had been mentioned as a fit person to raise
him the money. The estates were on examination found to be
much encumbered by charges, perhaps as much as 60,0001. ; and
it was said that there was no security for a lender of money to
make any further advance upon the property. In 1839 he had
applied to his father, and, through Lord Morton, obtained his
consent to allow him to repurchase his reversionary interest in
the estate of his father. It was arranged that he should do so upon
advancing 7,000/.. and the interest due. He had three interviews
with one or other of the Withams about this affair; and Mr.
Witham told him it was a Mr. Parker who was to carry out this
loan, and that he (Parker) was his friend.
Cross-examined by Mr. WaTsos, Q C.--Had revoked his power
to Greenwood to act for him as his agent. Francis and Robert
Witham were br,thers, included in the indictment, but Francis
had since died. The witness denied strongly that he had ever told
Robert that all was right about the loan, and all that was wanted
to its accomplishment was, that he, Witham, should write a letter
to that effect. When the first bill was given to Gompertz Robert
Witham was present. '['he witness would not sign until after the
documents were given him. Had settled a debt he owed Charles
Lewis by a mortgage on his estate in the %Vest Indies, independent
of the money owing as compensation for slaves set at liberty by the
Act of Parliament. Was then receiving 5001. a year from his
father ; an annuity of 2001. a year from another source, arid his pay
of 130/. a year; altogether 8301. a year, payable quarterly. Gain.
pertz had accepted bills for 1,5001. for him, but they were given to
Buck or Slade thr services rendered to him (the witness). 16,5001.
was the amount of the acceptances obtained by Gompertz and his
parties. He was embarrassed by these fraudulent bills being out
in the market, but it was useless trying to settle with his other
creditors, such as Mr. Bayley and others, until he had prosecuted
these fraudulent parties, and got bp the bills. His whole debts
were trifling. Those for which he had received value were only
2,000/., which he could pay with the produce of his commission,
which alone was worth 2,2501. He would certainly repay all
he had received, independently of the resources of mortgaging his
other property.

Mr. Bush said that was the case as far as had as yet arrived
at the knowledge of the prosecutors. It was proper to ob-
serve that, upon every occasion of the discovery of a forged
cheque, the person taken into custody was ready with a story
to account for the possession of it, and in no instance had the
story been found to be correct. It would be necessary in this
case to have time to make inquiries about. the prisoner, for
which purpose the solicitor for the prosecution requested a
postponement for some days.
The LORD Mavoa—Do you wish, prisoner, to say anything
as to where you live or how you obtain your livelihood ?—The
prisoner said, without hesitation, I lived at Me:,srs. Shoe-
bridge and Cook's, linen-drapers, in Tottenham-court-road.
Was porter there about three months ago. I have been ill
since, and have been in Kent for my health, at the Green
Dragon, Gillingham. I lived before that tune at Messrs.
Casrle, Luck and Co., of Aldermanbury ; and before that I
served Messrs. Heywood, in Tottenham-court-road. I was at
all these places as porter.
The LORD AI AYOR—Where did your employers keep their
banking accounts ? The prisoner—l do not know.
The Loan MAYOR—Have you not bee►; at any banking-
hou•e with cheques for them? The prisoner—Never. I have
received money for them, but I have never presented cheques
for them.

Air. Bush—The fact that the prisoner has been so long as
between three and four years employed in houses of extensive
Iluiiness in town as porter, makes the case more strong against
him.

The prisoner—Would your Lordship wish to know how it
happened that the gentleman who employed me came to the
house where I was ? . _

The Loan MAYOR—Certainly, I am desirous to hear all
you can tell me on the subject.
The prisoner—Has your Lordship seen the advertisement I
put in the paper?
The LORD MAYOR—NO.
The prisoner—l advertised for the place of a messenger in
the newspaper, and this person called at my landlady's on
Saturday ; and my landlady, Mrs. Rees, to wnom I gave the
reference at No. 6, Ivy-lane, asked him whether he came on
account of the advertisement. He replied that he did, and I
was called down to him. He asked me what wages I ex-
pected ;,,and I said 325. per week ; and he said that was too
much, and offered me 30s. We however came to an agree-
ment that I should have 801. a year, and I was to meet him in
Pope's Head-alley, and he was to go after my character; and
then he said I must go and put on a clean coat, as kis master
liked to see i person look respectable. I went accordingly to
Pope's Head-alley, and I saw him, and he said he had seen the
head-clerk at Messrs. Shoolbred and Cook's, and I should go to
the Bank of England. So he gave use an old bag to put ten
sovereigns in and get silver for it. When I returned with the
silver he was waiting in the Alley, and he said he should want
me to assist him a good deal that day, and asked me whether 1
knew the banking-house of Jones and Loyd ? When I said no,
he said it was in Lothbury, near the Bank, and that I must take
a cheque there, and bring the amount on to him at the second
door of the Custom-house. I said, What name, Sir? and he
said, the name is there on the cheque, they will know it di-
-- ''

