The Sun.
London, England, 1845-04-10 00:00:00

INTER'SIENT IN TOWNS.

On the order of the day being read,
Lord EBRINGTON said that the subject of inter-
ment in towns had recently occupied the attention of the
House and the country to a considerable extent. He
wished to read some extracts from a report of the Com-
mittee of that House regarding churchyards in this
metropolis.—(Order, order,)
The SPEAKER, said the Hon. Member was not in
order.

The suhject was then dropped.
THE NEW ZEALAND COMMITTEE.
Mr. AGLIONBY requested the attention of the Hocse
to the subject before mentioned. An article had ap-
peared in the Times newspaper reflecting on his (Mr.
Aglionby's) conduct as a Member of that House. These
remarks were founded on a letter written by hip] to
the Chairman of the New Zealand Company. Ile

hoped the House would bear with him whilst he
made a short statement. He did it with regret, and
would not upon merely personal considerations have
intruded the matter on their notice. He did it because'
when a leading newspaper commented strongly and
severely on the character and conduct of the Members
of that House, the honour of the House was as
mach, if not more, involwed than the character of the in-
dividual Member. He held in his hand the letter upon
which these remarks in the Times were founded. It was
an extremely long letter, and the article itself was of a
more serious nature. The article alleged two
offences against propriety—that he (Mr. Aglionby),
being a shareholder of the Company, should not
be an arbiter in the affairs of the Company.
He was not conscious of any impropriety in this respect.
He had done his utmost t' avoid being a member of
the Committee, on the ground of bias and interest.
He had mentioned his objections to the Noble Lord
opposite (Lord Lincoln), to the Under Secretary for the
Colonies, and numerous other Hon. Members, but he was
told that he could not avoid being a member of the
Committee ; that it was necessary for the conve-
nience of the Committee that he should be a member
of it. He then proposed that he should not have a vote,
but that, too, was rejected. He did not act in that
Committee either as a partisan or an advocate, and he
believed that every member of the Committee would
bear him out in what he stated. The second charge
against propriety was, his having an interview
with one of the witnesses who was to be
examined before the Committee. Every Honourable
Member must know how desirable it was that
witnesses whose testimony was unimportant should
not be brought before a Committee.—(Hear, hear.)
Now if he had sought an interview with au individual
to induce him to alter or vary his evidence, it would
have been highly improper, but the fact was, he had never
done anything of the sort. He certainly did see Mr.
Carrington, but not about his evidence before the
Committee, although that gentleman frequently alluded
to it. Mr. Carrington had a claim against the New
Zealand Company, and he was extremely anxious that
Mr. Carrington should obtain justice, and he saw him
over and over again on that subject.
Captain RODS said that Mr. Carrington had gone
out at the request of the New Zealand Company, and
had done his duty in every respect to the satisfaction of
the Company, when, without any fault even alleged
against him, the Company had thought fit to dismiss him
from their service. They alleged that their expenses
were increasing while their funds were decreased and de•
creasing, and for that reason they were under the necessity
of dispensing with the services of Mr. Carrington. Now,
the Company had at that time the sum of 100,0001. in
their pockets. With respect to the letter, all he could
say was, that if the half of that letter was true the
New Zealand Company had forfeited their Charter.
He. conceived that whenever any person was attacked
in this House, it was the duty of every Member to get
tip and defend him.
Mr. AGLIONBY said a few words in explanation.

