The Sun.
London, England, 1845-07-18 00:00:00

discussion had proceeded. He hoped that the inhabitants of the '
three kingdoms would be treated on a perfect equality.
The clause, as amended, was then agreed to.
Clause 74 was then proposed.
Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD objected to the clause
altogether. They bad no such power in Ireland as that which
was empowered by this clause. And he did not see why it
should be given in Scotland and England, when it was with-
held in Ireland. As the feeling of the House, however,
appeared to be against him he would not press it to a division.
The remaining clauses of the Bill were then agreed to.
On the motion of the LORD ADVOCATE, the following ad-
ditional clauses were inserted in the Bill—" That in estimating
the annual value of lands and heritages, the same shall be taken
to be the rent at which, one year with another, such lands and
heritages might, in their actual state, be reasonably expected
to let, from year to year, under deduction of the probable annual
average cost of the repair, insurance, and other expenses, if any,
necessary to maintain such heritages in their actual state, and
all rates, taxes, and public charges payable in respect of the
same. Provided that no mine or quarry shall be assessed unless
it has been worked during some part of the year preceding tha
day on which the assessment may be ordered to be levied.
That no person shall be liable to be assessed in any parish or
combination, on his means and substance, unless the estimated
annual value thereof in whole shall exceed 301. That clergy-
men shall be liable to be assessed for the poor in respect of
their stipends. That in all eases in which, by the provisions
of this Act, notice or intimation is required to be given with-
out prescribing the particular form of the notice, or the manner
in which the same is to be given, it shall be lawful for the
Board of Supervision, from time to time, to fix the form of
such notice or intimation, and the manner in which the same
is to be given."
Mr. SNIOLLETT moved the insertion of the following
clause after clause 36—" That where the one-half of any
assessment is imposed on the owners, and the other half en
the tenants or occupants of lands and heritages, it shall be
lawful f6r the Parochial Board, with the concurrence of the
Board of Supervision, to determine and direct that the lands
and heritages may be distinguished into two or more separate
classes, according to the purposes for which such lands are used
and occupied, and to fix such rate of assessment upon the
tenants or occupants of each class respectively, as to such
boards may seem just and equitable.
The clause went through the different stages, and was agreed
to without opposition.
Lord DUNCAN proposed that the board of supervision
should have power to unite two parishes, whenever such
parishes should think it expedient to be combined for the mere
effectual management of the poor.

