The Sun.
London, England, 1844-07-24 00:00:00

turned upon this, did the Government place the slightest
credit in the statement of Mr. Dobree ? If it did, it was
evident from the proceedings of the Royal Court that
Mr- Dobree was unworthy of credit. In fact, he ap-
peared to be more fit for one of those asylums they had
oeel discussing that evening, than for the position he
held
in the Church. He was not only in the habit of
saying that there was a plot to shoot the Governor, but
that there was a plot to shoot himself. They only had
his word for the confession he said he had received from
4-r- Moulin. He was in the habit of shutting himself
up in the church, nailing down the windows, and pass-
ing the night there. He would also wrap the union jack
round the pulpit, and then say he had no fear, as he was
under the protection of the British flag. He did not be-
lieve there was the slightest foundation for the supposi-
tion of a conspiracy.
Sir J. GRAHAM said the Hon. Gentleman assumed
that the Government rested wholly on the statement of
the reverend gentleman he had mentioned. But the fact
was not so. It relied in the first instance on the deli-
berate opinion of the Lieutenant-Governor, General
deli-
Napier, and further, on the additional evidence that had
ueen submitted to him, and sifted by Mr. Daniel.
Mr. HUME regretted the declaration that had been
made by the Right Hon. Secretary of State. He thought
that General Napier was under a delusion, and had taken
tue statement of Mr. Dobree as well founded. The loyal
People of Guernsey ought not to suffer from the con-
tinuation of such a charge.
Sir J. GRAHAM said he did not entertain the slight-
est doubt of the loyalty of the great majority of the in-
habitants, but he did believe that in some small body of
them such a plot was formed.
Mr. AGLIONBY said the misfortune of such dis-
cussions as these was, that they produced unsatisfactory
statements on both sides. If any proceedings were pend-
ing, it was of great importance that they should be
eXpedited.
The motion was then withdrawn.
QUARANTINE LAWS.
Dr. BOWRING then brought forward his motion,
'ailing the attention of the House to the state of the
quarantine laws, and the necessity and security of great
Modifications therein. He said he did not bring forward
the subject.- in any angry or bitter feeling towards the
Government ; and proceeded to state that the regulations
us) this subject had existed for four hundred years, as
they dated from the year 1440 ; the amount of human
misery and suffering they had caused since that time was
inconceivable. The present quarantine law of this
country was the 6th of Geo. IV. c. 69, whick imposed
the severest penalties on the masters of vessels not com-
PlYing with the regulations of the Act. The regulations
respecting this matter were very stringent, and, as he
thought, unnecessarily so. It had been proved that the
Plague was not latent in the human body for more than
fifteen days at the utmost. Any Hon. Gentleman who
had visited the Ottoman empire must have seen that so
tar from a stringent system of quarantine stopping the
spread of the plague, the lazarettos were the means of
extending it. The plegue, like most other pestilential
and dangerous diseases, owed its intensity to the same
accessories as other diseases, namely, to a want of
urainage, ventilation, &c. When he was in Egypt his
attention was called to the fact that in the
Places,,s where the plague broke out with the
most violence, on the removal of the persons
stunicted to the open desert, it almost immediately ceased.
-to- many parts of Egypt the plague was not found at all.
Our quarantine regulations were based on a strange
inciple. Articles which were liable to quarantine were
mvided into two classes—susceptible and nonsusceptible.
Of these which were deemed susceptible, woollen, silk,
cotton, linen, and paper were the principal. Now, some
'title ago he had moved for a return of the number of
Persons who had died on board our lazzarettos in conse-
quence of handling such articles as those he had men-
tioned. That return was nil, and yet we still main-
tained a strict and severe system of quarantine laws,
Which were not beneficial, and which would never have
the effect of checking the spread of disease, but, on the
Contrary, were calculated to increase it, The mainte-
nance of this system of quarantine laws was only a sub-
sit's'ission to an old prejudice which, he believed,
nuld, in a few years pass away, as the
belief in witchcraft had done before. As long
ge as 1720, Dr. Brown, in his controversy
th Dr. Mead, challenged him to state a single case
,I!'which plague would be communicated by merchan-
;re- The Hon. Member then referred to other authori-
'eis in support of the same view. It was notorious that
t,een a plague in the East had ceased, the gtharments of
hose who had been infected were sold in e public
bazaars ; and in no case he believed did they fetch less
than other clothes on account of that circumstance. A
great number of plague garments had been introduced
!yen into this country, but no evil consequences had fol-
lowed from it,—(Hear, hear.) There were regulations of
all kinds with regard to plague, but those which most
affected them were sea regulations. After a long pas-
sage, a vessel was delivered over to quarantine, and a great
and inconvenient delay occurred. There were no countries
Where there was a greater trade in contraband goods than
those who were subject to the plague ; and very fre-
quently the quarantine regulations were made the in-
strument of carrying on smuggling. The introduction
of quarantines in the East had had no effect in pre-
venting. plagues. It would be wearisome to repeat the
idle stories which were circulated as to the contagious-
iess of plague ; such as that isolated houses were at-
tacked, and all the inhabitants died in consequence. The
simple fact was, that if the system were not connected
With certain pecuniary interests, it would long ago have
been abolished. The Hon. Member concluded by moving
a resolution as to the necessity of urging on foreign Go-
vernments increased relaxation in their laws of -
qua-
rantine:. -
Mr. GLADSTONE said there was not enough in con-
troversy between himself and the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman to make it necessary that he should oc-
wpyse torelaxations
great deal of time. The resolution called on the
with recommend that
of h
foreigntequarantine
Governments
should
proceedousystem.
This was only consistent with the course which the
Government had hitherto pursued. They had taken
two steps—one was to introduce into their own ports all
the relaxation which they thought expedient, and the
other was to renew the attempt of their predecessors to
induce foreign Powers to pursue a similar course. It did
not necessarily follow that they should give full scope to
the opinions which they entertained on this subject,
lest the effect should be to produce a reaction
on ' the part of foreign Powers, and to pro-
voke them to impose new restrictions on trade.—(Hear.)
They had not yet arrived at a state of things in which
any thing like unanimity could be said to prevail upon the
great question whether or not plague was communicable
by contagion. The majority of opinions still inclined to
the affirmative. But then, on the other hand, all the
relaxations hitherto made had been found safe and
Satisfactory in their operation, and this encouraged them
to persevere in applying the principle of freedom from
restriction. With respect to the system of quarantine
which prevailed in this country, a very important relaxa-
tion had been introduced by her Majesty's Government
in the exercise of the powers of the Act of George the
Third ; the Order in Council having been pub-
'
elshcel in September last, which materially reduced
the time for which ships, both as regarded car-
goes and persons, were required to undergo qua-
rantine. At present our system of quarantine
was less strict than that of the other great Mediterra-
iiean Powers. With regard to ships having clean bills of
health, the present regulation of the United Kingdom
,Was that goods underwent a quarantine of fifteen days
and persons five; for suspected bills, goods from twenty-
five to thirty days, and persons eight. In the Austrian
Ports, ships with clean bills underwent a quarantine of
twenty-one days for cargoes, for persons ten ; suspected
bills, cargoes twenty-two days, persons eighteen ; foul
cargoes twenty-two, persons twenty-eight. This
tountry had invited France and Austria to a congress on
the subject, and had received from both a favourable
reply. Some delay would necessarily take place before
any definitive step could be taken ; but he was sanguine
in the hope that, before Parliament met again, it might be
in their power to adopt some measure for the purpose of
bringing the representatives of those great Powers into
conference with those of this country on the subject
of.o the further relaxation of the quarantine laws.
'Re was not aware that he could state any more on that
Part of the subject. The Government was fully alive to
be
imortance, but they wre of opinion that more would
"e lost than would be gained by the adoption of any
Precipitate step.
, Mr. HUME was sure the country would be gratified
n 37
• ~,, the communication of the Right Hon. Gentleman.
"se had regretted that no step had been taken on this
subject in 1814, but he thought the evidence in favour of
5..„ relaxation which could be produced before the Con-
' tress was much stronger now than it could have been
!ben- He recollected that when Sir Thomas Maitland
had relaxed the quarantine regulations much greater re-
strictions had been placed upon our shipping in Italian
Ports in consequence, and he thought the Right Hon.
Gentleman was right in not being too precipitate. He
aPproeed of the conduct of the Government, and
believed they had done everything that could be done.
The motion was then agreed to.
• PUBLIC ACCOUNTS.
Dr. BOWRING postponed the motion of which he
"ad given notice, on the subject of the public accounts,
sfe, "until next session.
RECIPROCITY TREATY WITH RUSSIA.
Mr. WAWN moved for a statement of the equiva-
lent advantages, if any, which have been granted to
' • British navigation by the Russian Government, in con-
sideration of the exemptions conceded by her Majesty's
,Government to Russian ships, by the second separate
article of the treaty of St. Petersburgh, of the 11th day
of; January. 1843, which reserves to Russian vessels
the exemption from navigation dues during the first
'three years, which is enjoyed by vessels built in Russia,
• and belonging to Russian subjects." The advantages
co„, neMed by that article of the treaty to Russia, gave
Russian shipowners a great advantage over English
Shipowners—an advantage equivalent at least to five per
• tent. A British ship entering a Russian port was placed
`under many disadvantages- The ship's provisions were
all placed tinder seal, and the captain was not allowed to
11iset his own provisions without a license from the autho-
is4lA3B' If he applied to his Consul for a remedy, the
Consul told hire that he could afford him no relief ;
_'aihereas, if a Russian captain complained to his Consul
La a British port of any grievance, immediate redress
'was afforded him. He wished to ask what advantages
Were given by the treaty to British ships which Russian
ships did not enjoy, which could be considered as
an
equivalent to the advantages thus given to Russian
• ships ?
•Mr. GLADSTONE thought the Hon. Gentleman
esetild not be much in the habit of examining treaties of
• s'avigation between different countries, and their modes of
operation, or he would not have been surprised at this
Particular case ; and he would advise the Hon. Gentle-
man not to provoke others to too close and prying an in-
. , Westigation of these treaties. He would not go into the
. Particulars of our navigation laws, but would at once
A, e answer the Hon. Gentleman's question. It had been the
en,isstern, in making. treaties with other countries,
the Mercantile tedirthe was not in so

