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

12 10 0

12 10 0 15
15 0 0 10
20 0 3
2 10 0 2!

5 0 0

2 0 0

1 0 0 11.
10 0 0 2,
0 10 0

6 15 0I 18

LIST OP SCOTTISH COWIPANIES' PRICES.
Dividend Amount I
Name of Company. per of Paid. ; Price
Annum. Share.
------- --!-
-.0 .
Bank of Scotland ..... Cl. per cent. s. d. 1
00 0 d ! 0 . 177
Royal Bank of Scotland Cl. per cent. . 100 0 0 171
British Linen Company 81' per cent. 100 00 1 225
Commercial Bank .*. .. I G/. per cent. 100 00 I 170
National Bank ... —.• • 1 6/. per cent. 10 001 16
Union Bank of Scotland 7 11. pr cent. 50 00i 95 1,4
Western 8ank....... 6/ per cent. 50 0 0 B4
North of Scotland Bank 61. per cent. 50 0 7,
Clydesdale 8ank...... 1 61. per cent. 10 001 15
14
Eastern Bank .....• • • 131. per cent. 15 (1 0 ; 11!O
Caledonian Bank ...• •61 per cent. 210 0 , 3,!,i
Eilinb.& (I lasgf,w Bank 5/. per cent. 50 0 7 ,i,
City of Glasgow Bank . 5/. per cent. 8150 , 15
Scottish Union Ins. Co. 151. per cent. 2O 0 0 1 0 0 1 11.4
Hercules Insurance Co. 71. per cent. 1100 0 0 10 0 0 1 14N
Incur. Co. or Scotlnd.. Si. per cent ! 10 0 0 All paid. I 10
North British Insur..• lg. per cent. ;200 0 0 10 0 0 28
Caledonian Fire lnsur. Ila per cent4loo 0 0 10 0 0 1 24
Edinburgh Life lnsur. 61. per cent. 100' 0 0 10 0 0 19
Ed in . & tilasg. Railway 51. percent. 50 0 0 50 0 0 69
Ditto, 14 Shares.... i 5/. percent. 12 10 0 All paid. 19
Ellin., Leith, & Grantn 1 ;200 17 20 0 0 1514
wasp,. & Ayrshir Rail. .5L Ipercent. 50 0 0 All paid. ! 66%
Glasgw& Greencknail. 2/. per cent. )25 0 0 All paid. I 19
Glsgw & Garnkirk Rail. 5/. per cent. !25 0 0 All paid. 371
Dundee& Arbroth Rail, i 51. per cent. 125 0 0 All paid. I 36
Standard Life Assurnce. 5/. per cent. 150 0 0 210 0 1 8

Ellin., Leith, & Grantn
Glaspv & Ayrshir Hail. I
ulasgw & Green& Rail.
Glsgw• & Garnkirk Hail.
Dundee& Arbroth Rail.
Standard Life Assurnee.l

K-

ST. JAMES'S THEATRE.
FRENCH PLAYS.
M. Arnal, of the Theatre Vaudeville, the most humourous
of French actors, made a most successful debut here last night.
The first piece was L' Ilumoriste, 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
chore Dorothde 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 imaginable. He afterwards appeared as
Aloquet, Tailleur en Maillots, and the husband of a rising
opera-dancer in " Le Mari de la Dames des Chceurs," and in
this he was admirable. Never has the union of love, confi-
dence, and jealousy, been more humorously developed than it was
by 111. Arnal, in thus alinostexclusively Parisian character. It is
almost necessary to have lived for some time in Paris to enjoy
thoroughly the acting of 31. 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 cockneyisms, perhaps, in existence. We
expect great things from his L' Homme Blasi. The theatre
was well and fashionably attended. 31. Arnal made an un.
doubted hit.
PROP,

USED
EW PACKET STATION.—Some time
since a recommendation was made (we believe by the committee of
the Board of Trade), that a packet-station should be established at
Bantry, in Ireland, as being a most advantageous point of arrival
and departure for ships from America, &c. ; and it appears that a
deputation from the directors of a railway which is intended to
connect that port with Bandon have waited upon Sir Robert Peel
to ascertain how far Government may be disposed to follow out the
recommendation. The result of the interview was that the depu-
tation learned that Government as fully appreciate the importance
of the matter as do our mercantile interests, and that they are
giving it their serious consideration.
DErliNcE or THE CoAsT.—Orders are, %le under-
stand, wily expected at this port to repair, erect, and arm with
heavy guns of three miles' range, batteries on Drake's Island,
Devil's Point, Plymouth Citadel, Redding Point, and Staddon
Heights.—Plymouth Times,