holding one of those offices. Bat the precedents or practices
of other countries ought not to be precedents for the guidance
of this : for, though in the offices to be held, cases might be
analogous, yet they were not analogous in this, for the Govern-
ments to which he referred, were either despotic, or had exhibited
symptoms of conduct which, he trusted, would not be adopted
in England. If this Bill was passed, what security had they
that the Jews would not object to our laws iwith regard to the
keeping of the Sabbath. At present, they could not complain,
but if they permitted them to hold high municipal offices, was
it not likely that they would refuse to enforce our laws upon
that subject. For all these reasons, he should move that the
Bill be read a second time that day six months.
Mr. 'PLUMPTRE said that a respectable individual who had
been named more than once was at that moment high sheriff of
the county which he had the honour to represent. He had
nothing to say against that individual. But in this country
we either were Christians or not, and if we were Christians we
were about to admit to office those who derided the name of
that Being in whom, as Christians, we trust, and in whom we
glory. He desired to exalt the name of that Being, and he
thought they were about to invite a desecration of that Holy
name. He was quite sure with the Honourable Member for
the University of Oxford that this measure would prove any-
thing but satisfactory to the country. He was convinced that
this was not a measure of opinion, or to be classed with the
measures which had been lately passed. It was one that was
disreputable to the House and the Government. He felt assured
that every man who felt any real respect for the Great. Head of
the Church he belonged to could vote for it, for it was one which
desecrated the honour of that great and glorious Being on
whose merits he depended for eternal happiness. If this
Bill were passed, there would be great reason to fear that that
great and glorious Being would cast this nation out of his fa-
vour. Without the favour of Almighty God he would ask
where was the security for the prosperity of this great nation?
God forbid that this Bill should pass, but, if it did pass, they
would neglect the obligations which laid upon them as reason-
able men, and still more as Christian men. He was aware that
theological questions could not be entertained in that House,
on any other than political grounds, but he could not help think-
ing that as Christian men, the Members of that House could
not discuss the question without a reference to the opinions of
the great body of the Christian inhabitants in this country. He
feared that his remarks would receive but little consideration,
yet, in his view, the matter was of such importance that he
could not refrain from seconding the motion.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that the Honourable Gentle-
man who had just sat down put the question on grounds which
it was difficult to notice, but impossible to avoid. The Hon.
Gentleman had stated that if this Bill were passed there was a
danger of a loss of the favour of the Most High. In the course
of his observations he had allowed that the remarks of the
Honourable Member for Oxford had shown that the office of
magistrates was filled by Jews. He had himself stated, that in
his own county the office of high sheriff was held by a Jew.
These offices were of the utmost importance, and if the Hon-
Gentleman did hold those opinion., he ought to have brought in
a Bill to prevent Jews from holding any offices whatever. But
if such a Bill had been passed, he would have asserted that
offices were only to be held by members of the Church of
England. That was going on the narrowest grounds of in-
tolerance ; grouuds, to which, as a Member of that House, he
could never consent.—( Hear, hear.) The House of Lords,
by the decision of 1828, bad declared that Jews might be
safely admitted to the offices to which this Bill gave them a
right. By the solemn decision in 1845 of the same House
that declaration had been confirmed. And so far from losing
the blessing of the Most High, by admitting the Jews to these
offices, they were doing away with religious rancour and dif-
ference, and if this were promoting the cause of charity, it was
the most essential means of securing the blessing of God. So
long as Jews fulfilled every duty of British subjects, they
were entitled to the same honours and advantages as other
subjects. The Hon. Member for Oxford had stated that the
Jews felt that they were a nation ; but it should be recollected,
that so long as those Jews were contributors to the revenue,
they were members of the community of this country. The
Right Hon. Gentleman reminded him of a remark of one
whom he would not say was the fairest evidence, Dugald
Stewart. Dugald Stewart had compared the University of
Oxford to a ship moored in a running stream, and by which
the rapidity of the stream was to be measured. The Hon.
Gentleman was meored in the stream, and so he was letting
opportunities pass by. The Hon. Gentleman the Member for
Newark, whose assistance was not rendered in this debate,
had declared, in one of those speeches in fivour of posi-
firms tshich he was so well able to maintain, that no
line of demarcation could be drawn between the admission
of Jews to seats in Parliament and the highest offices • and the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his speech in reply to his
Hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Macaulay),
had asserted that Jews could not be excluded from seats
in Parliament, any more than any other sect.—( Cheers. )
He was not one of those who were so credulous as to suppose
that the Jews will not aim at higher privileges than were be-
stowed by this Bill. He presented a petition some time ago
from a Jewish community, in which it was stated that they
would be glad to have this measure, but that they would not
give up onelot of their claims to higher privileges. He (Lord
John Russell) agreed with them and with the Right Hon.
Gentleman the Member for Newark, and the Chancellor of
the Exchequer, that the only principle upon which they agreed
to this Bill was, that it would lead to the admission of Jews to
higher privileges. He believed that the religious belief of a
Jew would not interfere with the discharge of his duty. His
Hon. Friend opposite brought forward rather a singular autho-
rity—not for him ( Lord J. Russell) or any Hon. Gentleman
on his side if the House to quote—but a singular authority
for him ( Sir R. Inglis), Dr. Arnold. Everybidy knew that Dr.
Arnold had an opinion which he thought a benevolent, pro-
visionary, theory, that they could unite in one religious and
political community, that they could have a State with a large
comprehension of religious differences, which would be animated
by one generous religious belief ; but for that purpose he pro-
posed that all Christians, Roman Catholics, and Dissenters of
every kind, should be admitted into his nation of equality,
which he proposed should supersede their present imperfect in-
stitutions. Did his Hen. Friend imagine that there could be no
kind of sympathy created between Jews and Christians ? Why
did he take the benefit of Dr. Arnold's opinion with regard to