advanced a state as our own, to admit of cer-
tain relaxations, which we did not claim for ourselves
for instance in the treaties with many of the South Ame-
rican States, while no vessels could claim from them the
reciprocity granted to vessels under the British unless
they were owned and navigated in conformity with the
navigation laws, the benefits of the reciprocity were al-
lowed to vessels belonging to those States, in British
ports, although it might not be owned and navigated ac-
cording to the navigation laws. This showed that it was
no new practice. Now, with regard to the question, he
would at once state that an advantage was conceded to
British vessels which Russian vessels did not possess,
and which was an equivalent for those advantages
to which the Hon. Gentleman alluded. Russia
granted to us, that British vessels coming from third
countries, and entering Russian ports, should be treated
if they came from British ports. Now that, he consi •
dered, was more than a counteracting advantage to the
exemption from dues for the first three years. If that
exemption had been granted to Denmark, Sweden, Hol-
land, or any country nearly on a level with ourselves in
point of maritime power, the advantage would have been
a great one, but it was not in this instance more than a
counterpoise for the advantages granted to us. With re-
gard to the grievances of British shipowners in Russian
ports—if those grievances were represented to the Go-
vernment—and it should turn out that they were deviators
from the treaty, the British Government would make
representations to the Russian Government on the sub-
ject. No such complaints, however, had been made.
There was a case relating to the Customs dues on her-
rings, in which it was alleged that greater advantages
were given to Norway and Denmark than were given to
England, which was at present the subject of negotia-
tion between the two Governments. He was not aware,
with respect to the navigation treaty, that the Russian
Government had given any cause of complaint, and he
could not accede to the motion.
Mr. HUTT thought that the admitting British vessels
from third ports on the same footing as those from Bri-
tish ports might be considered as an equivalent. With
regard to the other subject, he could assure the Right
Hon. Gentleman that the grievance existed, and he had
no doubt but that he would have his attention called to it
next session.
Mr. HUME was of opinion that by the treaty we had
the means of obtaining redress of the grievances com-
plained of. He was glad to bear of the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman speak of herrings, and ho hoped our exporters
would be relieved from the burden of these dues without
delay.
Mr. GLADSTONE had no cause to complain of delay
on the part of the Russian Government. It was only
six weeks ago that he himself had received the com-
plaints of the herring exporters.
Mr. WAWN then withdrew his motion.
CASE OF MR. O'DRISCOLL.
Mr. ROSS moved that "an humble address be pre-
sented to her Majesty, praying for the removal of Mr.
Alexander O'Driscoll from the Commission of the
peace." It was very distasteful to his feelings to appear
before that House as a public accuser, to impugn a man
for whom he entertained in general the greatest respect.
It was an unenviable task to be called upon to accuse a
gentleman far advanced in years, infirm in health, and
subject to a malady which, beyond all others, was cal-
culated to cloud the intellect and injure the temper.
These defects were considered sufficient cause for his
dismissal, and they still remained.--(Hear, hear.) Of
Mr. O'Driscoll he (Mr. Ross) knew nothing until his
connection with these circumstances, and he hoped the
House would do him the justice to believe that no con-
sideration of a party nature would induce him to prefer
a charge against an innocent man, or one whose guilt
was even a matter of doubt. The Noble Lord opposite
(Lord Eliot) had, on a previous occasion, rebuked him
(Mr. Ross) because he ventured to say the conduct of Mr.
O'Driscoll towards his fellow-magistrates was insolent,
and his treatment of the Sullivans tyrannical ; but he
sat down without convincing the House that the conduct
of Mr. O'Driscoll towards the Sullivans, Dempsey, and
Dineen was in the highest degree tyrannical. A man
named Dineen, in the first instance, complained to the
Lord Chancellor under these circumstances :—A person
named Sullivan, a tenant of Mr. O'Driscoll's, had fallen
into a small arrear of rent, half-a-year's,for which he had
passed his bill to Mr. O'Driscoll. Another half-year had
not quite fallen due when Hurley, Mr. O'Driscoll's driver,
entered poor Sullivan's farm, and distrained everything
upon it—the cow, the ass, and even the potatoes ; yes,
even the very potatoes upon which the wretched family
depended, and which, according to the testimony of
Hurley, they were afterwards obliged to steal. But,
what was the fact at the very time O'Driscoll's
driver had made this seizure on poor Sullivan ?—he had
actually the money for the bill in his pocket. Sullivan's
bill was cashed for O'Driscoll, at the bank, the other
half-year's rent was not due, and yet this cruel distraint
was made. Sullivan was thrown on the world a house-
less and a desperate man. In the distraint the cows of
poor Dineen, which chanced to have been in Sullivan's
farm, were driven away too. Dineen applied
them, but was refused. A rescue took place,
which Dineen did all in his power to prevent,
but Mr. O'Driscoll, conceiving that Dineen was instru-
mental in it, summoned him to his own house. The
Bible was put into his hand ; but he refused to disclose
the names of those who were engaged in the rescue.
He was sent before another magistrate, but persisted in
his refusal. The magistrate, without warrant or com-
mitment, had him incarcerated in the county gaol. Poor
Dineen, after having lain for four days in prison, was
brought before the bench of magistrates, who again
committed him for persevering in his refusal. Soon
after the case of Dineen was laid before the Lord Chan-
cellor another case against Mr. O'Driscoll occurred, and
that was the case of the boy Dempsey. Mr. O'Driscoll
was out hunting, and hearing a shot fired, supposed that
poachers were on his land. He saw two or three little
boys, who, on his riding towards them, ran away. He
pursued one of the boys to the house of a poor woman,
the boy having taken refuge therein. Mr. O'Driscoll
got the boy out, and inflicted a severe castigation upon
him. The case was brought before Mr. O'Driscoll's
brother magistrates, who, having heard the charge,
inflicted a fine on Mr. O'Driscoll of 40s. Upon hearing
the decision of the bench, Mr. O'Driscoll said that he
had been unjustly dealt with, and that, if it had been
any other person, the fine would have been not more
than ss. Upon this confusion arose in the court, and
the magistrates remonstrated with Mr. O'Driscoll, who
refused to apologise to the court until he was advised to
do so by a friend, and he then reluctantly apologised.
In consequence of this the Lord Chancellor very pro-
perly removed him from the bench. Some months
rolled on, and, upon a memorial being addressed to the
Lord Chancellor, Mr. O'Driscoll was reinstated to the
bench. These were dangerous times in which to tamper
with the administration of justice in Ireland. The
Government, however, seemed desirous of promoting
those who were the most uhpopular in Ireland. On a
late occcasion they had advanced a Mr. O'Brien to the
bench, who was most obnoxious in Ireland, in conse-
quence of his virulent attacks upon the person who was
the idol of the people of that country.
Mr. D. BROWN seconded the motion. Was the re-
storation of Mr. O'Driscoll calculated to give peace to
Ireland or satisfaction to any well-thinking individual,
whatever his politics might be? It had been said by the
Government that they intended to govern Ireland on the
principles of conciliation. Was the restoration of Mr.
O'Driscoll calculated to produce such conciliation? The
people of Ireland had justly come to the conclusion, from
the violence of the acts of Mr. O'Driscoll, that he was
mad, and that he was restored to the bench either as a
criminal or madman.—(Hear, hear.) They had been
told in another place that that House had no right to in-
terfere with the act of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland
as it was a judicial act. Now he would venture to say that
it was no such thing, but that it was a ministerial act,
and one with which that House had a right to deal.
Lord ELIOT was very far from denying that there
were cases under which that House would address the
Crown to remove magistrates and justices of the peace ;
but ..he thought when a Member of that House called
upon it to interfere with the prerogative of the Crown,
exercised by its highest officer, the Lord Chancellor of
Ireland, he should be able to show that it had been ex-
ercised improperly or corruptly. He believed that those
who knew his Right Hon. Friend, the Lord-Chancellor
of Ireland, would admit that in no instance he had acted
without mature deliberation, and that it was quite im-
possible that he could be actuated by unjust motives.
He did not intend to be the apologist of Mr. O'Driscoll ;
on the contrary he thought that the acts for which he
was removed from the bench were highly blameable.—
(Hear, hear.) But, having admitted that, the Hon.
Member would permit him a little to soften the colour-
ing of the picture that had been painted to them, and he
would allow him to state the facts, as they appeared to
have been, from these papers. He should not go into
the case of the Sullivans, because that was not brought
before the Lord Chancellor. With respect to the case
of the boy Dempsey, he did not mean to defend the con-
duct of Mr. O'Driscoll; he thought he was perfectly un-
justifiable in striking and beating the boy ; but he ap-
peared to have been much provoked, and it did
not seem to have been a very aggravated assault.
The boy himself did not wish to prefer any complaint,
nor were there any bruises or blood, or any appearance
of his having been severely beaten.—(lronical cheers.)
Surely the feelings of Hon. Gentleman would not
influence them so far as to make them draw no dis-
tinction. It appeared from the evidence that he struck
the boy two or three blows on the body with his whip,
but Mr. O'Driscoll himself declared on his word
of honour as a gentleman, that he only struck him
once. This charge was heard before the magistrates,
and Mr. O'Driscoll was fined 40s. against which he re-
monstrated in very unbecoming terms.—(Hear, hear.)
But it should be remembered that he afterwards apolo-
gised for it, and though it had been stated that he did so
in an ungracious manner, yet that apology was received
by his brother magistrates, and they were among the
persons who signed the memorial to the Lord-Lieu-
tenant for his restoration. Upon the whole of this case
the Lord Chancellor of Ireland did think it his duty to
remove Mr. O'Driscoll from the bench, but he did not
think the Hon. Gentleman- had stated altogether fairly
what had occurred. The Lord .Chancellor expressly
said that it was upon the whole of the case taken to-
ether that he displaced him, alleging that, "at pre-
sent," Mr. O'Discroll did not appear to have sufficient
command of his temper to retain a seat on the bench.
He stated he was advanced in years, and had recently
been in bad health; he therefore thought it advisable
that he should retire. Things stood thus from November
till the month of June, when the memorial praying for
his restoration was presented, the memorialists alleging
that Mr. O'Driscoll was now strong and active, and as
sound in his understanding as they had ever known him.
Mr. O'Driscoll was a gentleman entirely unconnected
with any wealthy or powerful family ; nevertheless he
Was a gentleman living on his estate, and who dispensed
hospitality to his neighbours liberally. He had been a
magistrate for thirty years, and his integrity had never
been impugned. •
Mr. MORE O'FERRALL thought the Noble Lord
had not shown a single ground for the restoration of.
,Mr. O'Driscoll. The Noble- Liord, doubtless wished to
throw the responsibility of - aep- thi Lord

