The Sun.
London, England, 1844-05-28 00:00:00

THE STATE TRIALS.

-
DUBLIN, FRIDAY.
(Continued from The Sun of Saturday.)
The Ch iEF JUSTICE said, that it was unnecessary for him,
after the most able and elaborate judgment given by his re-
spective and respected brethren, who preceded him, to make
many observations in delivering his judgment. It was his
duty to the public, and to all who were interested in that trial,
to endeavour to compress what he had to say within as nar-
row a compass as possible. He was the more inclined to pur-
sue this course upon the principle according to which he
had hitherto conducted himself during the discussion
of that motion. It would, he presumed, have been ob-
served by the bar and others who had attended the
discussion of that motion, that he had, as far as possible, ab-
stained from all interference in the ease, lie had hitherto
made neither observation nor comment, preferring from mo-
tives of delicacy, and upon personal grounds, to leave to his
brethren upon the bench the consideration or the correction
of any imputed error or mistake into which he might have
fallen in the charge delivered to the jury, as the organ and
the head of the court. If the error or mistake had been
committed it was fit that it should be corrected ; and if the
parties were entitled to have it, and no one ought to be, and
he trusted no one would be, more happy than he would to have
his errors or mistakes rectified and justice done according to
right. Thus it was he had adopted the course he had hitherto
pursued during the progress of that motion, and except as
a listener he had taken no part. Those concerned in it should
do him the justice to confess that they had not been inter-
rupted, and this was the only commentary he made or in
tended to make upon that part of the case. With regard to
the general object and the conclusion that was to be come to
upon this subject, he felt that he was bound conscientiously,
and in the discharge of his duty, to give his opinion and judg-
ment upon this subject, and he did therefore say without
qualification that he concurred altogether in the view taken
by his brother Barton, and in the judgment which he had de-
livered. Now, it was conceded, that if a proper case were
made out, the Court would entertain a motion for a new
trial in a misdemeanour case : in a case of felony it was not,
so, and upon a trial at bar. The Attorney-General had con-
ceded that proposition, and that very eminent and constitu-
tional lawyer, Mr. Erskine, afterwards Lord Erskine, thus
laid down the rule :—" The attainment of substantial justice
was so decidedly the ruling principle upon which the Court
acted, that in civil cases judges had sometimes refused to grant
a new trial even where the verdict was against the law, if
upon the whole they saw that substantial justice had been
done. A fortiori' in criminal cases, where the Crown had no
interest but the attaining of solid justice, the Court would
exercise this power for the purpose of attaining it, and their
jurisdiction must necessarily be co-extensive with this great
end." Lord Kenyon, the presiding judge, said that "he
thought the rule was correctly stated by defendant's counsel,
that in granting a new trial the Court would either grant or