the Jews only? Let him go the whole way, or let him not
quote Dr. Arnold. He would not have it quoted solely for
the Jews. For these reasons he (Lord John Russell) would
give his hearty assent to the present Bill, though at the same
time he found fault with it because it was not comprehensive
eremeh. He held it as a step to further measures that would
tend to extend the charitable feelings by which the members of
this community ought to be united, and he would heartily
give his vote, not only to this measure, but to any other measure
which the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced, by which
the Jews would be admitted to all civil offices.—( Cheers. )
Mr. TREL AWN EY made a few observations in favour of
the Bill, which were scarcely audible in the gallery.
Mr. M. MILNES condemned the continuation of the preju-
dice that at present existed against the Jews. He knew the t fleet
which it had in Prussia, where the animosity existing towards
them was only to be equalled by the animosity existing between
the blacks and whites in the United States. He thought that
they ought to extend the privileges and the rights of the Jewish
creed as far as possible, without injury to the State, and
he would, accordingly, vote for the meature.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the motion
Against it .
Majority in favour of the motion —Bo
The Bill was then read a second time and ordered to be
committed.
POOR-LAW AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Upon the motion that the House do go into Committee on
the Poor-law Amendment (Scotland) Bill,
Mr. LOCKHART said he hoped this Bill would not be pro-
ceeded with. He was very anxious that it should be postponed
for a few days, say a fortnight, as the people of Scotland were
under the impression that the Bill would not be at all suited
to the country. He could assure the House that in many parts
of Scotland there were a great number of Irish and English
located, who had found their way into those places, and had
obtained a location that they were not entitled to, and therefore
it would not be fair that the parishes in which those people
resided should be taxed for their support. Altogether the Bill,
in its present state, differed so.much from its original form that
time ought to be given to consider it. After a few further
observations, which were totally inaudible in the gallery, the
Hon. Member concluded by saying that though he had at
first intended to move the postponement of the House going
into Committee on this Bill for a fortnight, yet, upon a more
mature consideration of the question, he would withdraw the
motion.
Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD defended the Irish la-
bourers resident in England, and contended that they
would never have come to that country but they were wanted
as artisans and labourers.
Sir J. GRAHAM said he would reserve any observations
he had to make upon this discussion until the House went into
Committee on the Bill.
After a few words from Mr. P. M. STEWART, the House
went into Committee on the Bill.
Sir J. GRAHAM said he was a party to recommending the
introduction of the clause in this Bill in reference to the settle-
ment question. In respect to vagrants he begged to say that
no alteration whatever had been made in the existing law in
regard to them, and therefore his lion. Friend near him had
been mistaken in saying that the Bill would have an injurious
effect in reference to vagrants. And then, as to the period of
settlement, that had been extended from three to five years.
Mr. P. M. STEWART said he objected to the adoption of
such a principle, as he considered that any Member had an in-
disputable right to speak to the question, and oppose it if he
chose, prior to the Speaker leaving the chair.
The House having gone into Committee,
Sir J. GRA HAM, on the 73rd clause being put by the Chair-
man, said that as he had been a party to the recommendation
of that clause in the Bill which referred to the right of settle-
ment, he should support it in its present stage, as well as on a
former occasion he did its introduction. With respect to va-
grants, he begged to say that no alteration whatever had been
made since the measure was first presented to the House, and
therefore the complaint made by his Hon. Friend the Member
for Lanarkshire (Mr. Lockhart) was unfounded and uncalled
for. His Hon. Friend was also mistaken in his statements re-
specting the hardship, implied by the change which the pro-
posed law of settlement effected over the former, the fact
being, that the present provision would extend the claim to
settlement from three to five years.
Mr. P. M. STEWART said he could not help thinking
that the Scotch Members had been treated very uncourteously.
Almost every one of them had urged the postponement of the
measure, at least until another session. All their requests
hwreahod, toi(
ao
was
aesvperr, been
e,io previously
suddenlysiy
broughttreated with with dis
forward
e gh ay r
adn, tilluona l.t
A eine gmt a
hh e
r,
supported the Bill, to retard it for a
fitirstni
motion,gt. If the ,
lion.thheueldhave e
Memberppesed
it, aLanarkshire presseduhiamdna n un-
important provision, nor for such an insignificant dolay that
a stand should have been made by those who failed to oppose
the obnoxious principles of the Bill.
Mr. HENLEY wished try oak his Learned Friend the Ad •
vocate-General a question respecting the provision of the 73d
clause—viz., What was the meaning of the medical certificate
there mentioned, and whether the Sessions Court of 'Scotlandte
was the soul and conscience of the Scotch doctors?
The ADVOCATE-GENERAL replied that the provision
had reference to the issue of the medican certificate alone, and
was not to be found in any other part of the Bill, or applicable
to any other subiect.
Sir E. COLBROOKE thought that either the law of set-
tlement in Eriglaed, or that now proposed for Scotland. must
be erroneous, as the Government measure was totally d•fferent
from the existing las in this country. The Scotch, as native
occupiers, but above all as rate-payers, and the Irish and
English settlers, had equally a right to complain of the in-
justice comprehended and threatened in the measure, and
for his part he regarded all its provisions unfavourably.
Sir GEORGE CLERK controverted the statement that
the people of Scotland were opproed to this measure. On the
e,ntrary, it was his firm belief, that they were universally in
favour of it. and regerded it as it really was, a Bill calculated
to hi of great benefit to every cla•s of the community.
Mr. DUNCAN woull have supported the Member for
Lanark, had he pressed his motion to a divisien, in order to
give the people of Scotland an opportunity of forming and
expressingare.lc arhbnyhc: np;igo,anrrt,oei
regarded
the measure, but as his Hon. Friend
head, declined to take that course, he had only to support a
opposed aansd usefulsi
r.andp.
i'l.
Stewartbeneficial.
STierrwvil.leo ‘i
Lord Advocate, he wouleUEnetsapi
press
stsh
taht,atafptearrt fellwochahtis a
amendment
fromd Sir
the\ Ir.
which related to the province in which the party was born, but
he would move the remainin,,
so removed, if by sea, save, in'aPvearsse'l ‘ t;1 t a
affordingno
sufficient person
ebre.
D
was very glad to see the way in which, the
ripuroNtecetAion'
N.'
g Lord and