Chancellor of Ireland. He (Mr. M. O'Ferrall) would
say that no man had ever held office in Ireland who was
more entitled to respect and confidence than
the Lord Chancellor of Ireland. But it must
be recollected that the Lord Chancellor went to Ireland
with English notions. He looked upon the magistracy of
that country in the same light as the magistracy in this.
Every Irishman, however, knew that from the magis-
tracy of Ireland had arisen many of those crimes which
Parliament was called on every year to repress. He
(Mr. O'F.) would venture to say that there was no Hon.
Gentleman sitting on the other side of the House, look-
ing to the bearing of this case on the administration of
justice in Ireland, who would say that the Noble Lord
had shown good grounds for the restoration of Mr.
O'Driscoll. He (Mr. O'Ferrall) had often been asked
what was the cause of the existing state of Ireland. His
answer to this inquiry would be, take the case of Mr.
O'Driscoll as a portion of that cause. It was
this sort of thing that cause combinations and
the use of unlawful oaths. The peasantry bound them-
selves together as the only means of resisting tyranny.
Such cases as that of Dineen and Sullivan, were common
all over Ireland, and hence arose illegal combinations.
A Government that wished to do away with illegal com-
binations would do away with its causes. They would
enforce the laws vigorously and properly equally in the
case of the rich and the poor.—(Hear, hear.) Had the
Noble Lord shown any mitigating circumstances in the
case of Mr. O'Driscoll he would not have pressed hard
upon an individual arrived at such an advanced stage of
life ; but he had not done so. What did his friends
the Conservatives say of him ? Why, that though a
Roman Catholic, he was a loyal man.—(" Hear, hear,"
from the Opposition.) Why a person who would seek
such support as that would be the basest of men. The
words were, " Though a Roman Catholic, never con-
cealing nor
.affecting to conceal his sentiments, he was
nevertheless looked upon by those of his own creed and
others as a man of unswerving rectitude." They had
no reason to regret their reliance on his rectitude, since
it had always been shown by enforcing the laws most
severely against Roman Catholics.—(Hear, hear.)
Sir J. GRAHAM said he was anxious to address a
few words to the House on this subject. In the first
place, he begged to remark that they were not then trying
the question whether Mr. O'Driscoll was a good or a
bad landlord ; neither were they then trying the ques-
tion what were his religion and politics. The question
then under discussion lay in a very narrow compass.
He agreed that the conduct which led to Mr.:o'Driscoll's
removal from the commission of the peace was, in the
main, indefensible. He thought that both with reference to
the committal of a person without a warrant, in whose case
he had a personal interest, and still more in speaking in
discourteous terms of the sentence of the bench, the
Lord Chancellor had acted wisely in dismissing him
from the commission.—(Hear, hear.) But now he
begged the House to consider that the removal of a ma-
gistrate from the bench in Ireland might be of a two-
foldcharacter—it might either be judicial, with reference
to his conduct as a magistrate, or it might be ministerial.
After having had the advantages of personal intercourse
with the Lord Chancellor, he was able to state that his
decision was entirely judicial. Ho entirely sympathised
in the compliments which had been paid to his Right
Hon. Friend Sir Edward Sugden. He thought he might
apply to him the lines of one of our poets in reference to
a judge of his own day
In Israel's courts ne'er sat an Abethdin,
With more discerning eyes or hands more clean;
Unbribed, unsought, the wretched to redress,
Swift to dispatch, and easy of access.''
This he held to be a just and correct description of the
character of Sir Edward Sugden. He was sure a more
just or able judge never presided. Now, he said again,
that in this matter Sir Edward Sugden acted judicially,
and he assured him (Sir J. Graham) his duty was never
performed with more doubt, pain, or hesitation, than
in the removal of Mr. O'Driscoll. He said that if he
had considered any one of the acts which were indefen-
sible singly he should not have thought his removal
justified; but that taking all the cases collectively, he
thought his removal necessary. This gentleman bore
an unsullied private character, although he had been
visited with displeasure on account of some violent,
intemperate acts, and disgrace having been once in-
flicted, he did not see why it should be co-extensive with
life. He thought that, considering all the circumstances
of the case, the House ought to hesitate before it passed
its sentence upon the Lord Chancellor of Ireland. He
considered it of the highest importance to conciliate the
affections of the people of Ireland towards the adminis-
tration of justice in that country ; and he was also of
opinion that this question was not unworthy the atten-
tion of the House.—(Hear, hear.) It was right that the
Government should be put upon its defence for restoring
a magistrate under such circumstances.—(Hear, hear.)
He felt satisfied in his conscience that the Lord Chan-
cellor had not acted improperly, and he should oppose
this motion, believing, as he did, that it was intended as
a vote of censure upon the Lord Chancellor's conduct.—
(Hear, hear.) He could not as a member of the Go-
vernment shrink from the responsibility of this act of
the Lord Chancellor, for, after having given the matter
the fullest investigation and consideration, he was pre-
pared to adopt that act.—(Cheers.) On thel whole, he
thought that the removal of. Mr. Driscoll from the com-
mission of the 'peace 'in the first instance was right, and
after he had suffered his punishment, and, after the
representations which had been made in his favour, he
was equally •of opinion that the Lord Chancellor was
justified in restoring him.---(Hear, hear.)
Mr. SHEIL said that the Right Hon. Gentleman, the
Secretary of State for the Home Department, had ex-
pressed his most high and extreme solicitude for the
impartial administration of justice in Ireland. He
would not dispute the sincerity of the Right Hon.
Gentleman's professions ; but he regretted that the
Right Hon. Gentleman had, not adopted a more effica-
cious mode of giving expression to his solicitude.—
(Hear, hear.) Neither had the Right Hon. Gentleman
been peculiarly felicitous in his reference to Dryden's
description Of an eminent judge. No doubt Ashley
Cooper had been a most incorruptible judge, but he was
also a most incomprehensible politician, ,and the man of
all othera the worst who could have been permitted to
interfere with the appointment of magistrates, had such
been a vortion of the duties of•LoreChancellors in his
time.—(Hear, bear.) But it appeared that, in dismissing
Mr. O'Driscoll, the Lord Chancellor had not acted in his
political capacity—he had acted in his
judicial capacity.
In what capacity had he acted when he dismised the
repeal magistrates ?—(Cheers.) Was it in his political or
in his judicial capacity that 'the Lord Chancellor had
removed his Hon. Friend the Member for Mayo, his
Hon. Friend the Member for Kerry, and Mr. Roche,
the Member for Cork ?—(Loud cheers.) Why had they
been dismissed ? Not for attending monster meetings— I
oh, no !—(Loud cheers)—but for attending dinners to
protest against the packing. of a Protestant Jury.—(Loud
cheers.)' Oh ! but, said the Right lion. Gentleman, be
was not acting in his political capacity in dismissing Mr.
O'Driscoll ; that case had nothing to do with politics.
Why, 'in its results, it was entirely political. W hat did
they say to' the political part of the question when Mr.
O'Driscoll set.forth in his memorial that, although be
was a Catholic, he was a Conservative ?—when he gave
a prominence.to the fact of his being a Conservative, and
stated that he had refused to stand for the county, although
the Bishop had offered it him, as if the Bishop held the
keys of the county as well as the keys of St. Peter?—
(Cheers and laughter.) He had refused—(Renewed
cheering)—" even though a Catholic."—(Cheers.)
It was said that in this case the Lord Chancellor had
acted in his judicial, and not in his ministerial, by which
was meant his political, capacity: Now it had been often
said that the political and the judicial capacities of the
Lord Chancellor of Ireland were so indistinct that it was
to be wished that they were separated ; and certainly no
set of functions could be more dissimilar. The Lord
Chancellor was in general a great lawyer, but the sphere
of his vision was confined to the horizon of a con-
veyancer's office, and when he launched upon the Irish
sea of political agitation he steered his course by
the scintilla juris, the light of lawyers.—(Cheers.)
And accordingly they found that the Lord Chancellor,
although an admirable judge, and in that capacity de-
serving of the highest praise, exhibiting on the bench a
great knowledge of the law and a passion for justice, yet
they no sooner find him appearing in his political capacity
than he, who as a judge was temperate, judicious, and for-
tunate, became as a politician precipitate, inconsistent,
and ominous.—(Loud cheers.) He was surprised that the
conduct of Mr. O'Driscoll should be palliated by that
Government by which the Landlord and Tenant Com-
mission had been issued. Oh but it was said the
conduct of O'Driscoll as a landlord was nothing to the
purpose. Why, if they were not bound to remove him
from the commission of the peace, as a bad landlord,
when the Chancellor came to take a retrospect, and to
consider the propriety of restoring him, ought be not to
have asked himself—shall I entrust this man with the
administration of justice between landlord and tenant ?
—(Cheers.) Now, what was the case of O'Driscoll as
a landlord ? The Secretary of State for the Home De-
partment admitted that his conduct was indefensible, and
yet when he said that his conduct was indefensible,
he could urge nothing in extenuation of it, though he
entirely approved of the conduct of the Lord Chancellor
of Ireland, and adopted his acts.—(Loud cheers.) He
adopted a measure which he said he could not defend.
(Loud cheers.) But what was the conduct of O'Dris-
coll as a landlord ? He seized Sullivan's potatoes. By
the law of the land a smith cannot be deprived
of his anvil, nor a labourer of his plough—he
could not be deprived of his means of living ; yet
by the law of Ireland the landlord might dry
up the esculent on which the man's family de-
pended for existence. That might be just in
law, but was it not a circumstance to be considered in
restoring him to the magistracy? What did ho do with
regard to O'Sullivan? He took the man into his own
parlour, put the Bible into his hand—and what hap-
pened? Oh, said the Noble Lord, it was not Mr.
O'Driscoll, it was Mr. Galway who committed him.
Miserable subterfuge !—(Loud cheers.) It was not de-
nied that O'Driscoll accompanied the man to Galway's
house, and personally committed him to Bridewell, and
that without a warrant.—(Cheers.)
Lord ELIOT—No, no.
Mr. SHEIL—Am I not right ?—(Cries of " Yes,
yes.") I knew I was ! Ido not. wonder that the Noble
Lord wishes to interrupt me The Hon. Gentleman
continued—lt was not denied that O'Driscoll, having the
money for the rent in his pocket, had distrained for that
rent and deprived Sullivan's children of their meal.—
(Loud cheers.) Pending these transactions the affair
of the boy took place. The Noble Lord said that the
boy was disturbing the sport and had fired at a hard.
Lord ELIOT—No, no.
.Mr. SHEILL-That was no matter—(lronical cheers)
—and he would tell them why it was no matter. Be-
cause it appeared from the memorial that both men, and,
boys were present, and that a shot was fired. O'Dris7
coil did not follow a man and atteinpt to strike him ; if
he had done so, he trusted the man would have struck
him to the earth—(Loud cheers)—but he followed
a boy. The boy ran into his mother's house and crept
under. a bed- ; .O'Driscoll ordered him to be brought out.'
The woman dreaded to disobey. O'Driscoll went into
I drag him out, and how did he do it ? Isle put the coil