refuse a new trial, as either would tend to the advancement
of justice." Thus, this great and eminent judge concurred
with this great and eminent lawyer in the rule of law with
regard to the granting of a new trial. Agreeing and con-
curring in the principle so laid 'down, and applying that
principle to the present case under consideration, which was
an application for a new trial in a conspiracy case, in which
the defendants had been convicted, Lord Kenyon and all the
bench were of opinion that the rule for a new trial should
be refused. He next came to the consideration of the "parti-
cular subjects upon which anew trial was applied for, and he
should pass over briefly as possible many of them, in reference
to which all the Court had already concurred. The first of
these in point of order was the alleged mis-trial in consequence
of Mr. Rigby having been sworn as John Rigby, instead of
John Jason Rigby. He could not add anything to the ob-
servations which had been made upon that futile objection—
under the circumstances he said most futile; and he concur-
red altogether under the circumstances of the case, there
was no ground whatsoever for the parties then complaining
to apply for or obtain a yell( trial. The second ground was
that of an alleged error having been committed in conse-
quence of an order made by the Court upon the 13th of
January, 1844, extending the length of the trial into the en-
suing vacation. It was objected to both upon the ground of
the insufficiency of the language of the rule, and also for the
want of jurisdiction in the Court to make an order at all
upon the subject. His Lordship then observed, having read
the motion of the Attorney-General upon the subject,
that the objection urged by the counsel for the tra-
versers was a futile objection ; the order made complied in
words and he would say in common sense with the Act, and
he saw no reason to entertain a doubt that the Court were
right in making the vacation a part of the term. But he
would say with respect to any such mistakes they were
upon the record, and the traversers would have an oppor-
tunity of appealing to a higher tribunal. The next objec-
tion was taken on account of the venue ; he need not
refer to the cases which established without controversy
the fact, that if there be evidence of one overt act
being committed within any specified locality, that was
quite sufficient to lay the venue satisfactorily. For
this reason, he would add no more on this point to the ob-
servations that had fallen from his learned brethren who
had preceded him. He also concurred with all of them in
thinking there was nothing in the objection on account of
the separation of the jury, which had been acquiesced in and
agreed to by the counsel for the traversers. The next point
was the omission of certain names on the jury list, and, as
he (the Learned Chief Justice) viewed the case now, after
all the documents laid before the Court and the observations
made on the subject, he must say he saw no reason whatever
for imputing fraud to any one on either side. The subject
had been twice before the Court—first, on the motion on the
9th of January to quash the proceedings, and, second, on the
occasion of the plea in abatement, and he found nothing now
whatever urged to induce him to alter the judgment of the
bench delivered then on that point. The next subject was
the reception of evidence that was contended to be inadmis-
sible. This was especially a very material question. Now,
in the first place, he had very great doubts as to the truth of
the statement, that it was not brought home personally to the
traversers on the contrary, It was his °pima' that it had
been most satisfactorily done so. The document contended
to have been illegally admitted was what had been called a
ballad. It was no ballad, nor anything like a ballad. r It pur-
ported on the face of it to be a history of certain pretended
scenes of horror enacted at Mullaghmast. Now, let them
look at the nature of the meeting held there. It had been
convened by Mr. O'Connell and the Repeal Association, and
under their authority the document in question had been
published and extensively circulated throughout the meeting.
His Lordship then proceeded to express his concurrence with
his brethren in their views of the various
,grounds upon
which a new trial was sought, such as the misnomer of a
juror ' • the extension of the term ; the omission of names
from the jury list, &c., in reference to which the Court
had already concurred. The next topic was the reception
of the newspapers. Brothers Crampton and Burton had
expressed their opinion that they were evidence, not
only against Messrs. Barrett and Duffy, but all the traver-
sers. He agreed with them both in that opinion, and would
express his grounds of concurrence. It was perfectly plain
that the publication of seditiourand inflammatory documents
was an illegal act, and done in the furtherance of common
resign ; it was not in the nature of s. confession, as the letter
in Hardy's case, nor of a narrative ' • and the publication by
Barrett was a material act doue by him in the furtherance of
a common and criminal purpose—and that question, like all
ethers, was left to the jury. This publication being of that
nature, it was by every law laid down on the subject clearly
admissible against Mr. O'Connell. He did not mean to say
it was conclusive evidence against the traversers. Mr.
O'Connell might have brought evidence that he never at-
tended the meeting, or made a speech, or one of that descrip-
tion ; But he had brought forward no such proof, nor made
arty affidavit to that effect. - Barrett, 'as the agent of Mr.
O'Connell, published his speech in a newspaper, and making
that statement as the agent of Mr. O'Connell, that state-
ment became evidence against Mr. O'Connell and all the
co-conspirators. Mr. O'Connell was the leading member of the
Association, the chairman of the committee which issued the
)rders for the repeal wardens, one of whose rules was, that cer-
tain newspapers, viz., the Pilot arid Freeman, should be as ex-
tensively circulated by them as possible. To this document, Mr.
O'Connell signed his name as Secretary, and thereby became
accessory to the deed; but—and this was a most material
point—no objection had been made at the time to the recep-
tion of this evidence, all the traversers' counsel had spoken
and made no objection. It had been said, indeed, that Mr.
M'Donough had objected to its admissibility, but that had
only related to the analogy between the newspapers and the
confession, as the letter was held to be in Hardy's case.