pede it as virulently as he could, under the pretence of bene-
fitting the sailor, he (Sir G. Cockburn) was almost tempted
to threw it up altogether.
Sir C. NAPIER threatened to count the House if the Bill
were persevered in, when
On the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EX-
CHEQUER, the third reading of the Bill was adjourned
till to-morrow (this day).
The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the
House adjourned at a Quarter-past One o'clock.

---
PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS.
THURSDAY, JULY 17.
The Lords' amendments to the following Bills were
agreed to :
Lynn and Dereham Railway.
Middlesbro' and Redcar Railway.
Newry and Enniskillen Railway.
Dublin and Belfast Junction Railway.
Waterford and Limerick Railway.
Dublin and Drogheda Railway.

The Gravesend and Rochester Railway Bill was read a
third time and passed.
Railways (Selling and Leasing),—Bill to restrict the
powers of selling or leasing Railways contained in certain
Acts of Parliament relating to such Railways, ordered to be
brought in by Sir George Clerk and Lord Granville Somerset,
mid read a first time.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
HOME ClRCUlT.—Chelmsford, July 17.
CIVIL SlDE.—(Before Mr. Justice COLERIDGE, and a
Common Jury.)
EWER V. CARTER.

The clause was agreed to.
Lord DUNCAN inquired whether the revenues arising from
harbours were to be assessed to the poor-rates?
The LORD-ADVOCATE said he had not yet perused the
Harbour Act, and was not prepared to give an answer.
Clause 16 was then agreed to with amendments.

The further consideriation of the Bill was postponed till
twelve to-day, the Chairman was ordered to report progress.
and the House resumed.
BILLS OF EXCHANGE.

In the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir
J. GRAHAM moved the third reading of the Bills of Ex-
change Bill.
Mr. MILNER GIBSON said that in 1839 an alteration of

the usury laws took place, which exempted all bills of
exchange not having twelve months to run, and
all sums of money not exceeding 101. from the effect
of the usury laws. His object was to repeal the restriction
which was contained in the Act of 1839. It was necessary for

the public advantage that no restriction should be placed on the
power of borrowing money on landed property. The opinion
of Sir Samuel Romilly was, that laws against usury were very
injurious to the landed interest, because it compelled land-
owners to borrow money from illegal sources. Sir Edward
Sugden said he considered those laws had been decidedly
inimical to the public interest. He was quite sure that the
continuance of the Bill any longer, instead of being a pro-
tection, would operate most injuriously to the landed interest.
In times when money was scarce many valuable and important
improvements in land would be lost to these proprietors if this
restriction on the interest of money was preserved. He thought
money should be free, and that no restriction should be imposed
on the rate of interest that should be charged. He moved that
the clause be added to the Bill.