rectly you present it.
The LORD MAYOR—And you never were sent to get a
cheque changed before ? The prisoner—Never.
The Loan Mayon—Did they ask you your name at the
Bank when yoU went to get the silver for the sovereigns ? The
prisoner—No ; they merely weighed the sovereigns, and handed
me the s lver without asking me any question.
The prisoner was then remanded until Wednesday week.

Mr. R. H. Parr, attorney, residing at Poole, detailed the cir.
cumstances under which he came to town to recover for Mr. Slade
1,0001. owing to him by Capt. Rose.

ST. JAMES'S THEATRE.
FREACH PLAYS.

M. Arnal, of the Theatre Vaudeville, '
devitle the most humourous
of French actors, made a most successful debut here lost night.
The first piece was L' Humoriste, in which he acted
the part of Remy, the cunning, simple servant of an old
humourist with great gusto. His song "Je suis jaloux,"
and his account of his visit to the opera with sa
chdre Dorothee with a billet de favour (an order)
for which he had to pay in the shape of fees about twice as
much as he would have had to disburse had he paid regularly
at the doors, and after all, got the very worst place in the
house, where he could see nothing, was given with the most
exquisite humour imaglnable. He afterwards appeared as
Moquet, Tailleur en Maillots, and the husband of a rising
opera-dancer in " Le Mari de la Dames des Chccurs," and in
this he was admirable. Never has the union of love, confi-
dence, and jealousy, been more humorously developed than it was
by M. Arnal, in this almost exelunvely Parisian character. It is
almost necessary to have lived for some time in Paris to enjoy
thoroughly the acting of M. Arnal in these characters ;
they are as exclusively Parisian as Liston's Lubin Log was
exclusively Cockney ; but those who know Paris and the
Parisians will acknowledge that M. Arnal's delineation of
Parisian life is quite as great as was Liston's delineation of
London life. M. Arnal is a great actor, the greatest de-
lineator of Parisian coekneyism,, perhaps, in existence. 'Ye
expect gr 4 at things from his L' gomme Blase. The theatre
was well and fashionably attended. M. Arnal made an un-
doubted hit.

Mr. Lahee, auctioneer, of Bath, stated that Gompertz had dis.
counted a bill accepted by Captain Rose with him. He had been
assured first by Gomperta that Rose had a large interest in rever.
sion, which he was about to sell, and this bill was to be paid out of
the proceeds. The Withams were consulted. The son said that
55,0001. was to be advanced by Parker to Rose. He explained that
Mr. Smith, of Bedford.row, was acting for Mr. Parker; that the
order of time would be observed as to the payment of the bill. The
father was writing, with his' back to him. Being asked if he
would advise a client to advance money on such a security
as this, he gave an answer in the affirmative. He then

advanced 601. more to Gompertz. Receiving a note from him TO
introduce him to Mr. Parker, at Hatchett's, he took pains to find
him out, but the landlord said there was no one known there of the

name but the driver of one of the short coaches.—(Great laugh-
ter.) The witness never had the note, or got his money.
A clerk in Hoare's bank proved there was no one banking at
their house in 1841 of the name of Parker, residing at either Paris
or Cheltenham, or having 55,0001. to put out in their hands.
Mr. Du Pasquier, clerk to Mr. Mattock, solicitor, had in 1841
been induced by Gompertz to lend 3001. on an acceptance of Rose,
on the a•sui ance that he was then raising 45,000/. on a sale of his
estate in reversion, the deeds for which were then preparing.
Mr. Witham, being applied to, said he knew nothing of the
transaction. The money advanced was never repaid.
A bill passed to Mr. Elderton for 500/. The acceptance of Capt.
Rose was put in.