Now, he held it as a principle that an objection must be
made at the trial, and in a tangible form, because additional
evidence might then be given, or, in the case of a charge, the
ludge might retract, qualify, or explain what he had said.
This principle was applicable in misdemeanours as in civil
cases. In Ball and Manning, Bligh's Parliamentary Reports,
second series, page 22, Lord Tenterden overruled the objec-
tion because it had not been sufficiently specific. The Chief
Justice, at much length, adverted to the speech of Mr.
O'Connell as made at the trial to show that he adopted the
authority of the newspapers, and that at that period no ob-
iection was urged against the newspapers being evidence
against all the traversers. He, therefore, utterly protested
against the course now adopted of reserving such an objection
until months after the trial, and the judgment in the House of
Lords, in a case already referred to, was an authority against
such a course of practice. He (the Chief Justice) would not
go further into this case. He meant to say nothing about
any observations or arguments which had been made upon
the subject matter of the charge. lie might have done so
perfectly consistently with the station and situation which he
filled ; but it was more gratifying to himielf that the consi-
deration of his conduct in delivering that charge should be
left to his Learned Brethren, to whom it had been submitted.
Ile would make no remarks upon the course adopted in the
progress of the motion; but would only say, with regard to
what had taken place in that respect, that he entirely con-
curred in the decision which his Learned Brethren had come
to with regard to the nature of the charge. The Chief Jus-
tice then entered into a review of the case of the Rev. Mr.
Tierney, and coincided in opinion with Judge Burton as to
the verdict in his case not being disturbed. This being the
case, the motion for a new trial must be refused generally.
The ArronsEv-GENERAL here rose and said, after what
has been suggested by two members of the Court it is not
my intention to call for judgment upon the Rev. Mr. Tierney;
but with respect to the other traversers I have to request
that the Court will fix to-morow for the giving of sentence
in this case.
Judge CatimProx—Do you mean to enter a nolle prosequi
with reference to him ?
The Arromexy-GerrEnaL—l was ' not aware until the
judgment of the Court had been given that the Court • was
divided upon the subject of his case, and it will be sufficient
for me to state that I do not intend to call up Mr. Tierney
for judgment; but as to the precise manner in which this
may be entered on the record, I have not yet decided.
Judge CRAMPTON—As this is the course to be pursued
with respect to this particular traverser, I have to observe
that my opinion concurs with that of my brother Burton and
the Lord Chief Justice in refusing the application of a new
trial to the other traversers.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—I do not mean that any judg-
ment should be hanging over Mr. Tierney ; but, I must
consider, with reference to the state of the record generally,
in what way the proceeding should be entered.
Judge Cusustrrox—l am satisfied.
The Arrousrisv-GENERAL—Then your Lordships will di-
rect the other defendants to attend in the moaning to abide
the sentence of the Court.
Mr. HATCItELL, Q.C., in the absence of the traversers'
senior counsel, said it was their intention to move in arrest
of judgment ; but, as a preliminary to that, they considered
it necessary to have the postea amended conformably to the
real facts which had taken place, and a notice to that effect
had been served on the Crown.
Judge CaamyroN—This will not stop your motion in arrest
of judgment.
Mr. Iliercarrem—The postea must be first set right.
Judge CRAMPTON—That will not stop your motion.
Mr. Ilxrciaeu. observed, that the postea should be first
amended, as no motion in arrest of judgment could be made
except upon the postea. Ten days ago they served notice
,on
the Crown of the amendments they required.
Judge CRAMPTON here looked at the notice, and said that
it was absurd to expect the Court would discuss questions
already disposed of, and the first matter in the notice was to
amend the postea in reference to the separation of the jury.
Mr. HATCHELL observed that the motion for amending the
postea was quite a preliminary application.
Judge Camitrrox—We will not hear the same matters
discussed twice over.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he did not apprehend that
the discussion of the notice would take much time, or the
application in arrest of judgment, and therefore he required
that the traversers should be in attendance in the morning
and the arguments proceeded with at once.
Mr. HArcireas. said they only looked for their strict rights.
The Court rose at a quarter to eight o'clock.
SATURDAY, MAY 25.
At the sitting of the Court this morning Mr. Whiteside
applied to have certain amendments made in the postea, by
inserting thereon that the jury had been allowed to separate
from day to day during the trial, and also by altering the
words so as to be strictly in accordance with the findings of
the jury upon the several issues sent before them.
Justice CRAMPTON asked what was the object of the motion.
Mr. WHITESIDE said the object was to have the fact set
forth according to the truth, and so as to have it put in a
train for argument before another tribunal.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL objected to the motion, and re-
ferred to the assent of Mr. Moore, Queen's Counsel, Counsel
for the traversers, as to the separation of the jury, and also
to the circumstance that the matter had been fully argued
on the new trial motion, when the Court had unanimously
decided the point against them. With respect to the amend-
ment of the record by an alteration on the postea as to the
findings of the jury, he contended that the course followed
by the Crown was strictly in accordance with the practice in
all the cases.
Mr. CLOSE followed on behalf of the traversers. He had
no objection to any form of expression on the record which
would set forth the facts according to the truth ; but he did
not wish to have placed there words which would hereafter
preclude his clients from having the question argued on a
writ of error. With respect to the consent said to have been
given by Mr. Moore to the separation of the jury, he under-
stood it to have been given after the Court had made' the
order on the subject.
Justice Prams said that the consent was either a compact