Mr. WILLIAMS objected to the clause. He thought a re-
striction on usurers was a necessary and salutary arrangement.
Were they not restricted by law, in many instances poor
tradesmen and small shopkeepers would he victimised by vn-
principled money-lenders, leading to bankruptcy and ruin.
Usurhus interest had been the curse of all the nations of the
world. It was denounced in Scripture.—(lronical cries of
‘' Hear, hear.") Perhaps that wasnoauthority with Hon.

Gentlemen, but it was with him. He kne,v of instances in
which needy tradesmen had been mulcted by money-lenders of
60 per cent. for the use of money. He objected to the Bill
being extended to five years, and hoped that the Right lion.
Gentleman would limit the Bill to one year. If he did not, he
(Mr. Williams) should certa !Ay move that it do not pass.
The CHANCELLOR cf the EXCHEQUER differed

with both Gentlemen who had spoken, and adhered
to tl.e Bill as it was before the House. With
out expressirg any opinion as to the advantages or dis-
advantages of abolishing altogether a fixed rate of legal inte-
rest ; for the reasons which I have stated to this House I hope
the House will agree with me in thinking it wise to agree to
provisions of the Bill for the limited period I have mentioned.
The period was long enough to prevent any doubt as to the
continuance of the Act. He would not enter into the ques-
tion whether or not landed proprietors should not borrow mo-
ney on the same terms as on other property which was not
real. He would not discuss the question as to the propriety
or impropriety of continuing the usury laws. He thought
that question was settled. He did not believe that the argu-
ment of the Hon. Member for Coventry had any weight, nor
that the House attached any importance to it ; at all events,
it had no bearing on this case. A high rate of interest had
been deprecated, but the annals of this county would furnish
numerous instances where men had been saved from rain by
having the opportunity of obtaining money even at a high rate
of interest, and being thus enabled to keep up their credit.
Mr. F. BARING had ne wish to endanger the Bill, but he
thought that the suggestion of his Hon. Friend deserved at-
tention. He thought there ougt,t to be a revision of the Bill
in a future session, and that a Committee should be appointed
to inquire into the effect of the usury laws on the landed inte-
rest, and he hoped that, if that assurance were given, his
Hon. Friend would withdraw his motion. The Chancellor of
the Exchequer did not seem to know what the state of the law
was. If this Bill did not pass, the Usury Act would apply to
all bills of more than three or six months date, so that, al-
though the Bank Charter Act was only a temporary one
in its general provisions, it was in effect a per-
manent one in respect to this particular.—( )
The Honourable Gentleman quoted from the evidence given
before several Committees to show that the repeal of the usury
laws had had a most beneficial effect. He did not understand,
therefore, why the Chancellor of the Exchequer hesitated to
make this a permanent measure. They had had the best evi-
dence that it worked well for eleven years. He could not wader-
stand why men should be prevented from dealing with their
money as with any other property. He regretted tint the
Chancellor of the Exchequer thought it necessary to render the
Act merely one of continuation. If his Honourable Friend
would not consent to withdraw his motion upon the expectation
of a Committee next year, he would vote with him.
Sir R. PEEL would have no objection to the appointment
of a Committee to inquire into the operation of the law as
regarded the land. He did not know but it might appear that
the land itself would be benefited by being placed in the same
condition as other property. In the meantime, he thought
that there could be no ebjections to the continuance of this
Bill for five years.
Mr. WARBURTON said that his Hon. Friend had re ason
to be satisfied with the result of his motion, as it elicited from
all sides such satisfactory testimony. There could be no doubt
of the good working of the Act.
Mr. V. SMITH said, as the Right Hon. Baronet inter ided
to appoint a Committee on the subject during the next se: ssion
of Parliament, he should only hope that it might meet the
general wish. He hoped the Hon. Member for Coventry ( Mr.
Williams) would be upon it.
Mr. HUI'T was satisfied with the explanation which the
Government had given to the House, and congratulated the
Hon Member for Manchester on the success of his motion.
Mr. MUNTZ hoped to see the usury laws abolished.
Mr. GIBSON then withdrew his motion.
After a few words from Mr. WILLIAMS, the Bill was read
a third time and passed.
THE JURORS' BOOKS (IRELAND) BILL.
This Bill was read a second time.
NAVAL MEDICAL SUPPLEMENTAL FUND
SOCIETY BILL.

On the order of the day for the second reading of this Bi 11,
Mr. WARBURTON complained of the manner in 'a bleb
the funds had been managed, and suggested that the Bill
should be referred to a Committee up stairs for inquiry, with
a view to a redress of this grievance. If this were accede dto
he should not oppose the second reading.
After a few words from Mr. CORRY, who acceded tt 3 the
suggestions of the Hon. Member for Kendal, the Bill w-a s or-
dered to be read a second time.
The Physic and Surgery Bill, and the College of Phv si cians
and Surgeons Bill were by Sir JAMES GRAHAM avicrred
till to-morrow.
The second reading of the Stock in Trade Bill was postp tined
till Thursday.
THE GRAND JURY PRESENTMENTS (DUBL IN)
BILL.