Mr. Sewell corroborated Captain Rose's statements in some par-
iculars.

Charles T. Lewis, clerk of the papers in the Queen's Bench
Prison, produced his books containing the names of prisoners con-
fine 4. He referred to the following entries therein :—llenry
Gompertz, a prisoner for debts amounting to 22,0001,, in 1839,
liberated in 1840 by the Insolvent Act—again a prisoner in 1849.
for 9,0101., liberated in .1843 by the operation of the Insolvent
Act—again in 1842 a prisoner for 1,7001., liberated under the In-
solvent Act on the 10th of February, 1845.
Mr. Peacock addressed the jury in favour of Henry Gompertz at
considerable L ngth.

Mr. F. Kelly followed fur Mr. W. Witham in a speech of great
ingenuity and force, which lasted till past eight o'clock.
When Lord Denman expressed his intention to hear tine rest of
the argument tomorrow (this day).

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
OLD COURT.

(Before Mr. Baron PLATT.)
Robert if Lean, who was stated to be a Custom-house
agent, and who surrendered in discharge of his bail, was indicted
for a misdemeanor.
The Solici7or- General, Mr. Bodkin, and Mr. Pollock, con-
ducted the prosecution, Mr. Wilkins and Mr. Robinson ap-
peared for the defendant.
This case arose out of the inquiry consequent upon the cir-
cumstances that have been frequently described as the Custom-
house frauds, hut, the details of the case are entirely destitute
of interest to the public. It was alleged that the defendant,
who was merely an agent for other parties, had paid a less
amount of duty upon a case of French wine than it ought to
have pail, and the indictment alegeil that he had knowingly
and wilfully done so.
The jury returotd a verdict of Not Guilty,

iL4147, t ST, LONDON, IitTESDA V EVENING, JUNE 24, 1845.:

James (bantock, -13, ibs indicted for feloniously cutting
and wounding J. Dowbrill with intent to maim and disable
him, or to do him some grNvous bodily harm.
Mr. Baldwin appeared !)r the prisoner.
From the evidence addiccd it appeared that the prisoner
was a cab driver, and the ';)rosecutor, *lio is a private watch-
man in the neighbo,irhoodi,f Gray's Inn-lane, had taken him
into custody on a charge d felony. This had greatly enraged
him, and he was repeatedy heard to threaten injury to the
proseeut,r. On Monday the 19th of June, the prosecutor
was goys- into the Red Lisa public-house, Holborn, when he
met the prisoner, who alined him, took him by the throat,
and eventually made a stab at him with a knife, and infli,!ted a
wound upon his breast, wiieh, according to the evidence of
the surgeon, if it had not sruck against the bone, would in all
probability have deprived bin of life.
The jury found the prisoner guilty, and he was sentenced to
be transported for fifteen yes.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
(YESTERDAY.)
.11L-I.;\ S/0 A% HOUSE.
Evan Evans, a man who 'aas been employed between three
and four years in houses of ert ensive trade in London, as por-
ter or messenger, was brouglt before the Lord Mayor in the
custody of John Forrester, the officer, charged with having
presented for payment, at the banking-house of Messrs. Jones,
Loyd and Cu., a forged cheque for the sum of 7301., on Satur-
day last.
Mr. Bu,h, of the firm of Bush and Martin, the solicitors
to the Committee of Banker! for Protection against Forgeries
and Frauds, appeared for the prosecution.
Mr. John Drake, cashier ti Messrs. Jones, Loyd and Co.,
bankers, stated that, on Satirday last, a check for 730/. was
presented at the counter, at about four o'clock, by the priso-
ner. [The witness here produced the cheque, which was made
payable to Holt and Son, and purported to be signed by
" Reed, Irving, and Co.") He saw by the character of the
writing that it was a forgery, and he went round the counter
and took the prisoner and the cheque into the room of one of
the partners.
Mr. John Rae Reid, Bart., stated that he was a partner in
the house of Reid, Irving, and Co. The signature to the
cheque produced bore some resemblance to witness's signa-
ture of the firm, but it was not a genuine signature. He
considered it to be decidedly a forgery, and it did not re-
semble the signature of any of the partners in any respect. He
did not know anything of the prisoner and had not authorised
the prisoner to take any cheque to the house of Jones, Loyd
and Co.
John Forrester said he took the prisoner into custody at the
banking-house of I.nes, Loyd and Co. The prisoner stated
that a man gave him the cheque in Pope's Head-alley, with
directions to get the money and take it to the first door in the
Custom-house. Witness accompanied the prisoner to the Cus-
tom-house, and used every effort to find the person described; he
searched about for twenty minutes, and went into a public-
house to watch the neighbourhood. The prisoner then said
that in cons.ouence of an advertisement in the newspaper,
some person called upon him at No. 6, Ivy-lane, to which
address he had referred in the advertisement for a situation as
a messenger, and, after some conversation, sent him to the
Bank of England to procure change for ten sovereigns; that
he had brought back the silver to the person who had so em.
ployed him, and then that person delivered to him the cheque
with directions to take it to the second door at the Custom.
house.