Justice PERRIN thought there was no error on the postca
as to the finding of the jury, and as to that part of the mo-
tion respecting the separation of the jury, he understood it
to be withdrawn, because it must have been made under a
wrong impression of how the matter stood.
Sir C. O'LOGIILEN said he was as Counsel on behalf of the
traversers to move in arrest of judgment, and, not anticipa=
ting that the motion for amending the postal could be con-
cluded at that hour (two o'clock), he was not at that moment
prepared to go on with his argument, but would respectfully
ask a postponement until Monday.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL objected to any further delay,
in a proceeding which had already occupied so much of the
public time.

The CIIIEF JUSTICE asked—Would there be any objection
o furnish the Crown with the points intended to be re-
ied on?

Sir C. OTOGIILEN said the traversers did notintend to rely
on any matter already argued.
The CHIEF JUSTICE.—The Court would not permit them
to do so.

Sir C. O'LoGrILEN.—The objections would arise in the shape
of a general demurrer to the indictment.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL protested against being con-
sidered a party to any further postponement in the argument
on an indictment found so far back as the month of Novem-
ber last. If the counsel for the traversers did not go on till
Monday, it would be difficult for hi; Learned Friend, the So-
licitor-General, in the hurry of sending for books of reference
to the library, to see the bearings of the authorities quoted
at the other side.
After a further discussion between counsel. _ _

Sir C. O'LOGHLEN said the objections he intended to urge
were these—first, a technical one as to the caption of tie in-
dictment; secondly, that the first five counts were bad for
duplicity; and, thirdly, that all the counts were too general
and vague. He would undertake to furnish the Crown in
the course of the evening with a list of the authorities in sup-
port of his views, reserving to himself the right of adding any
which, before Monday, he might become acquainted with.
But all he was then in possession of should be stated in the list.
This arrangement hating been assented to, the Court
shortly afterwards adjourned.