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAI EVENING, JULY 18, 1845.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff torecover damages
from the defendant for the seduction of his daughter.
Mr. Chambers, with Mr. Edwin James, conducted the case
on behalf of the plaintiff, and Mr. Sergeant Shee and Mr.
Wordsworth were for the defendant.
Mr. JAMES (in the absence of his leader) addressed the
jury, and said that this was an action brought by the plaintiff
to recover compensation for what was termed by a fiction of
law the loss of his daughter's services, but in substance it was
to obtain damages for an injury committed by the defendant in
the seduction of his daughter. The Learned Counsel then pro-
ceeded to state that the plaintiff in this action had formerly
been an extensive farmer at Beleharn, in this county, but he
had retired from business, and at the time of this transaction
was living, with his daughter Emma, the subject-of the pre-
sent inquiry, and other members of his family, at a village
called Fox Earth. The defendant was the son of a wealthy
farmer in the same village, and he believed he was about 22
years of age. An intimacy had sprung up between the young
people, and the defendant was looked upon as her acknowledged
suitor, and no doubt was entertained of his intentions being ho-
nourable. It would appear, however, that he had deliberately
planned the seduction and ruin of the plaintiff's daughter,and in
March, 1843, he succeeded in obtaining possession of her per-
son, upon (as he was instructed) a solemn promise to make her
his wife. Their intimacy continued until the latter end of
1814, when the young woman gave birth to a child, and the
defendant then not only refused to perform his promise to
marry her, but had the cruelty to make a paltry offer of ss. a
week for the support of the child. The Learned Counsel,
after detailing some other circumstances, which will be found
in the evidence, concluded a very able and forcible address by
saying that the case was entitled to the most serious consideration
of the jury. A young girl, who, up to the time the defendant
crossed her father's threshold, was virtuous and happy, and
performed all her filial duties, had been disgraced and ruined.
The defendant found his victim virtuous and unprotected; he
ruined and deserted her—
" Plucked the fair flower and rifled all its sweetness,
Then cast her, like a loathsome weed, away."
At the early age of 18, in the very dawn of life, before she had
felt and known that, " man to his fellows oftentimes unjust,
was ever so to woman," he had betrayed her, and left her a
prey to misery and temptation.
Emma Ewer, the daughter of the plaintiff, a very pretty
young woman, was then examined. She deposed that the
plaintiff. her father, was formerly a farmer, occupying a con-
siderable quantity of land at Belcham, in this county, but
he had latterly retired, and gone to reside with his family
at the village of Fox Earth. Her father had been twice
married, and upon his second wife going to reside away from
him, she (witness) used to keep his house for him. There
were two other sis'ers and a brother, but they were at school.
The father of the defendant lived in the same parish, and
witness became acquaints ei with the defendant, and they
were upon intimate and affectionate terms in 1843. He
addressed her as an hornaurable suitor, and visited her at her
father's house in that capacity, and she also went to see him
at his father's and was received on the same footing. Before
the month of March, 1613, he had promised to marry her, and
told her that if he did not do so he wished he might never
prosper. In the course of-that month she had been out on her
pony for a ride, and when she returned she was going to turn
it nut, as usual, into the m eadow, when the defendant came
upon her unawares, and tee Jk her by force into a shed that was
close by, and there, in spite of her resistance, accomplished his
purpose. Their intimacy continued after this until the month
of September, 1844, when 'she gave birth to a child. She had
repeatedly asked the defendant whether he intended to marry
her, and he always told her that he did, and repeated the ob-
servation that he belled he might never prosper if he did not.
After the child was born the defendant offered to allow her ss.
a week for its support.
In cross-examination,. the witness said that her own mo-

