The Sun.
London, England, 1844-02-26 00:00:00

Irishmen should make themselves more heard in that
House. They must be more heard for the Govern-
ment were not determined on what was necessary
and right. He could assure the Right Honourable
Baronet (Sir Robert Peel), that however concilia-
tory his expressions were, he could see nothing
tangible in his intentions. The Right Hon. Baronet
might stave off substantial measures for a time, but
it would be only for a time. Until he consented to
a great alteration in the Church, and to a franchise
equal to that of England, there could be no hope of
permanent peace in Ireland. For these reasons he
seconded the motion.

Sir H. DOUGLAS, in reply to what had fallen
from the Hon. and Gallant Gentleman, said he could
assure him that he had not spoken hastily on the sub-
ject to which the Hon. and Gallant Gentleman had
alluded, and certainly he had not spoken with
any bad feeling to Ireland. What he had
stated was, that he considered the motion of
the Noble Lord opposite (Lord John Russell)
to be a motion for party purposes, and not for the good
of Ireland. And he further stated that when that
motion should be triumphantly negatived he should
be ready to give effect to his sincere disposition to do
everything to favour Ireland, stopping short only at
that point, to go beyond which would be ultimately
injurious to both England and Ireland.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS said he had listened with
great attention to the speeeh of his Honour-
able Friend the Member for Rochdale, but he must
confess that he did not think his Honourable Friend
had made out any case for the postponement of the
present Committee of Supply. If his Hon. Friend
had introduced into his motion a proposition that the
estimates should be laid before the House, before any
portion of them should 'be ' voted for the purpose
of such estimates being referred to a Select Committee,
he (Mr. Williams) would then have supported his
Hon. Friend. His Hon. Friend, however, merely
proposed a postponement of the estimates until after
Easter, without showing any distinct or clear
ground why tliit course should be adopted.
He (Mr. Williams) thought the House was fairly
entitled, not only to have the army estimates,
but the Ordnance Estimates also laid before them, in
order that they might be well considered before
they were voted. Ile thought too that the Chancel-
lor :of the Exchequer ought to lay his financial
budget before the Parliament before any public
money was voted, in order that the ,Mouse might
see how the money was to be obtained.
The Right Hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the
Fxchequer, had stated last year that there had been
a balance of receipts over expenditure of 1,400,0001.,
but it appeared that there was not a single farthing
saved ; for on the other side of the account
it appeared that 1,300,0001. had been received
from the sale of the Chinese dollars, and 1,600,0001.
had been paid for the China opium which had been
seized. It was admitted that the income-tax had
brought • in 5,500,000/., but the public never
received any account of the real amount
of taxation in the financial Statement. They
were not averse that 4,500,0001. had been in-
tercepted by the various public officers in
its way to the Treasury. The Commissioners of
Customs had been denounced as unfit for the exer-
cise of the trust reposed in them. They inter-
cepted an amount of taxation to the amount of
1,200,0001. If there was a Select Committee pro-
perly constituted not composed of Members of the
existing Government, and of the late Government,
but of independent Members of Parliament, attached
to no party, he had no doubt it would prove from the
practice and 'experience of former years, that
a large amount might be saved to the country.
He would ask, what reason could there be for this
enormous expenditure of the public money, when at
the opening of the session her Majesty had informed the
House that she had the strongest assurances of the
most amicable disposition •on the part of all foreign
Powers and of uninterrupted peace, what were the
actual facts of the case ? Why, that in the navy es-
timates there was an increase of nearly two millions
sterling over that of the year 1835. Now he should
call on the Hon. Gentleman opposite to explain to this
House why a sum of 25,0001. more was required
for the expense of the marine force intended to serve
on shore, than what it was in former years.
He (Mr. Williams) thought this wasa surreptitious
mode of keeping up a standing army. What
else, he would ask, could he their reason
for keeping up an army of 129,677 men, a larger
army than ever was known in this country
since the occupation of France. He should
like to hear this explained, the more so
when they considered that independent of this large
army no less than 10,000 pensioners had been em-
bodied by a vote of that House last year, and also
that they had 20,000 armed police. Did they sup-
port this large military establishment because they
proposed •to govern the country by military force.;
for if they did not in the present state of the foreign
relations of this country, there could be no pretence
for it.

(LzrT BPEA.KING.)

TATTERSALL'S.-..THIS EVENING
QUARTER TO SIX O'CLOCK.
CHESTER CUP.

14 to 1 agst The Prior
14 to 1 agst Sir Robert
15 to 1 agst Cattonite
20 to 1 agst Merry Andrew
.20 to. 1 agst Freedom
20 to agst Pharaoh
22 to 1 agst Pagan '
22 to 1 agst Tacita
25 to 1 agst Greenfinch
27 to 1 agst What.

6 to 1 agst Ugly Buck
7 to 1 agst Rattan
16 to 1 agst Orlando
15 to 1 apt Leander
20 to 1 agst Cockamaroo
30 to 1 agst lonian
33 to 1 agst Campanero
30 to 1 agst Loadstone
30 to 1 agst Running Rein
45 to 1 agst Apprentice

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF EXC.HEQU.ER, Feb. 24.