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.
FROM THE EVENING PAPERS OF YESTERDAY.
GLOBE.—The detention and opening of letters at
the Post-office was last night again the subject of an in-
teresting debate in the House of Commons. All at-
tempts having failed to obtain redress, through the
medium or Parliament, for the individuals who had com-
plained of the serious infraction of their rights by the in-
terception and opening of their letters, the necessity for
terminating the practice by legislative enactment
becomes the more necessary. Mr. Thomas buncombe
—whose prudence and perseverance in the manage•
ment of this great controversy with the Government
merits commendation—last night brought the question
before the House, on motion for leave to bring in a Bill
to secure the inviolability of letters passing through the
Post-office. The debate was conducted with singular
calmness and dignity. The acerbity which on former
occasions was painfully perceptible in Sir J. Graham,
and which was, doubtless, caused by the severity of
the animadversions to which his conduct in the trans-
actions had been subjected, was no longer visible. The
question hall, in a great degree, become divested of the
personalities which were mixed up with former discus-
sions ; and the high constitutional principles involved
in the practice sought to be abolish( d were brought
out with prominence and effect. The debate was
thus rendered both dignified and impressive.
The warrant of the Secretary of State secures indem-
nity to the Post-office authorities against the conse-
quences of detaining and opening the letters of indi-
viduals. The production of the warrant would be
an answer to any action or criminal proceeding insti-
tuted in consequence of detaining and opening any
given letter committed to their charge. But this does
not establish legality to the Secretary of State's
warrant. That point is still questionable. The Chief
Justice of England, from his place in Parliament, has
given it as his opinion, deliberately formed, that a
general warrant issued by the Secretary of State, autho-
rising and directing that the letters addressed to an indi-
vidual specificially named shall be detained and open( d
at the Post-office, is an illegal warrant ; and that
a special warrant for the opening of each letter is
necessary to authorise the Post-office authorities to
detain and open the letters of any person in their pas-
sage through the Post-office. While the law of the case
is doubtful, the practice is universally condemned. As
a measure of police— to which the Governments of former
days had recourse under extraordinary circumstances of
peril to the public security, and when the ordinary police
was far less efficient than it now is—the power claimed
is no longer necessary ; while the extension of informa-
tion, and the jealousy which pervades the public mind
on all questions relating to personal liberty, render the
employment of such a power a source of disquietude and
alarm throughout the community. The removal of the
invidious and odious power which is now claimed
and exercised, would also relieve the Government
from the applications now made to it by the am
bassadors or agents of Foreign States, to intercept
the correspondence of individuals in this country whom
they may suspect of carrying on a secret correspond-
ence with persons in their territories. The answer to
such applications would be prompt and decisive. Mr.
Duncombe put this point with considerable effect :
" If any minister or agent of a foreign despot should
come slandering and sneaking to their doors, the Go-
vernment would be able to say to him—' This power no
longer exists.' Whatever redress or protection he might
demand, that they would be able and willing to give,
according to the law of England and the law of na-
tions ; but with regard to this species of treachery,
should he solicit it at their hands, they would be able to
say—pointing to the new Act of Parliament—' Such
power is no longer at our command.'"—(Cheers.) Sir
James Graham admitted the odious and justly un-
popular character of the power possessed by the Exe-
cutive, but was not prepared to consent to its
abrogation. The entire tone and tendency of the
Right Hon. Baronet's speech were subdued and con-
ciliatory. It is obvious that though the law remain un-
altered, the practice has received a death-blow. No
Government will again risk an exposure and disgrace so
humiliating as have been caused to the present Ministry
by the detection of the practices to which allusion has
been so often made.
STANDARD.—The important, but extremely diffi-
cult question raised by Mr. Mackinnon's motion, will
continue to recur in Parliament until it shall be satis-
factorily set at rest by some law for the regula-
tion of interments in cities and large towns. We
can scarcely hope that horrors like those of Spa-
fields can be obviated by prosecutions under the
existing law, when we see the monstrous obstructions
thrown in the way of the prosecution now depend-
ing. We cannot help thinking that the first step
to be taken is scarcely a step in legislation,
though it would do more to correct the present
abuse than any law—it is to provide a sufficient
number and extent of decently inclosed free
cemeteries, if not actually in, at least conveniently near
to, the metropolis. The excess once drained off in this
way, there would be little difficulty in making arrange •
ments for the existing churchyards and cemeteries ; but
without some such drain as we speak of, we defy the wit
of man to guard by law against abuses.

IRELAND.
REPEAL ASSOCIATION.

DUBLDL APRIL 7.—The weekly meeting of the Repeal As-
sociation, which took place as usual, in the Conciliation-hall,
to-day, was very much crowded, and most of the leading
members were present.
Upon the motion of Mr. O'Connell, Mr. J. O'Brien, M.P.
for the City of Limerick, was called to the chair, and addressed
the meeting at considerable length.