ther died in 1832, and her father married again in 1840, and
she was questioned at considerable length with regard to
the conduct of her fat'aer, and she admitted that a woman
named Sharpe was supposed to have had an illegitimate child
by him, and that her mother-in-law complained very much of
his conduct in this respect, and had reproached him with al-
lowing his illegitimate children to be brought to the house
where his wife and grown-up daughters resided, and that she
eventually left his roof in consequence of his proceedings with
regard not only to this woman, but to two others named Plum
and Mouse. The witness was then questioned with regard to
her own conduct, and she denied positively having had any
intimacy with other young men. She admitted that she had
occasionally ridden en her pony over to the house of the
defendant's father, unaccompanied by any person, and without
a groom.
Mr. JaarEs remarked, that it was not very likely that a
farmer's daughter would have a groom to attend upon her.
The cross-examination was then continued at considerable
length, but nothing material was elicited tending to shake the
testimony given by the witness.
Re-examined—Witness denied positively having been to meet
any young men at the village of Clare, or that she had
ever been in Whitehouse-wood with the defendant. Her father
and her stepmother lived unhappily, and the defendant was
aware of the fact.
Mr. P. Viall deposed that he knew the defendant, and saw
him at Sudbury, when he told him that he had settled the
business between Miss Ewer and himself. He afterwards told
him that he had promised her marriage, and that he would
serve her sister Helen or any other young lady in the same way,
unless he intended to makeher his wife. He said that he had
promised to marry her, but that she could not do anything in it
because she had not got any "black and white" to show for it.
Cross-examined—A good many people were present when
the defendant said this, and they cried " Shame!"
Mr. John Barley deposed that he was acquainted with the
plaintiff and his family. He was a retired farmer, and his
daughter kept his house for him. He never saw anything
improper in the conduct of his daughter, and she always ap-
peared to be a virtuous, well-conducted girl. After she had
been delivered of the child the defendant called upon him and
said that he wanted to make some settlement about the " Fox
Earth affair." Witness told him he should be very glad to
communicate any proposition he might make to Mr. Ewer, and
the defendant then said that he would settle the interest of 2004
upon the child, and that 1001. of the principal should he ap-
plied to educate it, and the remainder to put it apprentice; but
he added " he would not give a farthing to the girl."
Cross-examined—Witness was not aware that the defendant
had not got a shilling of his own, or that the offer was made on
behalf of his father. The defendant, he believed, was not
more than 21 or 22 years old. Before witness left him he said
that he would rot in gaol if his offer was not accepted; and he
likewise said that his father would settle his property in such a
way as that no one should touch it.
Re-examined—The defendant is the eldest son, and his father
is consiOered a man of good property.
George Kidd, a tradesman, residing in the village of Fox
Earth, deposed that after the action had been brought, the
defendant called upon him, and said he wanted him to give him
some information, and when he asked him on what subject, he
said " About Miss Ewer." Witness told him that he knew
nothing disrespectful of her, upon which the defendant asked
him " Whether he had not seen a man in her bedroom," and
said that if he would give him information about her, he would
lose nothing by it. Witness told him he had never seen any
improver conduct on her part, to which he replied, " You are
a-- liar." He then said that he would give anything in
reason if he could obtain any information ; and witness told
him that rather than forswear himself he would cut his throat
from ear to ear.
Mr. Bates, the surgeon who attended the plaintiff's daughter
in her accouchement, proved that fact, and also said that he
had never heard anything against the character of the young
lady.
Mr. CuAturEas said this was the case for the plaintiff.
Mr. Sergeant SHEE then addressed the jury for the defen-
dant, and commenced by saying that he admitted there were
very few cases which involved more important questions as re-
garded morality than those of this description ; but at the same
time they varied most materially in their circumstances. Irf
the case where the father was the husband of a virtuous woman,
where he had trained up his family virtuously and religiously,
and where a daughter who had just arrived at the period of
virtuous womanhood fell a victim in an unkuarded moment to
the arts of a seducer, he would admit did it was impossible
to feel too much sympathy in such a casO, or that any amount
of damages given by a jury could be tooreat for one party to
pay or the other to receive. He should, however, put it
to the jury whether this was a case of that description, and
whether it was one in which the plaintiff ought to receive any
serious amount of damages. He would admit that legally the
plaintiff had made out his right to a verdict, and the question
for the jury was to say, taking into consideration his own con-
duct in the transaction, what amount of damages he wasentitled
to. He begged the jury to remember that this action was
brought by the plaintiff, and that his daughter had no interest
in, and would not receive the least benefit from, any
amount of damages they might think proper to award him.
And he would now ask them what appeared to have been the
conduct of the father in this case? Instead of bringing up
his daughter, a young woman of considereble personal attrac-
tions, and therefore necessarily exposed to great danger and
temptation, in a course of virtue and religion, he appeared
never to have taken the least care of her, and instead of warding
off from her that worst of all possible evils, a bad example, his
own conduct appeared to have been the worst that could be
possibly imagined. He appeared to have carried on an intercourse
with women, one or two of whom appeared to have had illegiti-
mate children ; that he introduced these women and children
' under his own roof, to his own children, and that his own wife
was at length compelled to leave him in consequence. Tide
was the conduct of the ma's who now came forward to seek
' foe damages for that of which, he contended, he was himself
the sole cause, and who, instead of endeavouring to protect the
virtue and innocence of his child, had really been the occasion
of h. r destruction by his baneful example. After some further
observations up ei the conduct of the plaintiff the Learned
Counsel called upon the jury to dismiss such a case with the
ignominy it deserve t, and he concluded by expressing an
opinion, that if the jury were to give heavy damages under
such circumstances, it would not only tend not to advance
morality, but that it would hold out a positive prize to un-
principled persons to neglect the education of their children
and to make a market of them.
Mr. Juitiee CoLERIDGE having summed up,
The jury, after deliberating about ten minutes, returned a
verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, 510/.

lIIIDIJLESBX SESSIONS.
(YESTERDAY.)
(Before Mr. Sergeant ADAMS, Assistant-Judge,
and a Bench
of Magistrates.)
Janet Smith was indicted for having fraudulently obtained
the sum of 10?.. 6d., the moneys of Geo. Storehouse Griffiths.
111 r. Wilde conducted the case for the prosecution, which
was at the instance of the Mendicity Society.
It appeared from the testimony of Mrs. Griffiths, who stated
her place of residence to be No. 4, Burton-crescent, that on
the 23d ult. the defendant had come to her house about eleven
o'clock in the morning, when she told her that her father had