of his whip round the boy's neck, dragged him to the
threshold of the door, and then this scene took place :
The woman entreated for mercy ; the boy fell on
his knees and asked for pardon, while O'Driscoll
raised his unmanly hand and applied the lash. The
witness Rogers confirmed the statement of the boy.
Then took place the gladiatorial scene before the magis-
trates. Next came the case of Dineen—the commit-
ment of Dineen by O'Driscoll. Then the savage assault
on the boy; and then that O'Trigger scene took place
at Skibbereen. Those were the facts which had been
' submitted to the Lord Chancellor, and the Lord Chan-
cellor decided on dismissing him—for what?—for ill-
health. And now he had shown them the miserable
inconsistency between the statement made in the memo-
rial, and which had been so much relied upon, but which
was now altogether abandoned. When the Lord Chan-
cellor said he removed him on account of ill-health—
" Good God," said Mr. O'Driscoll, " I never was so
well in all my life."—(Hear, hear, laughter, and
great cheering)—and he exclaimed—" What a triumph
will my dismissal be to those who have been long con-
spiring against me. lam old (the Right Hon. Gentle.
man read from the memorial), but I am strong in body
and in intellect. I am in good health—(Hear,
hear)—thanks to God for it." The apothecary
of Skibbereen had nothing whatever to do with him.—
(Laughter and cheers.) The Lord Chancellor insisted
on his being ill. Mr. O'Driscoll insisted that he was
well—the Lord Chancellor ultimately discovered that he
was restored to health—(Laughter, and cries of " Hear,
hear")—restored to health, which O'Driscoll said he never
lost.—(Renewed laughter, and cries of "Hear, hear.")
What was the case made out for O'Driscoll by himself
He said he only flogged a poachinglurchin.(Laughter,
and cries of "Hear, hear," with a mark of disient from
Lord Eliot.) Am I right—are not these his words ?
(Hear, hear.) O'Driscoll went on to say that he met a
parcel of fellows looking for game, and gave one of them a
cut of the thong of his whip. He submitted to the bench
that for so slight a breach of the law he ought to be
but slightly punished ; but his Lordship, the Chairman,
after a high-flown display of eloquence, whom, by
the bye, he challenged, sent him a three-cor-
nered note—(Great laughter)—fined him a pound,
and a pound costs. English gentlemen were fond
of sport, but he hoped no English gentleman would
carry it to such an extent, or would act with the same
ferocity with which, alas ! Mr. O'Driscoll had acted.
By whom was the memorial signed ? By the Catholic
bishop and the priest. By the friends and as-
sociates of those whom Mr. O'Driscoll had so grossly
maltreated.? No ; oh, no ! This "deed without a
name"— (Loud cries of "Hear, hear")—it had no such
signatures. Two Whig Lords—Lord Kingston and Lord
Riversdale, who lived at a distance of thirty miles from
Skibbereen.
Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL—Fifty miles ?
Mr. SHEIL—Yes, fifty miles ; who had, in all pro-
bability, never seen Mr. 0 Driscoll in their lives, and
who, perhaps knew nothing whatever about hiw, and
who were ignorant of the feelings of the people whom
O'Driscoll had outraged these were the persons
who signed the memorial. —" Tell me, you (continued
the Right Hon. Gentleman) who are so solicitous for
the pure, unsullied administration of justice in Ireland,
what must be the feelings of the people of Shibbereen
when they see this distrainer for potatoes, this op-
pressor of the poor, this flagellator of boys,
placed again on the bench? (Laughter.) Ah !
Hon. Gentlemen. might laugh, but it was no laughing
matter at Skibbereen. What must be their feelings when
they saw this gentleman, who had outraged the dignity
of the bench, and from Which he was precipitated, again
restored to that bench ? And for what ? Ah all
their efforts for the tranquillisation of Ireland were
nullified. Those fine professions in reference to the
adminiatraion of justice were belied by their own deeds.
—(Loiidcries of " Hear, hear.") If they saw a man in
authority in Ireland committing an act against principle,
they threw over him the shield of official protection.
Mr. ROSS shortly replied, and
Strangers were ordered to withdraw, and the House
divided. The numbers were—
For the motion
Against . .... . ....... ........ .
Majority against the motion —33
REVENUE INQUIRY.
Mr. DUNCOMBE made his motion for the printing
of the additional evidence taken before the Cominis-
sioners of Revenue Inquiry.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER sug-
gested that the Hon. Member should alter his motion so
as to require only 658 copies to be printed for the use of
Members only.
Mr. DUNCOMBE said that would make his motion
a very absurd one; but in obedience to the Chancellor of
the Exchequer he would move it, as he was sure the
public would read it just the same as if they printed
sixty thousand.—Agreed to.
NAVAL MEDICAL DEPARTMENT.
Colonol FOX then moved for copies of all correspon-
dence between the head of the naval medical department,
Sir William Burnett, and the head of the medical, de-
partment of the army, Sir James M'Gregor, and the
Secretary of State for the Home Department, on' the
subject of the charter lately grantd to the Royal Col-
lege of Surgeons, and the manner it affec' the affairs of
their respective services.
The motion, amended at the suggestion of Sir James
Graham, was then agreed to.
The • other orders of the day having been disposed of,
le.llouso adjourned at One o'clock.

SPORTING INTELLIGENCE..
lIATCHAM PARK RACES-YESTERDAY.

Sweepstakes ofs sovs. each, with 25 added ; three yrs
old, 7st 71b ; four years, Bst 81b ; five years, 9st ; six
ears and aged 95t2113; mares andgeldings allowed 31b;
inners once in 1844;' 31b ; twice, 51b ; and thrice,
71b extra. The winner to be • sold for 1201. Heats,
once round. (3 Subs.). • '
Mr. Balchin's Crocus,'4 yrs • walked over.
The Old Kent-road Stakes of 3 ''sovs. each, and 20
added ; threp yrs old, 7st 81b four yrs, Bst 91b ; five
yrs, 9st 21b yri.und ag,ed,:.9st:6lb. Horses that
have started,once. in ~1844 and not,won allowed 31b ;
twice, 51131. and.thricei 71b. Heats, once .round and
a dis. Winpe:e- to bersold for 100 sovs. (3 Subs.)
Mr. Heppelis LadyFkira, 6 yrs.- ...(Pattison) 2 1 1
Mr. Pearee's-Nora .Creina, 4-yrs' • 1 2 2
Mr. Bishop's Dane John, aged • 3 3 3
The first heat was well contested, the second won by
three parts of a length, and the third easily.
Match against time, 200 to 100, twenty miles in one
hour, over twenty hurdles.
Mr. H. England's Charming Polly (Paget) accom-
plished the distance, with ease, in 55 minutes 49 seconds,
including four stoppages. The betting was heavy on
time.

The company was, if possible, more numerous than
yesterday.