IMPERIAL PARLIAAIENT.
HOUSE OF LORD•S' .Tine 23.
Their Lordships assembled at the usual hour.
WATERFORD AND LIMERICK.
The Earl of BESBOROUGH presented several petitions
from Waterford in favour of this railway.
LEEDS AND WEST RIDING JUNCTION.
A NOBLE LORD presented several petitions in favour of
this Bill.

INTEMPERANCE.
The Marquis of NORMANBY presented a petition from
Newcastle-on-Tyne again,t intemperance.
RAILWAY BILLS:
The following railway Bills were brought up from the House
of Commons :—The Londonderry and Enniskillen, the London-
derry and Coleraine ; the Ashton, Staleybridge, and Liver-
pool; the Horsham branch of the London and Brighton Rail-
way ; the Cornwall; the North Wales Mineral Railway; the
Shrewsbury, Oswestry, and Cheshire Junction ; the Bedford
branch of the London and Birmingham; the Blackburn, Dar-
wen, and Bolton; the Lowestoff Railway and Harbour, and
others.
PROTEST AGAINST THE MAYNOOTH BILL.
The Marquis of NORMANBY wished to speak to a point
of order connected with their Lordships' proceedings. It
might be in the knowledge of their Lordships that a
protest had been entered upon the journals of the House
against the third reading of the Maynooth Bill. Now, it
was the invariable custom of this House that no Noble
Lord should sign a protest who was not present at
the time the question was put. It was also contrary
to the rules to refer to any terms which might be
used in a protest ; but he might go out of the way to
state that the protest in question put forward
an opinion in very strong terms, stating that the
Bill was opposed to the principles of the rights of succession,
and the principles which placed the present Royal Family on the
thrme. This protest had been signed by a Right Reverend
Prelate who was not present upon the third reading, but who
only voted on the oceasion by proxy. He should, therefore,
move, if the Right Reverend Prelate did not wish to do
so himself, that leave be given to the Right Rev. Prelate to
strike his name out of the protest.
The Bishop of LONDON presumed that he was the party
alluded to, and he begged tv assure their Lordships he was not
aware that the forms of the House precluded him from signing
the protest against the third reading of the Bill. Having done
so, however, it only remained for him to apologise to the House
for the want of knowledge he had displayed, and to request
leave of their Lordships to withdraw bis signature from the
protest.

IRISH LANDLORD AND TENANT BILL.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY, seeing the Noble Lord
the Secretary for the Colonies in his place, wished to ask what
his intentions were respecting the second reading of a Bill upon
their Lordships' table, known as the Irish Landlord and Te•
nant Rill ? It stood for the second reading to-morrow, and he
wished to tell their Lordships, that a more fatal and more ob-
noxiou,s measure to the interests of the landed proprietors of
Ireland could hardly have been brought forward, and he there-
fore wished to know whether the Noble Lord intended to carry
it through in its present objectionable form, and containing the
compulsory clauses. These clauses were most objectionable.
They wore founded upon a report lying upon their Lordship's
table, the general contents of which, although in some part it
gave some good information, convinced him that the concoc-
tors knew very little of the real state of Ireland. He would
say no more at present, because he hoped to have another op-
portunity of stating more fully his objections, but he trusted
Government would not venture to push it through parliament
at this late period of the session.
Lord STANLEY deeply regretted that his sense of public
duty did not allow him to propose the postponement of the
second reading of this Bill. He had to thank the Noble
Marquis for the courtesy which he had experienced at his
Lordship's hands in having communicated privately his
intention to ask this question, and he regretted greatly
that he could not comply with it. The Bill had been
recommended by the Commission of which his Noble Friend
was at the head, without he believed any dissension. That
Commission had been composed of individuals all differing in
religious and political opinions, and almost on every other
subject, but all agreeing in this, that, they were owners of
property in Ireland. He should wish this Bill to go through
Committee, and, if Noble Lords wished it, rather than its value
should be impaired by any undue hate, he should be glad to
refer it to a Select Committee up stairs, and have all the
clauses thoroughly discussed and decided upon, so as to render
it as appropriate as possible for the object whifh it had to serve,
for he repeated that he should conceive its value to he very
greatly diminished if it was supposed to be passed with any
undue haste throu:.h the House.
Lord STRADBROKE wished to ask whether the Noble
Lord intended to say that this Bill had been brought in on a
recommendation of the five Commissioners, because, if he
understood rightly, the Commissioners repudiated the Bill as
being any Bill of theirs.
Lord STANLEY said that the object of this Bill was to