called on Mr. Griffiths, at his office, on the preceding Satur-
day, and that he was known to that gentleman, whilst she her-
self had been known to Mrs. Griffiths at the time she was in
the service of Sir Charles Forbes in Fitzroy-square. At that
period Mrs. Griffiths also lived in that square. The de-
fendant then proceeded to say that her father was in ex-
pectation of receiving pecuniary assistance from Mr. Grif-
fiths, and that he was at that moment ill in bed, and, of
course, was unable to call upon him ; that he was in arrear
at his club, of which he had been a member and subscriber
for several years ; and that if those arrears were not paid by
a given time, he would be a loser of any benefit from that
society. Having concluded this story, she then requested the
loan of 10s. 6d. to enable her father to pay up these arrears.
Mrs. Griffiths thereupon inquired how it was that she had not
made an application to Sir Charles Forbes, when the girl re-
plied that her late master was from home, and was at Kensing-
ton, on a visit to his son, and that if Mrs. Griffiths would have
the kindness to make the advance, the sum should be repaid
out of some money she had to receive shortly from the club,
after the payment of the arrears, on her father's account. This
promise, however, was not performed, but the defendant came
again and applied for another loan. Mrs. Griffiths upon this
gave a sovereign to her servant, desiring that she should accom-
pany the girl to the club, and then, if upon inquiry she found
her tale to be true, to give her the money. The inquiry, how-
wcer, led to the discovery that the whole of the statement was
fabricated, and therefore the sovereign was handed back to Mrs.
Griffiths.
The officer of the Mendicity Society said that he had known
the defendant for some time as a begging impostor, and further-
more that he had had her in custody on a previous occasion.
The jury found the defendant Guilty.
The Learned JUDGE then sentenced the defendant to six
months' imprisonment in the House of Correction.
The other cases which were disposed of were destitute of
any feature of public interest.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
BOW-STREET.
FRAUD ON A GAS Comvatev•--Mrs. Mann, landlady of a
public-house in Dean-street, Soho, and William Newman, a
gas fitter, were summoned, the latter for laying a pipe into
the house and premises of the former defendant, which com-
municated with the pipe belonging to the Equitable Gas Com-
pany, without their knowledge or consent, and which continued
so to remain for forty-one days, which subjected them, unt:er
the sth Vic., sess. 2, chap. 36 (local), sec. 162, to 40s. for
each day.
Mr. Humphries appeared on behalf of the complainants, and
Mr. Child for the female defendant.
Mr. Humphries said that in the month of February last the
female defendant contracted with the company, after which a
meter was placed upon her premises, with a quantity of
burners, according to the plan produced, from which it ap-
peared that the gas was supplied from the main pipe in
the street, communicating with the meter in the house,
through other pipes. There was another pipe marked 'red
in the place, running from the legitimate pipe, which was
surreptitious, and which formed the subject of complaint.
On the 3d of May, something occurred in the house adjoining
the defendant's house, which caused a man to be sent by the
Company to take an account from the index, and having shut
up the pipe, he found that the gas still passed to the meter,
which he communicated to the Company, in consequence of
which the house was watched, and it was then discovered that
from the day in question, till the lfth of June, lights were in
full play to the number of eighteen. The female defendant
being apprised of the circumstance, she immediately went to
the other defendant, who applied to another company, who
ordered persons to attend on her for the purpose of taking her
orders ; but, being put in possession of the fact, they declined
to take any such order. It was manifest that the surreptitious
pipes had existed about forty-one days, the penalty for
which would amount to SM., although the object of the Com-
pany was not severity, but that the public should knew that
the parties committing such acts rendered themselves liable to
severe punishment.
Mr. Child said he was instructed to plead guilty on the part
of his client, and he hosed the Court would be lenient, as the
male defendant had acted without her knowledge, and,
although the burners were increased, there was no increase of
gas consumed.
The defendant was then ordered to pay a mitigated penalty
of 201., with costs.
The defendant Newman was then charged with the offence
above-mentioned, to which he pleaded not guilty.
The several officers connected with the company having
proved the case, the defendant was also convicted in a penalty
of 20/., with costs.
The defendant said. he had not sufficient goods to distrain
upon ; and after being detained in custody for some time, he
was ordered to attend on a future day to have the distress war-
rant made out against him, unless he was prepared to pay the
amount in the mean time.
SOUTHWARK.
DESPERATE ATTEMPTS AT SUlClDE.—Yesterday, Mrs.
Eliza Roberts, the wife of Mr. Henry Boyden Roberts, atsoo-
licitor, was charged before Mr. Cottingham with making w
very determined attempts upon her life by poison and strangula-
tion on the preceding day.
Mr. Sidney Price, of 37, Union-street, Friar-street, Black-
friars-road, stated that the defendant, Mrs. Roberts, had been
lodging in his house for the last three months, and with her
child occupied one room on the second floor. For some days
past he and his wife observed that the defendant exhibited con-
siderable depression of spirits, and on the preceding day she
spoke of her husband, from whom she was separated, and said
that he had degraded her by givingher into custody and sending
her to the station-house, and aided that being tired of her ex-
istence she had resolved to terminate her earthly career, but did
not express by what means. The witness perceiving that she
looked ill, and suspecting that she had taken something of a de-
leterious nature, examined her room and found an empty phial
with the word " poison" written on a label. He questioned her
on the subject, but as she manifested no disposition to give any
information, he immediately sent for a medical man, and an
emetic and other means having been resorted to she reco-
vered after a short time ; but being in a very weakly condition
she was ordered to lie down and be kept quiet. The defendant
was then placed in bed, and in a few hours afterwards when
witness's wife went up to her room `to take her some gruel she
found the door locked. She knocked repeatedly, but without
effect ; when witness, being apprised of the circumstance, went
up himself and broke open the door. On entering the room
he found Mrs. Roberts lying apparently lifeless on the bed with
a silk scarf twisted tightly round her neck, her face distorted,
and all the indications of strangulation perceptible. The liga-
ture having been removed, and restoratives having been admi-
nistered, she recovered, and as she subsequently expressed a
determination to destroy herself, the witness and his wife had
her brought up to this Court that steps might be adopted to
prevent a recurrence of the attempt upon her life.
Mr. COTTINGHAM inquired the cause of the defendant hav-
ing made this rash attempt to destroy herself, and whether her
husband was apprised of the circumstances of her narrow escape
from death ?
The witness, in reply, said that the defendant's husband was
a solicitor, residing in Church-street, Trinity-square—that a
separation had taken place between them about four years ago,
owing to her having an illicit intercourse with a Life Guards-
man—that Mr. Roberts subsequently brought an action for
crim. con. against the soldier, the issue was tried before the
Sheriff, when the defendant allowed judgment to go by default,
and the damages were assessed at 5001. Since that occurrence
Mr. Roberts and his wife had been living apart, and as he sub-
scribed nothing to her support, she was reduced from a state
of comparative affluence to great indigence, and it was the
pressure of want, he ( witness) had every reason to believe,
was the cause of her having made the attempts upon her exist-
ence. He added that he had forgotten to mention in the early
part of his statement that Mrs. Roberts, on finding she was
foiled in her attempts to destroy herself, had refused all sus-
tenance, declaring that she would starve herself to death, so
bent was she on self-destruction, and that she should lie down
and die at her husband's door.
Mr. COTTINGHAM inquired whether she had any relatives,
and how she had been supporting herself since their separation?
The witness said that her parents lived at Spalding, Lincoln-
shire—that they allowed their daughter a small pittance, merely
sufficient to pay her lodgings, and that she contrived to eke out
a miserable subsistence for herself and child by shirtmakive,
for which she was paid at the rate of fourpence a piece.
Mrs. Roberts, who appears to be about twenty-six or
twenty-seven years of age, looked very ill, and wept during
the investigation, said, in a tone scarcely audible, that being
in great distress, together with her child, she went a few days
ago to her husband's house, to solicit some pecuniary
assistance; that he peremptorily refused to give her a farthing,
and threatened to give her into custody if she came after him.
illnding that he was resolute in his determination, and that
everything conspired to make her miserable, she admitted
that she left his house with the fixed purpose of destroying
herself.
Mr. COTTINGHAM said that it was a most deplorable affair
altogether; that evidence having been given before him
that he defendant had made two attempts upon her life, and
also had expressed her determination to starve herself to death ;
he was, therefore, called upon to place under restraint. This
he would do by calling upon her to find bail, and in the interval
he should communicate with her friends, and try if some ar-
rangement could not be made so as to relieve her and her
child from the pressure of want. The worthy Magistrate then
gave directions that the unfortunate woman should be taken to
the county gaol, and that in her present lamentable condition
attention might be paid to her consistently with the regula-
tions of the gaol.
TIIA ME S POLICE.
SEIZURE OF AN ILLICIT STILL.—CONVICTION OF THE
PRISONERS.—Yesterday Edward Dicken, John Jones, John
Watson, and Thomas Welsh, were charged before Mr, Bal-
lantine with being in an unentered place, where a private still
was at work, for the manufacture of spirits.
An account of the seizure of the still and apparatus, and the
capture of the prisoners, was inserted in The Sun of yesterday.
The evidence of the revenue officers confirmed in every respect
the particulars already published.
The prisoners were called upon for their defence. They
muttered a few words of no import, except Jones, who has not
given his real name, and who added aloud, " I have nothing
particular to say."
Mr. BALLANTINE fined them 301. each, and, in default of
payment, sentenced them to three months' imprisonment and
hard labour in the House of Correction.
WANDS WORTH.
CHARGE OF FELONY AGAINST A POLlCEMAN._Yesterday
John Cox, police-constable 257 V division, was charged with
stealing a sovereign, the property of Samuel Palmer, police-
sergeant 6 V division.
Sarah Anne Palmer was the first witness. She said—l am
the wife of Samuel Palmer, a police-sergeant, and live in the
section-house at Priest-bridge, in the parish of Putney. The
prisoner is a single man lodger in the same house. On Wed-
nesday evening police-constable Morgan M‘Mabon, 40 V,
brought me a sovereign and 2s. 6d., my husband's money, and
laid it on the mantel shelf of the back room on the first floor.
.sifter he had left the room I went down stairs to see to the
children, and saw the prisoner standing at the gate, who shortly
afterwards went into the house, and up the stairs, as if he was
going to Isis bedroom ; to do so he would have to pass the door
of my room, which I had left open, therefore he could see the
money as he passed. He was gone about ten minutes or a
quarter of an hour, and when he came hack he said to MP,
" How much do I owe you ?" and I answered 2s. Bd. He
then gave me 35., and 1 went upstairs to get change. When
I missed the sovereign I suspected the prisoner had taken
it, because no other person had been upstairs, and on
my return I said to him " You have been playing- the a
lark ; you have got my sovereign ; I don't like larks with
money, and I won't have it." He said he knew nothing about
it; I might search his box, and he also exclaimed, " So help
me God, I've not got it." I afterwards informed my husband
of what had taken place.
Mr. PAYNTER asked the prisoner if he wished to put any
questions to the witness ?
The prisoner said he came home at half-past six, that he
paid 11rs. Palmer what he owe.l, and was afterwards standing
waiting for his change, when she accused him of taking
sovereign, which he denied having done a• having even been
in the room.
Police-constable Morgan M‘Mahon stated that about a
quarter after ten o'clock on Wednesday night he was on duty
on Putney-heath, when he met the prisoner, who asked him if
he had got any beer. Witness said he had not ;he then said,
About that sovereign, it's a strange thing where it is g ;ne,"
and witness said it was, and very unpleasant for all the men
who lived in the house, and he asked the prisoner if he knew
anything about it. The prisoner replied, "If you'll keep the
secret, I'll tell you where it is, and give you half." Witness
said he would, and the prisoner then told him that it was hid
under some bricks near the privy. iVitness then lett the
prisoner, and shortly afterwards meeting with his father, who
is acting-sergeant, told him what the prisoner had said to him.