INTELLIGENCE EXTRA.
GOODWOOD, 1844.
FIRST DAY.
Nominations for the Goodwood Club Stakes
Fisticuff, yrs,—Fox, 4 yrs—Coal: Black Rose, 3
yrs—Quebec, 4: yrs—Naworth, aged—Lothario, 4 yrs
--Aristides, 4 yrs—The Currier, aged—Cattonite, 5 yrs
—Preissnitz, aged—Emma, 3 yrs—Queen Mab, 5 yrs—
Seaweed, 3 yrs—Miss Miggs, 4 yrs—Pastoral, 3 yrs—
Porto Bello, 4 yrs—Elemi, 3 yrs.
The Welter Stakes of 20 sovs. each. Gentlemen
riders, &c.
Auld Lang Syne, 4 yrs—Pastoral, 3 yrs—Cattonite,
4 yrs--Ben-y-Ghlo, 4 yrs.
The match between Olive Oil and Lord Glasgow's
Canada filly will be run on this day.
THIRD DAY.
The Anglesey Stakes of 15 sovs. each, &c.
Seaweed, 5 yrs--coal Black Rose, 3 yrs—Naworth,
aa
aged—Nat, 4 yrs—Quebec, 4 yrs—Aristides, 4 yrs—
Queen Mab, 5 yrs—The Currier, aged—Mechanic, 4 yrs
aged—Cattonite, 5 yrs—Lothario, 4 yrs.
LASTthe ChesterfieldDsv Stakes.
.
PKrnigeishilitilndicap for
-t*: g
Knight-of--the-Whistle, 6 yrs, 9st—Garry Owen, aged,
Bst. 81b—Lothario, 4 yrs, 6st—British Yeoman, 4 yrs,
Bst 611y—The Altered One, 5 vrs, Bst 51b—Pompey, 4
yrs, Bst 21b—Poison, 4 re, Ist 131b—Scalteen, 5 yrs
7st 131b—Our Nell, 5 yrs, 7st 121b—Arundo, 4 yrs, 7st
1 lib—Nat, 4 yrs, 7st 101b—Khorassan, 4 yrs, 7st 101 b
Canton, 4 yrs, 7st 91b—Mama, 4 yrs, 7st—Franchise,
5 yrs, 7st 71b—Elegance. filly, 4 yrs, 7st 61b—What, 4
yrs, 7st 61b—Little Vivian, aged, 7st 41b—Fisticuff, 4
yrs, 7st 41b—Poussin, 4 yrs, 7st 41b—Princess, 3 yrs,
7st 41b—Aristides, 4 yrs, 7st 41b—Ionian, 3 yrs, 7st 21b
—Poor Soldier, 4 yrs, 7st 21b—Zeila, 4 yrs, 6st 131 b
Barricade, 3 yrs, 6st Sib—Mickey Free, 3 yrs, Est 61b—
Rowland, 4 yrs, 6st 61b—.Dog Billy, 3 yrs, 6st 41b—Pride
of Kildare, 3 yrs, Est 4113—Deerslayer, 4 yrs, 6st 41b—
Qtiebec, 4 yrs, Est 21b—Marquis, 4 yrs, 6st—Rowena,
3 yrs, 6st—Croton Oil, 3 yrs, 6st—Skeleton, 3 yrs, sst
Efemi, 3 yrs, sst 91b—Example, 3 yrs, sst 71b—Claude
Frollo,l 3 yrs, sst 71b—Fitz-James, 3 yrs, sst 71b—
Seaweed, 3 vrs, sst 71b—Moustache, 3 yrs, sst.
NEWMARKET SECOND OCTOBER MEETING,
1844.

Duke of Bedford's Glen Fishie, Bet ; T.Y.C: ; 150, h ft.
FRIDAY.—Mr. Phillimore's Physalis, Bst 71b, agst
HOUGHTON MEETING, 1844.
MONDAY.—Colonel Peel's Garry Owen, Bst lib, agst
Lord Edward Russell's Nat, 7st 514 ; T.Y.C. ; 100, h ft.
wEDNE,DAL—Duke of Bedford's Glen Fishie, Bst
71b, agst Lord Eglintoun's Britannia, 6st 41b. T.Y.C.
200, h• ft.
At the annual meeting of the Jockey Club notice was
given that at the next meeting of the Jockey Club a re-
solution would be moved to the effect, " That no person
' who is a defaulter for bets shall be allowed to run a
horse at Newmarket, either in his own, name, or in the
name of any other person."
THE BENTINCK TESTIMONIAL.-- The subscriptions
amount to nearly 1,5001.

THUNDER:STORMS AT OXFORD.—This city and
its neighbourhood were visited on Thursday and Friday by
two violent thunder-storms. On Thursday, in the middle of
the day, it'commenced with very vivid flashes of light-
ning, followed by heavy peals of thunder, and the electric
fluid Struck the vane on' the top of one of the pinnacles on
the beautifill tower of Magdalen College, passed down
the iron rod supporting the vane , into the stone,
which it shattered, and entered into the interior of the tower,•
down the staircase, chipping pieces offf-the stone steps as it'
passed down, and finally out at one of the Windows. Some of
the' stones of the pinnacle falling on the umbrella of one orthe'
servants of the College, knocked him down, but fortunately he
*as not seriously hurt. On Friday the second stbrin commenced'
about two o'clock in the afternoon, and we have not heard of
its doing any serious damage in the neighbourhood ; but a
young man', a labourer, 'passing under a wall on the Cheri-
bury-road, was struck by the lightning, and killed instants- '
.neously on the spot. On the farm of Mr. Southern, at Woot-
'ton, near Woodstock, nineteen out a flock of twenty sheep.
that were.lying under some trees were also killed on the
spot; the electric fluid passed through a dry stone wall, leave
ing black marks on either side, but displacing none of the
stones. It is a curious coincidence that, during the summer.
assizes', in 1832, there was a thunder-storm, when the same
, pinnacle of Magdalen Tower was shattered. We 6hould
i'-tittst.that-this second Warnipg will induce
.the authorities of
I the College to place a light:11111g Cdfichittor"dolvti Wvlsey's
beautiful tower.

'LAW INTELLIGENCE.
INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, July 23.
IN RE THOMAS EATON.

The insolvent, who was described as a " gentleman,"
was opposed by Mr. Cooke, for Mr. Hudson, a tobacco-
nist ; by Mr. Creswell, on behalf of Mr. Hunt, jeweller;
and by a creditor, named Baker, a hosier, in person.
It appeared, from a very lengthened examination of
the insolvent, who was a very young man, the opposing
creditors, and several witnesses, that he had been dis-
charged by this Court, as an insolvent, in the year 1841,
when his debts amounted to upwards of 12,0001. Soon
after his discharge, he became an articled clerk to an
attorney, but neglected his profession and lived with his
mother, who had a good property, and supplied him with
pocket money. During this time it was proved that
his expenditure had been of the most reckless and
profligate description, in fact, of such a nature
as to induce the Learned Commissioner to designate it
by the term of swindling. He went to Newcastle, and,
while there, took a villa from Mr. Hudson, whom he put
to large expense by law costs. He also wrote to Mr.
Hunt for jewellery to the amount of 9001., but, luckily
for that gentleman, he only let him have goods to the
amount of 3401., for which he gave a worthless warrant
of attorney. The whole of his debts during the year
amounted to 9611., and • those he contracted whilst he
was not worth one shilling of money or property. In
his schedule the names of eight tailors appeared, and
also those of a number of livery stable-keepers, for the
hire of horses and carriages. It likewise appeared that
he had several dealings in accommodation bills.
Mr. Commissioner LAW said, after carefully consider-
ing the evidence, he thought the only proper terms by
which he could designate the insolvent were those of a
cheat, and even a swindler. He had before taken the
benefit of the Insolvent Act, and since that time he had
pursued a „career of reckless and indiscriminate profli-
gacy. The sentence of the Court in the present instance
was, that he be remanded for one year and eight months
from the date of his vesting order.

SUMMER ASSIZES.
HOME ClRCUlT—Maidstone, July 23.
The Commision for the county of Kent was opened on
Monday. There are upwards of seventy prisoners for
trial on the Civil side ; twenty eight causes are entered,
seven of which are special jury cases.
CIVIL SlDE.—(Before Mr. Baron PAnxE.)