NEW HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT.
We have, from time to time, felt it to be ov^ duty
to direct attention to the negligent and very unsatis-
factory manner in which the supervision of' public
works and edifices in this country is generally con-
ducted. What adds, not a little, to the vexation which
the fact is calculated to excite, is, that this evil co-
exists with an immoderate staff of paid individual
servants of the Crown, and more than one highly
salaried board, especially charged with the duty of
preventing that waste of public money, that dishonour
to the national taste, and that injurious result to the
national interests, whichtensue from such unsatisfac-
tory and negligent superintendence. For example :
how many of our public edifices have perished by fire,
owing to faults of original construction, or subsequent
additions which have had an evident tendency to create
or enhance the liability to combustion ; and in these
cases, how universal has been the absence of that ordi-
nary degree of precaution which would have assured
the public against the loss consequent on such cala-
mities ! In how many cases have sea-walls, and dock-
yard foundations, and piers, after being erected at an
immense expense, suddenly given way, entailing, as
in the case of the present Custom-house, for example,
an expense of reparation absolutely frightful—for
want of some competent and diligent investigation,
preliminarily instituted and certified by some officers
of responsible authority. How many opportunities
for noble manifestations of that British genius and
talent, which open competition would have been
sure to have elicited, have been, and daily are, sacri-
ficed to the species of official favouritism which gives
to Sir R. SMIRKE, for instance, the fee simple or mo-
nopoly of all architectural employment in the design
and construction of new buildings like those in pro-
gress at the British Museum ? These are bad cases
enough ; but they are really less sickening, to our
taste, than those constant, and almost inevitable,
failures which appear to attend upon all the acts and
perpetrations of that self-constituted dilletanti whom
the credulity of Parliament selects for "Committees
of Taste." Committees of Taste, indeed ! Enough,
that we are indebted to them for such disgraceful
puerilities as our Law Courts at Westminster, the
Painted Chamber and the late " new buildings" of the
old Ilouse of Lords ; the Corinthian façade of the
Council-office and Board of Trade, which ought to
have been in a line (but are not) with the eastern
extremity of Downing-street ! All of them, if we
mistake not, inventions of Sir JOHN SOAVE, now,
happily for art, in a condition to " sin no more !"
Had their commissions extended so far, we doubt
not that they would have given their verdict in favour
of the preposterous portico at the Admiralty ; of the
selection of the accepted, instead of one of the rejected
designs for the Royal Exchange; and of the superiority
of design and elevation to WILKINS'S National Gallery
over INIGO JONES'S Banquetting Ihll. We are sorry
to find, on a more careful perusal of the Report of the
" Lords' Committee, appointed a Select Committee to
inquire into the building of the Houses of Parliament,
and to report to the House" (brought from the Lord.
13th instant, and ordered by the House of Commons
to be printed), that the offences of " Committees of
Taste" are not yet mere matters of tradition, but are
still rife and in active operation.
The " Lords' Committee" reports this resolution,
" That it appears from the evidence of CHARLES
BARRY, Esq., that during the progress of the building
of the Houses of Parliament, certain departures Pave
taken place from the original plans approved of by the
Committees of the two Houses of Parliament, and
ordered to be carried into execution under the direc-
tion of the Boards of Treasury and Works, which
alterations have been made by Mr. BARRY without
any authority from either of those Boards ; to which
circumstance they think it right to call the particular
attention of the House." This resolution really
appears to us amply called for, by the amount
and effect of Mr. BARRY'S own answers to the
Lords' Committee. It seems to us that Mr. BARRY
has not only been guilty of singular rashness and in-
discretion in venturing upon so extensive a field of
alterations as he has adopted, however he may try to
excuse himself on the ground that " they are only
matters of detail," but that he has shown a certain
want of feeling for the dignity of his own art, and too
great a facility in listening to suggestions about the
adaptation of his very beautiful designs to the last
new project for ventilation and smoke dispersion and
heat diffusion—and to the fresco-painting fancies of the
last " Commission of Fine Arts," which is billetted,
like a company of observation, on the growth of " The
New Palace at Westminster." Undoubtedly, warm
and well-aired rooms and freedom from smoke are
very agreeable properties in any structure,—
but they are but accessories after all.
It is of more consequence to give an air of
grandeur, majesty, and state, in conformity with
the best examples which the middle ages have left us
of its mingled palatial and ecclesiastical architecture,
to such a building as the sumptuous edifice in ques-
tion should be, than to accommodate its original
plan to the theory of Dr. REID's scheme of ventila-
tion, by such an excrescence as the "Victoria Gallery,"
objected to with so much force in the evidence of
Lord SUDELEY (one of the most accomplished and
experienced authorities on such a question in the
three kingdoms) ; or by the removal of the QUEEN'S
Robing-room, immediately behind the House in the
original design, a distance of 140 feet from it, to re-
move " the source of regret" to his Royal Highness
Prince ALBERT, " that by the original arrangement
there was a great want of large spaces for fresco
paintings." We should be sorry to convey any unfair
impression on these two points. We, therefore, quote
some passages with regard to them.
First, as to the ventilation plan, Lord SUDELET