, - .
;Sittings at Nisi Prius, at Guildhall, before Lord ABINGER
and Special Juries.)

PICKFORD AND ANOTHER v. THE GRAND JUNCTION RAILWAY.
Mr. Martin and Mr. Cardwell conducted the case for the
plaintiffs, and the Solicitor. General, with whom was Mr.
Crompton, appeared for the defendants.
This was an action to recover compensation in damages
from the defendants under the following circumstances :
The plaintiffs are the celebrated carriers, and like many other
private establishments of a similar character have suffered, of
course, very materially since the various railways have come
into their full force of working. They furthermore complained
that upon some of the 'lines advantages are offered to some
of their competitors which are denied to them. In
the present instance, it seemed that they had sent
a quantity of goods to the station at LiverpOel for
the purpose of their being forwarded to Birmingham ; that a
portion of such goods consisted of pork and other perish-
able articles; and that they were not forwarded and de-
livered in due time. It further appeared that, in the present
'instance, the 'goods had been sent to the railway station
after four o'clock in the afternoon, and were not forwarded by
the goods-train that left at eight o'clock the same evening. ,
On behalf of the defendants it was contended, that inasmuch
as there were certain rules and regulations by which it had
been found neceSsary, to guide the arrangements and pro-
ceedings of the railway, and that one of them was to the
effect that "all goods intended to be forwarded by the
eight o'clock train must be delivered at the station at Liver-
pool before four o'clock on the same afternoon in order to en-
sure their being duly forwarded," and that as the plaintiffs
had not acted in accordance with such rule, the Company
could not be held liable.
The jury, entertaining an opinion favourable, returned a
verdict for the defendants.
WILLIAMS, ADMINISTRATOR, fl. MAY.
Mr. Crowder, Mr. Sergeant Byles, and Mr. Butt, appeared
for the plaintiff, and Mr. llumfrey, with whom was Mr. E.
James, conducted the case for the defendant. This wa's an
action to recover the value of certain pictures, of which the
defendant had possession, belonging to the piaintiff as the ad-
, ministrator to the estate and effects of the Rev. C. Digby,
deceased. It appeared that the deceased gentleman had,
during his lifetime, been a great collector of pictures, and
that, having also been engaged in some mining transactions,
he had become embarrassed so much as to induce him to
quit the country for a short period. Being in bad health,
however, he had died at Wiesbaden, whither he hadproceeded
for the benefit of baths. Whilst absent from England he
wrote to Mr. Francis O'Neal, with whom he was engaged
in the mining matters, authorising him to pawn or sell
such of his pictures as he might find it to be necessary
in order to enable him to pay certain bills which were ap-
proaching their maturity. With this view the pictures were
sent to the defendant, a celebrated money-lender in Cateaton-
street, with whom a negotiation was commenced for the ob-
tainment of an advance amounting to 4,000/. After various
interviews the negotiation went off, and upon a subsequent
application the defendant refused to deliver up the pictures
unless he was paid the sum of 700/., which he alleged he had
advanced to O'Neal on the authority and for the benefit of
the deceased. This authority was disputed on the part of the
plaintiff, and thit was the question now brought under the
consideration of the jttry.. On behalf of the defendant, it was
proved that the deceased had written more then one letter to
O'Neal, telling him to pawn or sell the pictures, for the pur-
pose of raising mdney ; and furthermore, by the production
of the cheques of the defendant, that the 700/. had been ad-
vanced to O'Neal by the defendant. At the conclusion of the
_defendant's case, at the suggestion of the Learned Judge, the
calm was referred.

HARRIS V. HOWARD.
This was nn action virtually to compel the defendant to
deliver up certain prints, drawings, plates and other matters,
to which the plaintiff laid claim as being his property.
Mr. Kelly, with whom was Sir John Bayley, conducted
the case for the plaintiff, whilst Mr. B. Andrews and Mr.
Ogle appeared for the defendant. The plaintiff is Major
Harris, to whom the world is indebted for a most admirable
work, entitled " Wild Sports of Africa," and the defendant
'is Mr. Frank Howard, the artist. It appeared that the
plaintiff, whilst in southern Africa, being anxious to publish
the work of which mention has been made, commissioned a
Miss Cornwallis in this country to make arrangements with
an artist to accomplish that object. The gentleman to whom
the lady was recommended turned out to be the defendant,
with whom she entered into an agreement, by which
he was to be paid fifteen guineas for each of
twenty-eight coloured plates, and five guineas each for the
" tail pieces" and vignettes. Subsequently to this a second
agreement was arranged for a second work, to which he was
to supply twenty plates, at the rate of five guineas per plate.
:rids sum, it was stated by the Learned Counsel, was far
more than one of the most able artists of the day would have
charged. The defendant furthermore undertook to correct
the letter-preen portiott of the publication, aid to'act some-

~,