give compensation for the expense which had been incurred
by the tenant in the improvement of the land. This was
an unanimous recommendation of the five Commissioners, and
he was not aware that any of the principles of the Bill had
been altered.

The Marquis of LONDONDERRY wished to inquire whe-
ther this Bill was to be passed this session, before the Com-
missioners had concluded their report, or whether they had
concluded their report?
Lord STANLEY said that would depend on the Corn-
missioners themselves.

NEWCASTLE AND BERWICK RAILWAY.
Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition from the Duke of
Portland, against this Bill, which he alleged would injure his
property unnecessarily, as a better and a shorter line might be
laid out, although perhaps not so good a one for the pro-
prietors.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE wished to know whether
railway accidents were ever reported to the Board of Trade,
and if not, whether the Board was in the habit of in-
stituting any inquiries respecting such accidents; and if
so, whether there would be any objection to report the
result of such inquiries to Parliament. He consi-
dered that on e great advantage would attend such a course,
he meant the publicity which would be given to them. He
did not address one question so much with a view to the great
and rich railways as the smaller and poorer ones. He wished
the Noble Earl to state what was the usual practice on these
occasions, and whether there would be any objection to report
to Parliament the result of such inquiries if they were made.
The Earl of DALHOUSIE said, that by an Act passed in
1840, and a subsequent Act, railway companies were bound,
under a penalty, to report all accidents attended with loss of
life within forty-eight hours after their occurrence. And with
respect to accidents where there was no loss of life, they were
bound to furnish a report, but not so soon as in the former
case. The usual course adopted was to wait for the report
of the railway company, unless in cases of great moment, and
when those occurred the Inspector-General was sent
down immediately to inquire into the circumstances
and report the result and the cause of the accident. The
power of the Board, however, stopped there ; they could not
compel the adoption of any suggestion which it might be ne-
cessary to carry into effnt, with a view to prevent their re-
currence. As to the laying the reports before Parliament, he
was not aware but such was the custom, but if not, of course
there would be no objection to do so if required.
The Earl of DALHOUSIE rose again, in reply to a ques-
tion from the Duke of Wellington, and said, that no report
had been received by the Board of Trade, of the accident wt.ich
the Noble Duke referred to as having occurred at Bridgewater.

CHARITABLE TRUSTS BILL.
The Marquis of I3READALBANE p?esented a petition
against the Charitable Trust Bill.

RAILWAY TRAVELLING ON SUNDAYS.
The NOBLE MARQUIS also presented a great number of
petitions from clergymen and others in Scotland, against the
desecration of the Lord's day, and praying their Lordships to
compel railway companies not to run trains on the Sabbath.
There was a general opinion amongst clergymen, magistrates,
and others in Scotland, that trains only should be run on that
day in cases of emergency, of illness, and for the conveyance of
Government dispatches of importanci..
NEWCASTLE AND BERWICK RAILWAY.
The Duke of RICHMOND presented a petition from New-
castle in favour of this line.
TESTS IN SCOTCH UNIVERSITIES.
The NOBLE DUKE also presented a petition praying their
Lordships not to abolish any of the tests in the Scotch Uni-
versities.

THE CORN-LAWS—AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS.
The NOBLE DUKE also presented two petitions from Hamp.
shire—the first complaining of the last alterations in the corn•
laws; the second complaining of agricultural uistress, and pray-
ing for relief. _