Mr. BARRY, after showing that the plan he is now _
working on is—not that which the Commissioners '
had originally settled, but—that which Committees of
both Houses had subsequently settledand assented-to:
states that—

" Whereas in the plan selected by the Commissioners
the river front is 780 feet in length, the average depth of
the building from east to west is 270 feet, and the area
covered is five and a half acres : in the plan approved by
Parliament the length of the river front is 880 feet, the
average depth of the building from east to west is 335
feet, and the area covered is seven and a half acres."

And thus, in a written paper given in by him, he
alludes to this new erection of the Victoria Gal-
lery :
" With regard to the latter class of alterations, I beg
to observe, that, in the first place, I was required to make,
the necessary arrangements for the new system adopted'
by Parliament for warming and. ventilating the entire
building, which alone have caused many serious and im-
portant changes."
And again :
" Are the Committee to understand you that the Vic-
toria Gallery has been carried up to as great a height as
the House of Lords itself merely for the sake of venti-
lation ?—No ; not merely on that account. That is
only one of the reasons which has induced me to carry
it up to that height."
In these and other passages the plea for the altera-
tion is mainly founded, therefore, on the necessity for
coaxing the original design into compatibility with
Dr. REID'S monster flues.

Next, as to the coquetting with the same design,
which has been practised on behalf of the frescoes.
Let question and answer—as in all other cases of
coquetting—tell their own tale :
" How comes it that you never made these inquiries
respecting the importance of having the robing-room in
a particular place until the plans were so far advanced
that you could not place it there without an incon-
venience ?—I beg to state that the inquiry was made i%
time, as the plans are not so far advanced but that the
change may be made with the greatest facility. I had
the honour the other day of going over the whole build-
ing with Pi:nce Albert, and it was a source of regret
with his Royal Highness that there was a great want of
large spaces for fresco paintings. On my pointing out,
however, to his Royal Highness, that an opportuxity
might be afforded of obtaining large spaces in the pro-
posed robing room at the throne end of the house, he
was pleased to express his satisfaction at the change."
Again :

" Have you made, up to the present moment, any
alteration in consequence of communication with the
Commission of Fine Arts? —I have proposed an altera-
tion, in consequence of a regret expressed by the Com-
missioners of Fine Arts, that there was not sufficiently
large spaces for paintings; namely, that a change should
be made in the design of the Victoria-hall or gallery to
afford the large spaces for pictures which are wished for."

It is abundantly clear from the previous quotation,
that this plural " Commission " extends not beyond the
limits of Prince ALBERT. Now, with all our own love of
art, which is ardent and sincere, we think the following
remark of Lord SUDELEY is conclusive as to the mis-
take committed in sacrificing essentials of the original
selected design to the accommodation for fresco paint-
ings. It is like preparing to convert the great Legis-
lative Chamber of the Empire into one vast Pmci-
lorama! Lord SUDELEY says, in answer to Q. 89—

" If the buildings of the Houses of Parliament are
meant fcr the fine artc, I think then that Mr. Barry's
observation may be perfectly right; but I consider the
Houses of Parliament as built for no such object; that
the fine arts ought to be called in to embellish the Houses
of Parliament, and that no necessary architectural
arrangement shall be sacrificed for their display,"