DE BERNARDI V. GRIMSTON.
This was an action brought to recover the sum 0,
1651., upon a bill of exchange, accepted by the Honour-
able Captain Grimston, the defendant. The pleas put
upon the record by the defendant were to the effect that
the bill in question was a forgery, and also that it had not
been legally endorsed to the present plaintiff, 'and that
the property in the bill belonged to the executors of a
deceased person, named Home.
Mr. Platt and Mr. Ogle appeared for the plaintiff ;
and Mr. Sergeant Channel, with Mr. Wordsworth, were
for the defendant.
Mr. PLATT having briefly opened the case called,
Mr. Gell, a solicitor in Regent-street, who deposed
that he was the attorney for the plaintiff, and that he
was instructed by him to bring the present action. The
bill in question was placed in his hands in February, and
he advanced the plaintiff 901. upon it. Before it became
due, he communicated with the defendant, and informed
him that his bill would become due on the 3d May, and
in consequence of that communication, Captain Grim-
ston called upon him, and told him that he had been a
flat in accepting the bill, but he supposed he must
pay it, and he wished him (Mr. Gell) to wait a few days,
and not to present the bill at the bankers, Messrs. Cox
and Greenwood, where it was made payable, and he pro-
mised that he would make up the money for the bill.
Proceedings were subsequently taken by witness against
the defendant, on behalf of a ;person named Horne, who
died soon afterwards.
Cross-examined—Horne was a clerk to the present
plaintiff, and it was as the agent of Mr. Bernardi, that
the defendant was sued in his name. The bill became
due on the 3d May, and the writ in Horne's action was
served on the 4th. He was applied to upon the subject,
but he did not mention the name of Mr. Bernardi as
being his client. Captain Grimston did not say, when
he called upon him, that he had accepted the bill for
65/. originally, and that it had been altered to 165/., and
that it was a forgery. Would swear that the name of
Mrs. Edmunds was not mentioned by the defendant.
Did not know George Cullen, who wits represented to
be the drawer of the bill.
Frederick Dewey deposed that he was employed by
an officer of the Sheriff of Surrey, and in that capacity
he was placed in possession at the house of Mrs. Ed-
munds, at Herne-lull. He remained there ten months
and two days.—(A laugh.) This gave him an oppor-
tunity of becoming acquainted with the members of her
establishment ; and he knew George Cullen, who was
Mrs. Edmunds' nephew. He believed the endorsement
to the bill produced to be that person's handwriting.
Cross-examined—Believed Mrs. Edmunds was a
lodging-house keeper. George Cullen acted as her
gardener ; and he had a brother named John, who was
a carpenter. Mrs. Edmunds was not very often at the
house at Herne-hill.
By Mr. PLATT—George Cullen used to cultivate Mrs.
Edmunds' garden.--(Laughter.) The bill was then put
in, and this closed the plaintiff's case.
Mr. Sergeant CHANNEL addressed the jury for the
defendant, and commenced by stating t hat the counsel
for the plaintiff had conducted the case on his behalf
very dexterously, and had contrived to keep every per-
son out of it who could have given the jury any informa-
tion relative to the real nature of the transaction. The
defence he had to set up was, that the bill was originally
accepted for 65/. only, and that, in point of fact, the pre-
sent document was a forgery by the substitution of the
larger sum of 165 i. for the original amount. The plain-
tiff s attorney was well aware that this was the defence
which was to be set up, and mixed up as he had been in
the transaction, he must say that he thought it was very
extraordinary he had not given the jury some further in-
formation relative to the circumstances under which the
bill came into the possession of the plaintiff. The
Learned Counsel then. proceeded to comment upon the
fact of the action being first brought in the name of
Horne, the plaintiff's clerk, and also upon the circum-
stance that Mr. Gell, who was the principal witness to
prove the plaintiff's case, did not say a word about Mr.
Bernardi until the death of Horne, and then the present
action was brought in his name. When Mr. Drell was
applied to for the name of his client, in the first instance
he stated that it was Horne, and the defendant relied
upon this fact in one of his pleas, and if the jury should
believe that this person was, before his death, a bona
fide holder of the bill, and that the present plaintiff was
not his legal representative, upon that ground he should
be entitled to their verdict.
Frederick William Fisher was then called. He deposed
that he was the managing clerk to Mr. Lane, the de-
fendant's attorney, and he remembered the copy of the
writ being handed to him in the cause Horne v. Grim-
ston, and he put in an appearance to it. A day or two
afterwards witness went to Mr. Gell, the plaintiff's attor-
ney, and asked to see the bill, and also wished to have
the name and address of the plaintiff. Mr. Gell then
gave him the name Of George Henry Horne, and de-
scribed his address as No. 8, Craig's-court. Mr. Gell
stated that Home was an accountant. He frequently
saw Mr. Gell upon the subject of the proceedings, and
he never on any occasion mentioned the name of Ber-
nardi until the present action was commenced on the
16th May.
Cross-examined—Mr. Lane " discounts " a good deal.
The offices are in Argyll-place. Had repeatedly seen
Mrs. Edmunds there and also at the Bankruptcy Court
and other places. Mr. Lane bad been also concerned for
him in two or three actions. Had not seen Mrs. Edmunds
for several months, and did not think she had been at
Mr. Lane's offices during the last two or three months.
Had not seen Captain Grimston at the office with Mrs.
Edmunds. Could not say whether Mrs. Edmunds had
been in the habit of lending young men money, but he
ha 4 heard so.
Re-examined—Mrs. Edmunds was very well known
in London. She was generally called Mother Ed-
munds."—(Laughter.)
Mr. Richard Kirkman Lane deposed that he was an
attorney, and conducted the present action for the de-
fendant. On the 3d of May he wrote a letter to Mr.
Gell (produced), in which he informed him that the bill
was only accepted -by Capt. Grimston for 65/., and that
the amount of 165/. was forged. He at the same time
offered to pay the smaller amount. He subsequently
called upon Mr. Gell, and saw the bill, and Mr. Gell in-
formed him that Horne, the plaintiff, was a very re-
spectable man. He had some conversation with Mr.
Gell upon the subject of the bill, and told him that the
figures 65 were Mrs. Edmunds' writing, but that the 1
was written by another hand. He told him that he un-
fortunately know Mrs. Edmunds' writing too well, and
that the appearance of the bill confirmed his client's re-
presentation that it had originally been drawn for 65/.
only. Mr. Gell appeared to think that he held a genuine
acceptance, but he did not say a word about Captain
Grimston having offered to pay the amount until the
present action was brought.
Cross-examined—He took a bill for 1,0001. drawn by
Cullen with him, in order to compare the writing. He
had unfortunately another acceptance for 1,0001. in his
possession. It was witness's custom to take forty per
cent. interest upon a three months' bill. He gave 1,800/.
for the two 1,0001. acceptances, to which he had re-
ferred. Mrs. Edmunds brought him the 1,000/. bill to
discount. It bore the acceptance of Lord —. For a
bill 'of 1,0001. it was his customto give 900/. He had
been concerned as an attorney for Mrs. Edmunds, and
had been at her residences in St. James's-street and Ar-
lington-street. Was not aware that she was in the
habit of lendingmoney to young men, but it was reported
so. Witness had nothing to do with her or her affairs.
He gave her the money for the 1,000/. bill in 1841. He
also advanced her 1,000/. upon a bill for 2,000/. Mrs.
Edmunds, nb doubt; finding' that he was such an easy
dupe came to him, the second time. He must also .con-
fess that female influence operated upon him.—
(Laughter.) As Mrs. Edmiinds was a woman he did
not-suspect her.—(Renewed laughter.)
Mr. INA:TT—Then you were induced to lend this
money on account of female influence ?—(A laugh.)
• Witnessr—Yes ; and it has cost me 1,800/.—(Laughter.)
- Mr: PLATT—I think you are very lucky to get off So
easily. • • •• .
' Mr. PLATT then replied, and said that-even if the. jury
should think that the defendant had written his name
across the blanV stamp, and it was afterwards filled up
for the amount noiv sought to be recovered, be was in
law liable for the amount. He remarked Upon
• .
the circumstance 'of the stamp being a five-shilling
one, which would. cover, any amount under 2001. ; and he
submitted that there, was no nvidence to show that the
instrinn.ent was, not a genuine one, although the forty
per-cent. gentleman had given evidence to the contrary.
'He could not-help expressing his• opinion that the busi-
ness,,in discounting carried on by that gentleman was
not a creditable one for an attorney to be engaged in ;
and he thought that of all discounters an attorney dis-
cOunter was the' worst, because, if the bills in which he
was interested went to action, he killed his own mutton
and conducted his own case, putting all the costs into

his pocket. It might be very profitable, but he must say
it was not very creditable. With regard to the plea:
that the bill was the property of Horne, he said there
was no evidence of the fact, and it was a very common
occurrence for plaintiffs to sue parties in tke names of
other parties. The Learned Counsel then commented
upon the evidence given by Mr. Lane, and asked why
" Mother" Edmunds, his there amie, had not been called:
as .a witness?

Mr. Lane here rose, and complained of the attack that
was made upon him by the Learned Counsel. He was
a married man an4,had a family, and he thought it most
indecent for the Learned Counsel to make such an in-
sinuation against him. There was not the least Founda-
tion for it.

Mr. Baron PARKE expressed his opinion that such
observations as those made by the Learned Counsel
ought not to have been made. They did not in any way
apply to the question at issue.
Mr. PLATT continued.—lie thought Mrs. Edmunds
ought to have been produced as a witness ; but it was
quite clear that his Learned Friend would not have any-
thing to do with her or her clique. After some further
observations, the Learned Counsel concluded by stating
that the evidence for the defendant had not at all shaken
the plaintiff's case, and that he was entitled to a verdict.

Atr. Baron PARKE then summed up, and after having
explained the tenour of the different pleas upon the re-
cord, he said that the proceeding of commencing the ori-
ginal action in the name of Horne, who Mr. Gell knew
was not his client, was most irregular, and one which he
thought no respectable attorney would have lent him-
self to. The jury had heard the explanation that was
given for this course being taken, and it was for them to
judge of the facts. If they believed the evidence of Mr.
Gell, the plaintiff's case had been made out ; but if they
considered the pleas set up by the defendant had been
substantiated, it would be their duty to return a verdict
in his favour.
The jury, after a short deliberation, returned a veriict
for the plaintiff for the full amount of the bill.
Mr. Baron GURNEY sat in the Crown Court, and in
his charge to the grand: jury, said he regretted to isee
that there were several charges of arson in the calendar,
but he advised them not to return a true bill in any of pe
cases, except the evidence was so clear and conclusive as
would convince them, if they were in the situation' of
petty jurors, to return a verdict of guilty. He added
that he was convinced great mischief was occasioned
when persons charged with offences of this description
were acquitted.
John Thiskell, 30, was convicted of uttering a forced
cheque, with intent to defraud the London and West-
minster Bank.
The prisoner was stated to be the son of a far Mer,
and to have hitherto borne a good character. The pry
recommended him to mercy, and
Mr. Baron GURNEY respited the judgment.