TIIE LATE CHILD MURDER AT GREENWICH.-
Since the removal of Martha Brixey to Bedlam, for having, while in
a fit of insanity, murdered the infant son of John Drake Ffinch,
Esq., the bereft mother has received a letter from the matron,
stating that the unhappy girl's head had been shaved, agreeably to
the practice in that institution, and she had been habited in the
prism dress. The effect of this has been so much to wound the
pride of the convict, that she has repeatedly declared she had rather
have been condemned to die and have been hanged than suffer such
a degradation. The matron in her letter also declares that the un-
fortunate creature is no more mad than herself. This goes to shew
that the horrid exhibition of strangulation is net so much dreaded
as the alternative of permitting a murderer to linger out the re.
mainder of life in a state of abject and complete slavery.

LA W I.N CE.
COURT OF QUEEN'S BEIVCII,June 23.
(Special Jury Cases.)
THE QUEE.N V. GUMPERTZ AND OTHERS,
Mr. COCKBURN stated this was au 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
17,0004, 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.
meat to H. Gompertz, who, under the pretext of relieving him,
had, with others mentioned in the indictment, obtained accept-
ances to a large amount from hint in favour of H. Gompertz, for
which he had received only 1,5001., or rather 1,2001., as 3001.
was swallowed up in expenses, charges, and discount upon this
past of the transaction. The indictment had originally comprised
Charles Lewis ; but upon the intimation from Mr. Hobler, the
attorney for the prosecution, that Lewis would serve thecase as a
witness, he was not proceeded against.
The first witness examined was the ; rosecutor.
Captain Rose, son of Sir George H. Rose, Bart., 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, at
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 was then proposed by Gompertz that the wit-
ness should accept a bill for 5,0001. He (the witness) said he
should not have money m pay the bill ; but he finally consented to
accept, Gompertz agreeing to make himself liable equally for its
amount when due. !'he object was to raise finally 40,000/. Corn-
pertz said he could get Captain Rose 30,0001. of it.
Afterwards another bill was accepted for 1,0001., and the
captain then received 1,500/. in cash, or rather 1,2001., the
expenses swallowing up 3001. of the 1,500/. advanced him
on the 6,000/. worth of bills. Gompertz told him he was to
get the 30,000/. 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 hint to take wine
warrants for his acceptances. The wine was said to be Witham's
and worth 2,0004, and he yiel.ied to the solicitation of Robert
Witham to take the wine warrants, and to try to raise mo.iey upon
them. He reluctantly signed stamped paper to the extent of 2,050/. ,
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 war.
rants witness never had, but he received instead certainly 2001.
Afterwards an agreement was drawn up between the parties, con.
tracting that the 2,0501. 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 1,000/.,
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 Withain
for 1,0004, 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 bean 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.
C:ptain 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 fattier, 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 consequence
of this proposition, thedeeds and a copy of theconveyance were sent to
Messrs. Witham's office, at Gray's Inn. 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 60,000/. ; 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 7,0001.. and the interest due. He had three interviews
with one or other of the Withatns 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. WATSON, Q.C.—Had revoked his power
to Greenwood to act for him as his agent. Francis and Robert
Witham were brothers, 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. The 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 West 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 frurn another source, and his pay
of 1301. a year; altogether 8301. a year, payable quarterly. Gom.

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

Charles T. Lewis, clerk of the papers in the Queen's Bench
Prison, produced his books containing the names of prisoners con-
fined. He referred to tte following entries therein:—Henry
Gompertz, a prisoner for debts amounting to 22,0001., in 1839,
liberated in 1840 by the Insolvent Act—again a prisoner in 1842
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 length.

Mr. F. Kelly followed for 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 tl.e rest of
he argument to.morrow (this day).

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
HOUSE OF LORDS, June 23.
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 'f e •
nant Bill ? It stood for the second reading to-morrow, and he
wished to tell their Lordships, that a more fatal and more ob-
noxious 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 were founded upon a report lying upon their Lordship's
table, the general contents et 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 haste, 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 which it had to serve,
for he repeated that he should conceive its value to be very
greatly diminished if it was supposed to be passed with any
undue haste through 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 Com-
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 it 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 might be ne-
cessary to carry into effsct. 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 wi.ich
the Noble Duke referred to as having occurred at Bridgewater.
CHARITABLE TRUSTS BILL.
The Marquis of BREA DALBANE presented a petition
against the Charitable Trusts Bill.
RAILWAY TRAVELLING ON SUNDAYS.
The NOBLE Ala Rents 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 importance.
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 distress, and pray-
ing for relief.