Towards the close of the Chairman's observations Mr. IL
G. Porter, the author of a pamphlet on Federalism, which
was published last year, and attracted much attention at
the time, entered the hall, and was received with prolonged
cheering.
Mr. O'CONNELL said that he had much happiness in mov-
ing that Mr. Porter, who had filled the office of High Sheriff*
of the county of Fermanagh last year, be enrolled a member
of the Association.
The motion haring been carried by acclamation,
Mr. IL G. PORTER said that he would lay before them,
plainly and briefly, the reasons which induced him to join
the Association. He had joined it with no feeling of ani-
mosity to the English people, but, on the contrary, with the
strongest desire to promote harmony and intercourse between
the inhabitants of the two countries.—(Hear.)
Mr. S. O'BRIEN, M.P.,
put forward by Mr. Grey Porter, and declared himself an un-
conditional Repealerexpressed dissent from the views
.
Mr. O'CONNELL concurred with Mr. O'Brien in thinking
that the union should to be got rid of in the first place ; when
that was accomplished, he was ready to talk with Mr. Porter,
and those who thought like him, respecting what they would
take instead of it.—( Hear, hear.) He thought that now he
might expect that the union would be repealed, and that
Sir R. Peel would be the man to bring in the Bill which
would effect that object. When they called to mind the
manner in which Sir R. Peel bad acted respecting Catholic
Emancipation, their conviction of the approach of repeal
would be strengthened. Hurrah! then for Peel and repeal !
—(Cheers.) On the last day of meeting
he did not hazard
any opinion with respect to the proposed Maynooth grant, and
lie had intended to be cautious this day, but having just read
the Bill, he had no hesitation in pronouncing it to be most
excellent, and the speech by which it was accompanied was
as fair and manly as the plan itself was admirable. The sum
of 30,0001. was to be at once granted for building ad-
ditions to the college, and otherwise improving, and
that without any restriction or limitation whatever. The
sum of 6,0001. was to be given to the president and profes-
sors to enable them to remain in the college, instead of going
away to country parishes, and the students were likewise
liberally provided for. It was done in a noble and generous
manner, and lie was grateful for it. He repeated that the
Bill was excellent in all its details, and quite satisfactory and
unobjectionable. The increased grant was to be given
without restriction of any kind ; but would that make them
give np their agitation for repeal?—(Cries of No," and
loud cheers.) He firmly believed that for that very grant
he ought to say, " Thank you, agitation ; and Conciliation-
hall I am obliged to you ; and Repeal Association, Maynooth
ought to pray for you."—(Laughter and cheers.) Sir R.
Peel was well aware of the favourable impression which the
Bill would produce on the minds of the people of this
country, and accordingly the evening of the bringing
it in he set the Americans at defiance.—(Hear, hear.)
If he persevered in his present line of conduct towards this
country Ireland would set them at defiance too. If justice
were done to Ireland, America would not dare to attack Eng-
land.—(Hear hear.) He wanted Sir R. Peel to buy the
Irish people from' him. He had done some good by the May-
tang
h rant, let him give them an adeq_uate representation
and extension of the franchise in the House of Commons,
(
and see how many more mouths he should stop by that.—
Laughter and cheers) Mr. O'Connell proceeded to urge
the necessity of labouring for the repeal as the only way to
obtain concessions to this country, and concluded with an
earnest entreaty to the people• to desist from outrages, the
perpetration of which could not fail to retard their approach
to the goal of nationality.
Messrs. Grattan, M.P., J. Kelly, M.P., and J. O'Connell,
M.P., subsequently addressed the meeting.
Mr. O'CONNELL announced the repeal rent for the week
to be 3331. Os. 7d., and the Association adjourned to Monday
next.

Araaln“leha:ns
at
the
office of Mr.
NIGHT'S GAZETTE.
DAIyYIDENDS DECLAItZErf.I2II.O
ye o 1 wing Wednes-
inachine maker, Oldham—first and final div.
Burton-upon-Trent—a div.
of
13vT;U5scvElSetDn
ornunadn,ufAaeptruilre9r,,
Whitmor©, Birmingham.
W. Wood, screw manufacturer, Burton-upon-Trent—final
div. of 71V. in the pound, any Tuesday, at the office of Mr.
IL Port, sere:
Whitmore, Birmingham•
dav, at the office of Mr. Putt,
of 6%d. in the pound, any Tuesday
W. Wood and H. Port, screw manufacturers, Burton-upon-
Trent—a div. of 4s. 6d. in the_pound (upon new proofs only),
T esday at the office of Mr. Whitmore, Birmingham.
any u , DIVIDENDS.
At the Court of Bankruptcy, Basinghall-street.
J. Hook, contractor, Nine Elms, May 1, at one—L.
Watson, smith, Rickmansworth, Hertfordshire, April 29, at
one—W. E. Gould, carver and gilder, Finsbury-place South,
April 29, at twelve—J. Palmp-, draper, Lynn, Norfolk, May
1, at one—T. Herridge, builder, Wharton-street, Clerken-
well, April 29, at twelve—J. Davies and 11. Edwards, linen
drapers, Westminster- road, Lambeth, April 29, at half- past
twelve—G. Fielding, ironmonger, Theme, Oxfordshire, April
29, at two--B. Reynolds, silk printer, Mitcham, April 29, at
half -past eleven—H. Thompson, timber merchant, King-
street, Clerkenwell, May 2, at half-past one—R. W. Robin-
son, sen., and R. NV. Robinson, jun., grocers, Bedford, May 2,
at half-past one.
In the Country.
T. Cartwright, banker, Heaton Norris, Lancashire, May 2,
at twelve, at the Manchester District Court—W. Howell,
bookseller, Liverpool, May 2, at half-past twelve, at the Li-
verpool District Court—J. llawksley, merchant, Arnold,
Nottinghamshire, May 7, at twelve, at the Birmingham Dis-
trict Court.
CERTIFICATES to be granted, unless cause be shown to
the contrary, on the day herein mentioned.
C. S. Haward, grocer, Colchester, May 2—W. E. Gould,
carver and Older, Finsbury-place South, April 29—J.
'Thorley, glass dealer, Northampton, April 29—J. Mandeno,
market gardener, Groye -street, Hackney, May O—S. Smee-
ton, cattle salesman, Sibbertoft, Northamptonshire, May 2
S. Rugg, carpenter, Southampton, April 29—C. Lee, miller,
Wakes Colne, Essex, May 2—W. Belines; sculptor, Osna-
burgh-street, New-road, May 2—T. Smith, hackneyman,
Burrowes-mews, John-street, 131ackfriars-road, April 29
J. Hall, cowkeeper, Wallsend, Northumberland, April 29
P. Wright, grocer, Leeds, May 2—J. Scott, paper dealer, Li-
verpool, Blay 2—B. Hill, currier, Exeter, May l—J. Dalton,