OXFORD ClRCUlT.—Worcester, July 22.
The commission was opened for the county and cit
Worcester, about six o'clock on Saturday evening, by J
Chief Justice Tindal, and business commenced this mor
at ten o'clock before Mr. Sergeant Atcherley, in the
Prins Court, while the Lord Chief Justice charged
grand jury on the Crown side of the Hall. 1
The civil business is rather above than under the uMfal
average. There are 21 causes for trial, 19 for the county,
and 2 for the city, among which two are marked for special
juries. One of these, an action of ejectment, is expected to
occupy at least two days. There is also a case among 'the
nisi prius records which excites some interest in this andi the
adjoining county of Gloucester—an indictment for perjury
against Mr. Augustus Newton, barrister-at-law. This case
stands fixed to come on the first thing to-morrow morniiag.
The calendar is heavy, considered with reference both to
the number of prisoners who are to ')e tried, and the nature
of the offences imputed to them. There are fifty-nine ?pri-
soners, and forty-two cases, and among them are two dases
of abusing children under ten years of age, two of uUna-
tural offences, two of shooting with intent to murdet or
maim, one of concealment of the birth of a child by burning
the body, two of manslaughter, five of burglary, font of
breaking and entering the dwelling-house in the day-time,
and three of robbery with violence. There is also a chhrge
against a person named Bowen, described in the calendar
as a labourer, fur having feloniously destroyed and injured
part of a leaf of a register-book of births, burials, and ;bar-
nages, of the parish of Croome D'Abitot.
NISI PRlUS.—(Before Mr. Sergeant ATcHERLEy.).
BATE AND ANOTHER V. BLURTON AND ANOTHER.
This was an action on a promissory note for 5001., brought
against the executors of one Patience Clarke, deceased, to
which the defendants pleaded that the said Patience Clarke
did not make the note in question.
The plaintiffs, Messrs. Bate and Robins, carry on business
in partnership as bankers at Stourbridge, where the decered,
Mrs. Patience Clarke, who died in December, 1842, als re-
sided before death. She, it appeared, formerly kept a public
house, and being a woman well acquainted with buss less,
managed to accumulate some little property, amounting to
about 3,0001. Her family consisted. of two sons and a daugh-
ter, and in 1836 her daughter, whose maiden name was also
Patience Clarke, was married to a person named Morris, then
established in business as a grocer at Stourbridge. At the
time of the marriage Mrs. Clarke had a deposit account of
1,0001. with the plaintiffs, and she told her daughter that she
had desired the people at the bank not to let her husband
stand still for want of money, but to let him have anything
in reason. The business of Morris, backed by his mother-
in-law's capital, went on pretty well for some time, bUt in
1842 he fell into difficulties, and in the month of July in that
year his account with the plaintiffs was overdrawn to the
extent of 450/. In the interval which elapsed between July,
1842, and the time when her daughter married Morris, Mrs.
Clarke had withdrawn her 1,0001. placed with the plaintiffs
on a deposit account, and had advanced 5001. to each of
her two sons, Richard and Joseph ; the bank, there-
fore, required security for the payment of the balance
overdrawn by Morris, and Mrs. Morris, as she repre-
sented, went to her mother with a joint and several pro-
missory note for 500/., already signed by her husband,
in her pocket. She told her mother that the bank reqUired
security, upon which the old lady told Mrs. Morris to sign
it for her, which the daughter accordingly did, signing
" Patience Clarke," in a free and flowing hand. The note
thus signed was taken to the Sank, but there it was ob-
jected that the signature was not made by Mrs. Clarke
herself, and Mrs. Morris was desired to take it back, and get
it signed by her mother. Mrs. Morris accordingly didltae
it back, and her account of the matter was, that when she
explained to her mother what had occurred at the tank,
Mrs. Clarke desired her to sign again for her, saying it would
do just as well. Mrs. Morris, therefore, affixed a second; sig:•
nature to the note, but this time she wrote "P. Clarke," in
a cramped and laboured hand, in order, as she herself ad-
mitted, to induce the plaintiffs to believe that the note was
really signed by her mother. As has been already stated,
Mrs. Clarke died in December, 1842, and in March, 1843,
the embarrassments into which Morris had fallen had become
so formidable, that his professional advisers judged it most
expedient that he should make an assignment of all his
effects for the benefit of his creditors. Mr. Robins, as a cre-
ditor who was supposed to be very largely involved, was in-
formed of the arrangement which was about to take 'Slue,
upon which he came to Morris's house, and remarked to
Richard Clarke, the brother of Mrs. Morris, that he presumed
he was aware that he held a note of Mrs. Clarke's for 5001.
At this announcement Clarke professed great astonishment,
and, according to the statement which Clarke himself, and
an attorney named Talbot, who was present at the time,
made, Mr. Robins then inquired of Mrs. Morris why she had
not told her brother of the 500/. note, her brother having
assisted her husband in his difficulties.' To this Mrs. Morris
replied that she did not think Mr. Robins had wished him
to know it, upon which Mr. Robins said she was a wicked
woman, and left the house. When he was gone, Mrs. Morris
turned to her brother and said, " That the note was good
for nothing, and that Robins should not have a farthing ;
that she signed the name of her mother at full length,
Patience Clarke,' without her authority, and that when the
note was refused, she took it home, and had it signed by an
old charwoman."
His LORDSHIP summed up the evidence with great minute-
ness, leaving it to the jury to say to which of the witnesses
hey would give credit.
The jury found for the plaintiffs, with 5121. 10s. damages.
The cases tried in the Crown Court to-day were devoid of
eral interest.

NORFOLK ClRCUlT.—Cambridge, July 22.
(Before Mr. Justice WILLIAms.)
John Garland, aged 65, was indicted for feloniously killing
Mary, the wife of John Dent.
Mr. Prendergast conducted the prosecution, Mr. O'Malley
the defence.
The deceased was the wife of a man living at Littleport, in
the Isle of Ely, and the prisoner has for upwards of 30 years
practised as a surgeon in that town. On the 22d of May last
the decased had, by imprudently lifting or dragging a heavy
sack of flour, brought on symptoms of miscarriage, and the
prisoner was sent for to attend her. He arrived as soon as
possible, and proceeded to administer the treatment he
thought necessary, in the course of which he removed a por-
tion of the intestines of his patient, which had probably been
displaced by the exertion which had brought on the illness
which rendered it necessary to send for him. She was in
groat pain, and another medical man was sent for, on whose
arrival it was found necessary wholly to remove the displaced
portion of the intestines. She continued to get worse, and,
notwithstanding the judicious treatment of two or three emi-
nent surgeons who were called in, she died at the end of
seventeen days. The surgeons who attended the post mortem
examination of the body were of opinion that she died
from the effects of the prisoner's treatment, and that he had
shown gross ignorance in that treatment.
Mr. Justice WthuAlls,in summing up the evidence, stated
that the law as applicable to this case was very clear; and
applying that law to the circumstances as they had been
proved, the jury would say whether or not the prisoner was
guilty of the crime of manslaughter. Every person, whether
he be a regularly licensed medical man or not, who professes
to deal with the life or health of his fellow-creatures, is bound
to bring to the case with which he deals a competent degree
of skill ; and he is also bound to treat his patient with care
and attention. If he shows gross ignorance, culpable rash-
ness or criminal inattention in the treatment of is Patient,
and 'death ensues in consequence, he is guilty of the crime. of
manslaughter. He may have no evil intention, he may
tine-
deed bring to the case the most earnest desire, to. effect h
cure of his patient ; but still, if he is guilty of criminal mis-
conduct arising either from gross negligence, or ignorance, or
unjustifiable inattention, lie is criminally respo
utornsible .
make
or other of these it was necessary for the prosec to
out, in order to constitute that criminal misconduct which
renders a man responsible if death occurs. The learned Judge
read the evidence verbatim to the jury, and
consider whether in the treatment of his patient, as proved
by Mrs. Banyard, the prisoner had shown a gross and cul-
pable want of knowledge, care, or attention, and that her
death was caused thereby. If they were of opinion that he
had, he was guilty of the crime with which he was charged;
if otherwise, he was entitled to an acquittal.
The jury, after some deliberation, found the prisoner Guilty.
The Learned JUDGE, in sentencing the prisoner, who was
deeply affected at his position, observed, that he should be
sorry if the proceedings in this case should tend to
medical men in any danger, or induce them to abstain from
the fair application of their talents in the exercise of the
arduous and anxious duties of their profession. They were
not to expect a favourable result in every ease ; medical
science could never attain that. The consequences of this
trial would seriously affect the prisoner's interests through
life ; and looking to that circumstance, the absence of every-
thing like towards his patient, and his advanced age,
when a long imprisonment must be attended by the most
prejudicial effects, the Court was induced to pass on him the
mitigated sentence, that he be imprisoned for one calendar
month.
Fanny _Rutherford was indicted for feloniously setting fire
to an outhouse.
The prisoner is a child of the age of 15 years, and the out-
house which was burnt (together with the cottages of five
poor persons) adjoined the house of her father. The case
was made out by very satisfactory evidence, but no motive
could be assigned for the commission of the crime.
She,was found Guilty, and sentenced to be transported for
15 years: -
No civil cause was tried to-day, and the other cases iu the

' Of '
Cro`Wn Court re o character. The grand
jury threw out one bill for arson, In which five persons were
accused,,and,two Others were acquitted on an uninterestfiag
,
point of law..