We think more highly of the good taste of his Lord-
ship than we sympathise with the regret of his
Royal Highness, which Mr. BARRY was so prompt to
remove. Among the papers appended to the Report,
touching the alterations in consequence introduced by
Mr. Bnaarinto his design, we have perused with won-
der the conceded application of the Commissioners of
Police, to have separate accommodations and cham-
bers provided in the new Houses, for the police con-
stables, forthwith, " in lieu of the sort of temporary
barrack in Palace-yard, in which they have been
hitherto lodged." The surveyors of the Board of
Works call the architect's attention to the propriety
"of making provision for ample permanent accommo-
dation for the police in the new general outlay," and
in p. 30, Mr. BARRY, in his paper, says, that
he had been called on, among other altera-
tions, "to provide accommodation for the
A division of police." And this is actually
being provided! 'What next, in GOD'S name, NN ill
the gentle public be called upon to do for these mock
PrEctorians ? The thing is too ridiculous. Can
they not be contracted for in the manner in
which arrangements for all other constables are
usually made ? Send them to the " Brown Bear,"
or the " White Lion," but don't give them
dormitories in the Palace of 'Westminster !
We do not see, however, that any estimate is yet given
in for the expense of warm baths and a billiard-room
—for the same destination; but we see that Mr.
BARRY ranks the accommodation to be provided for
a Librarian of the House of Lords next in order and
consequence to that which is to be provided for some
A policemen !
Upon the whole we do not understand how Mr.
BARRY can bring himself to call the remarkable de-
partures he has made, on his own responsibility, from
the original plans, from the plans settled by the two
instructions
given of Parliament, and the occasional
given to him by the Woods and Forests, " mere
matters of detail." Does he think them to be
such ? Lord IVRARNCI IFFE is entitled to much
commendation for bringing the whole matter be-
fore the House of Lords ; and t is to be hoped that
such a system of uncertain accountability, and un-
tangible control, as are described in Mr. BARRY'S
answer to question No. 85, will be got rid of with
the least possible delay
,‘ Then you left it with the intention that alterations
should be made in the plan; but to whose approval were
those alterations. to be subjected?—l knew not that they
were subjected to any one's approval in particular.
That rested with the Government. But the examination
of the Commissioners before the Committee of the House
of Commons will show we expected many to be made."

CRUELTY OF MEHEMET ALI'S SON-IN-LAW.—
The notorious Defturdar had a den in his garden, in
which he kept a lion, which became so tame that he ran
about the grounds at liberty, and followed his master
like a dog. But before he was quite domesticated, and
while yet in confinement, one of the gardener's assistants
was guilty of some error, of which the superintendent
complained to the Defturdar. In no case dilator), in
passing judgment, he ordered the accused, without
going into details, to be cast into the lion's den. This
order was immediately complied with ; the beast, how-
ever, treated the poor condemned wretch like a second
Daniel ; it not only did no harm, but, to the astonish-
ment of the beholders, licked his hands. The gardener's
assistant was not the animal's attendant, but had occa-
sionally thrown some of his bread into the den in pass-
ing. The noble animal had not forgotten this kindness,
and' spared his benefactor's life. The Defturdar, on
hearing this, was by no means pleased ; but blood-
thirsty as ever, and without feeling the slightest appre-
ciation for this act of generosity, ordered the lion to be
kept fast during the whole of the in the
the delinquent
to remain in confinement : thinking, the anger of
gratun-
Tied rage, to force the beast to become the exe-
cutioner of its benefactor. But even hunger could not
overcome the magnanimity of the royal animal, and the
poor gardener remained the whole day unhurt in the
(len with the lion. In the evening he was liberated, but
did not long escape the vengeance of the tyrant, who,
meeting him one day in the garden, where ho had
brushed up a heap of leaves, accosted him with—" Dog,
thou art so bad that a lion will not eat thee, but now
thou hast made thine own grave." Hereupon he com-
manded him to carry the dry leaves to an oven, and then
to creep in himself. When this order was executed, the
tyrant had the leaves lighted, and the poor wretch ex-
pired under the most horrid tortures.—Travels in
Kordofan.