SMALL DEBTS BILL.
Lord BROUGHAM moved the second reading of this Bill.
The Duke of RICHMOND objected to that part of it which
gave the governor of a gaol power to administer an oath. Be-
sides, that officer was often absent at the assizes, or in convey-
ing convicts from one gaol to inot her. He considered that the
oath ought only to be administered by a visiting justice. This
was the only objection which he had to the Bill.
Lord BROUGHAM said, inferior officers, the Clerk of the
Papers in the Queen's Bench, for instance, were empowered to
administer oaths. They had no means of making a justice
come to the gaol, and a poor debtor was unable to pay the
expense. The Governor, in 99 cases out of 100, was at home
when required. Last year, many persons were kept 10 days or
a fortnight in gaol because no person was at hand before
whom they could swear an affidavit. A debtor could not go
to a justice, but was compelled to wait until he could come to
him in prison.
Lord PORTMAN understood that that portion of the Bill
had been omitted, and such was the impression of many Noble
Lords. Certainly, the shortening of a person's imprisonment
was an advantar, but he conceived that no great delay would
occur in obtaining the attendance of a justice to administer the
oath. An oath was invested with more solemnity when admi-
nistered by a person in a high and responsible position. He
wished his Noble Friend could have got rid of the oath in this
case altogether, and hoped the words " visiting justice " would
be added in the place of the words at present in the Bill.
The Earl of WICKLOW thought that there could be no
objection to accept the suggestion of the Noble Duke opposite,
for there was no doubt but that the justices were very constant
in their visits at their prisons, and when they could so easily be
found, he thought it would be very objectionable to allow these
oaths to be administered by the gaoler.
Lord CAMPBELL really saw no objection to the adminis-
tration of these oaths as were prescribed by the clause of his
Noble and Learned Friend (Lord Brougham), for certainly he
was quite ready that the governors of gaols should be entrusted
with this power. Several of them, he knew from his own ex-
perience on circuit, had served her Majesty both in the army
and navy, and were to all intents and purposes gentlemen.
They were generally treated with great respect, and he believed
that these functionaries would administer oaths with much
more solemnity than they were administered in the Court of
Queen's Bench, or even in the Court of Chancery. When an
affidavit was to be administered in the Court of chancery, the
officer of the Court simply said to the witness, " Is this your
handwriting P—kiss the book—a shilling ;" and on the payment
of the fee the ceremony terminated. Even this did not pass in
the Courts, but was performed in the passages.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, beside, it must be re-
membered that these persons were in no position to compel the
justices
HAM said that in Scotland the matter was
toB BROUGHAM G
Lard
very different. There the oaths were administered by the
es in
ah
not mostth aewf
caseul
form,her.and with the utmost
thmye,
bsuetl
such
uo
dl
,ergmhe sen it
Lord CHANCELLOR—That was sufficiently evident
from the way in which oaths were administered in the hall in
that Hou-e.
fßorOtyUWGitf-tileAssiNels couldbeii g
swornhea ear testimony
once, to a
nt that, t ,
that, f 0 r:
too,
hadLoserden
with so little form,that
the swearer and the person being sworn, without at all inter-
rupting the ceremony. And with regard to an affidavit—mho
ever heard of any solemnity in the administration of an affida-
vit? his Noble Friend had coolly asked him to alter the whole
law of England in the administration of an eath. That was
all. No matter whether the parties affected were Quakers,

...so_ _ ... .
pats had seoptoti hub 114 I,boet the blip. but they wi-to olroh #
Buck or Slade for services rendered to him Iths witner.s). 10,500/.
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 Lp the biils. His w:;ole 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 2,250/. He would certainly repay all
he had received, independently of the resources of mortgaging his
other property.
Mr. R. H. Parr, attorney, residing at Poole, detailed theicir-
cumstances under which he came to town to recover fur Mr. Slade
1,0001. owing to him by Capt. Rose.
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 Gompertz 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
55,000/. was to he 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 60/. more to Gumperiz. 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 55,000/. to put out in their hands.
Mr. Du Pastsuier, clerk to Mr. Mattock, solicitor, had in 1841
been induced by Gompertz to lend 300/. on an acceptance of Rose,
on the assurance that he was then raising 45,0001. on a sale of his
estate in reversion, the decds for which were then preparing.
Mr. Witham, being applied to, said he knew nothing of the
transaction. Thu money advanced was never repaid.
A bill passed to Mr. Elderton for 500/. The acceptance of Capt.
Rose was put i 11.