MIDLAND CIRCUIT.—Lincoln July 22.
The Judges arrived in this city on Saturday, at half-past
five, and proceeded to open the commission for both city and
.county. In the former there was neither cause nor prisoner.
In the county there are but nine causes and thirty-one pri-
soners, but thoughthe number of the latter is not great, yet
the crimes with.wkich they are charged are of a deep dye,
sthere.being four for murder, one charged•vrith intent to mur-
'der, one for rape, several for burglary, three for highway rob-
bery, &c. • • .
CRI MINAL • COURT.—(Befere Mr. Justice COLTMAN.)
Eliza ;bye?, aged 31, was placed at the •bar charged with
having, ih the''Wober of 1841, at Boston, feloniously admi-
nisterecl a certain poison called laudanum to one Emma Joyce,
:with intent- to. kill and murder her ; a second indictment
charged her with.- the commission of a like offence in the
January of 1842,'0n the body of Ann Joyce.
The prisoner was tried at the last spring assizes holden for
this county, for haying murdered one of the children of her
husband, by his first wife, when, owing to some defect hi the
proof, she was liberated. Her husband, however, felt per-
suaded of her guilt, and refused to live with her. Provision
was made for her in the Boston union, and it was during the
continuance of a violent fit of illness with whick she was
attacked that she made the confession upon which she was
arraigned, namely, that she had murdered the two children
mentioned in the indictment by means of laudanum, the
eldest, which was three years old, being the daughter of her
husband by a .formef wife, the other a child eighteen months
old being her,,(iwn. The appearance of the prisoner, in deep
mourning, as she stepped inte the dock, created a thrill of
horror in the Court. She was evidently ill both in body and
mind, and when called upon to plead,said " Guilty," in a low,
plaintive tone.
Mr. Justice CourNiAs, in passing the last sentence of the
law upoir this- wretelied -wenninrwas much affected— The
Learned Judge said ' the present case was, one of the most
distressing it, had been his lot to witness since he had sat on
the judicial bench:, "By.the prisoner's own confession she had
destroyed the ; life ,of.-one• of her husband's children by a
former wife, anal she
.had
,not hesitated to destroy the off-
siting of her own Wurnh." He 'could hold out no hope of
mercy being extended 'to her in this life. She must prepare
to meet that 'doom the laws of the, country made him !aro-
nennce, and that was—that she be taken to the place from
whence she came, thence to the place of execution, there to be
hung by the neck till she was dead ; and he hoped the Lord
would have mercy on her wretched soul.
Three cases of highway robbery were tried during the day,
and in the Civil Court Lord Denman disposed of seven com-
mon juries, none of which were Of any interest except to the
parties.

FASHIONS, NOVELTIES, THE
ARTS, Ecc.,

What a grand and marvellous creation is this monster
City of London How vast how populeus—how
thoroughly 'beautiful—how inconceivably wealthy !
He who has not dwelt in it can form but a meagre
idea of its magnitude—he who has not seen it,
in verity, knows nothing. Look at its squares, its
places, its parks, its gardens—regard the residences of
its nobility—impoing, lofty, dignified, and countless.
Is it not almost incredible that each of these stately
mansions is inhabited by some mighty lord or rich com-
moner, who there maintains an establishment and up-
holds a state equal in splendour to the princes of other
lands ? Examine its. public buildings, its churches, its
monuments, its commercial arid benevolent institutions.
Is not their number astounding—and, though occa-
sionally, irregular, plain, or bizarre in their con-
struction, are they not, as a whole, massive and
magnificent ? But walk through its leading thorough-
fares—the streets devoted to its traffic—its manufactures
—its varied, and indeed universal trade. There you
see the real London. There you see that industrious,
rich, and powerful community which Napoleon sarcasti-
I cally but yet truly designated "the nation of shop-
, keepers." What would he call them now, when the
luxury and extent of their establishments have increased
since his time a hundred-fold ? Yes, these are
London shopkeepers; but such shopkeepers ! Shop-
keepers, whose magazines are palaces—whose de-
pendents are numerous as those of many princes,
whose expenditures are greater than those of many.
Royal exchequers. Turn to the right and to the left of
each broad and beautiful street, and note those almost
interminable lines of splendid warehouses glittering with
gold and plate glass, and filled with all the costly
products of the world. Does not such a combination of
profusion, order, decoration, and taste; devoted to the
purposes of commerce, almost surpass credence ?
But let us go a little into details, and take a few of
those princely magazines as illustrations. We are
in Oxford-street. We stand before that fashionable
and surprisingly rich emporium kept by Messrs.
Williams and Sowerby. How handsome is the exte-
rior! What an infinite variety of silks, of velvets, of
shawls, of laces are here displayed. See those coroneted
carriages that throng the entrance. In one may be re-
cognised a leader of /taut ton, coming to select something
unique in which to " witch the world" at the next Al-
raack's, or at one of the Duchess of Buccleuch's charming
fetes champetre. In another reclines a blooming debutante
of the season, endeavouring to decide whether a cerulean
blue or a bright oceanic green sets off to greater advantage
her unrivalled complexion. But the proprietor of the esta-
blishment politely invites us to enter. Here is a host of at-
tendants—here is an assortment of superb and exquisite
fabrics—here is a choice of style, of expense, of elegant
design, and supreme fashion. No wonder that it is
crowded by the votaries of taste. But let us pass on to
the rear, and inspect le salon pour le tissue de verre.
Marble columns, wide-spreading arches, fine arabesques,
a painted dome—what a receptacle for merchandise I
Yet the merchandise is well worthy of the place. The
loom in its magic power never before produced such a'
fabric as that to which this saloon is dedicated. Th
tissue de verre, this damask of woven glass, is wonder-
ful as it is gorgeous, is gorgeous as it is wonderful.
No tissue of ancient or modern times approaches
it in brilliancy and beauty. Those who have seen it in
the throne-room at St. James's Palace, and in her
Majesty's closet, know how magnificent it is in dra-
peries - they only who visit the saloon can imagine
how admirably it is suited for a variety of purposee.
But we must take leave of this superb repository of rare
and elegant fabrics. Turning from the Circus into
Regent-street, that beau ideal of a fashionable mart,
what chaste, and sober, and imposing magazine is this,
which at once attracts the eye, wandering amidst
so many attractions? It is the ' extensive warehouse
founded by Messrs. Jay, and Co., upon the model of
the celebrated maisons de deuil af Paris. Nothing can be
conceived more tasteful, charming, add touching, than
this assemblage of solemn blacks and mournful grays
reposing in the midst of all the flaunting finery of
busy and bustling life. Enter and review its contents ;
you will be astonished at the pleasing variety in which
every shade and kind of sorrow may here befittingly
clothe itself. Unforced to go from shop to shop, the
sad widow or the dolorous orphan here finds all that is
necessary to outwardly denote her inward woe. Dresses,
bonnets, caps, cloaks, gloves—in short, everything neces-
sary for her gloomy condition—will she obtain in this
warehouse, without going a step beyond, or without
having to mix with the noisy and distracting crowd.
That beautiful texture, known as the some de corbegu,
which has the novel quality of retaining its colour
even against sea water, is one of the invaluable articles
to be had in this most extensive and accommodating
" general mourning warehouse," which is patro-
nised by the Queen Dowager and the haute
noblesse. Promenading down this delightful Regent=
street, on the opposite side, near the Quadrant, what
handsome shop is this round which crowds are gathered,
admiring the elegant habits and becoming riding-coats
set out in the windows ? This is the temple dedi-
cated to fashion, of which Messrs. Nicoll are the
high priests. ho that has seen those gracefid
Amazons cantering through Hyde-park, and along
Rotten-row, can fail to discover the secret of the exqui •
site shapes and beautiful proportions ? The equestrian
habits invented by them have become European in
reputation, their artistic excellence is undenied, and the
patronage bestowed on them has even descended from
Royalty. But yet greater triumphs are in store for
these artists. A new and surpassing riding-habit is in
preparation, made of velvet and fur, for the approaching
winter. It has been whispered that the peerless Princess
Badzivil— that fascinating Russian lady, who has caused
our English belles so much envy and jealousy—has com-
manded one in secret, in which she intends to beat away
the palm from all competitors. But we must not
betray confidence. Apropos of the Princess Radzivill
it is said that the grand secret of her success is, that she
obtains her fashions fi om La Maison Herbault, Nieces, Rue
Menard a Paris. That may or may not be the case; but it
is certain that this is the house to which the dames du bon
ton of Paris give the preference—and to which those
strangers who visit the continental capital run as to the
centre in which all that is distingue and elegant is to be'
found concentrated. In justice to the inventive talents
of Les Dames Heroault, Nieces, it may be remarked
that nothing can be mure wonderful than the daily no-
velties , created by them, and of which the taste
formed .by, the celebrated founder of their maga-
zine knows no limits of rich variety, of adorable
fancy, except the limits of genuine fastidiousness.
We must repose far the present. But a chat upon
fashion would not be complete without something
relative to that indispensable ornament of the female
head—the chapeau. We remember seeing at the last ex-
position in Paris some exquisite specimens of latelyin-
vented chapeaux de paille, sent in by M. Fleschelle, of
Paris, all of which excited universal admiration.
Since then there is scarcely any other species of bonnet
to be seen in either the French or English capital.
True, the varieties of the species are boundless
as the fancy. There are chapeaux de paille plain,
chapeaux de paille fanciful, chapeaux de peak
de Bles enpaille de ris brodes, patent chapeaux guipure et
paille, in cliff, rent colours and of different designs, besides
many others. All these are " the rage" here at present.
Ladies of the first style will have no other than those im-
ported from the house of Fleschelle, 95, Rue Richelieu,
A Paris, than which none in the world is more fertile in
invention, or more justly celebrated for pure taste. An-
other day we shall resume our conversation on the gay
Lace 'world, its fashions, novelties, and articles of refinement.

Dour,En AND DOBLER.—A ludicrous mistake oc-
curred at Diihler's last concert. A party of ladies and
gentlemen (from the country evidently) presented
themselves at the doors of. the Hanover square Rooms,
mad asked to be shown into the best boxes • it was
explained that there no box except the royal
-box, which was .occupied ;- but they could go into the
reserved seats. lady anxiously inquired whether
they were good places to, see the tricks ? " What
tricks ?" asked the doorkeeper in amazement. " Oh,
the sleight-of-hands ones, and the conjuring," rejoined
the lady. "Really." said the official, " I know of no
conjuring but. M., Dohler's rapid fingering." The lady
having demanded whether the bthiqutts would 'be dis-
tributed to the stalls, an explanation, after some further
amusing equivoque, took place, and it appeared that the
party had mistaken Herr Dobler, the pkoist, for Herr
Poble,rllo,4e magician, late of the % Jaries's Theatre.—
' Maestro.