TWA; SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY4/EVENING, APRIL 10, 1845.

joiner, Salford, Lancashire. May I—G. E. Lanham, builder,
Southampton, April 29—J. Clark, carman, Brunswick-cot-
tage, City-road, April 29—A. Francis, W. Davey, and M.
Francis, ironfounders. Aberystwith, Cardiganshire, April 29
—W. Moyes and T. Moring, carmen, Camomile-street, April
29—G. Bartlett, plaster manufacturer, Wellinton•street,
Goswell-street, April 29—J. Curwen, cheesemonger, Bridge-
place, Vauxhall, April 29—W. 131inkhorn. manufacturing
chemist, Little Bolton, Lancashire, April 29-11. Wehuert,
tailor, Leicester-square, April 29.
PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED.

W. Naylor, M. Merrall, and J. Wood, machine makers,
Bradford (so far as regards J. Wood)—A. I'. S. Dodd and E.
Leech, surgeons, Chichester—W. Milner, J. P. Morley, and
W. P. Morley, silk manufacturers, Leek, Staffordshire (so
far as regards W. P. Morley)—H. Jones and E. Hughes,
licenced victuallers, Hosier-lane, West Smithfield—C. P. Pitt
and C. Breese, japanners, Birmingham—J. Dawson. T. Curtis,
and J. Haigh, cloth finishers, Leeds (so far as regards J. Daw-
son)—R. Crathorne and J. Stephenson, millers, Beverley,
Yorkshire—W. C. Fig. es and IL Hallett, ironmongers—A. 11.
and W. Cuckshott, chemists, Bradford—G. Buckwell, A.
Buckwell, and C. D. Buckwell, timber merchants, Brighton
—IL and. J. Bayley, packers, Friday. street—E. Ackrovd,y M.
F. Wilson, and E. J. Newton, colliers, Gildersome, York-
shire—J. Whitaker and H. Worsley, silk dealers, Hudders-
field—W. Major, James Radcliffe, and F. J. Gill, manufac
turers, King-street, 'Cheapside— G. Davison and G. Roles,
tailors, Sheffield—J. Moon, E. Moon, R. Moon, W. Moon,
and C. Hopley, merchants, Rio de Janeiro—T. Haigh and C.
Bell, stock brokers, Bradford—J. Brown, W. Morcom, and
J. Stone, Manchester—C. E. and W. C. Bernard, West India
merchants—E. Thorp, J. Thorp, J. Terry, M. Terry, J.
Thorp, and H. Thorp, sawyers, Bradford (so far as regards
E. Thorp)—W. Webb and S. Barker, nickel refiners, Bir-
mingham—P. L. Simmonds and F. Clowes, publishers, Corn-
hill—E. and M. Harrison, oil merchants, Liverpool—W.
Bray and H. Edmonds, clothiers, Bradford—P. Craig and B.
Saunders, milliners, IVadebridge, Cornwall—ll. Deighton,
W. 11. Deighton, E. Maude, and J. Deighton, wine mer-
chants, Otley, Yorkshire.
SCOTCH SEQUESTRATION.

William Henry Keltie, grocer, Glasgow, April 11 and May
2, at twelve, at the chambers of Mr. Monteith, Glasgow.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, Apil 9.
(Beforia Mr. Commissioner FANE.)
IN RE JOSEPH BEAUFORT CULLEN.

This insolvent came up for his discharge this morn.
ing. He is an Irishman, and formerly resided at Norfolk-
street, Strand, and latterly at Old Cavendish-street,
Cavendish-square. By giving himself out to be a gen-
tleman, and by the use of accommodation bills, he
managed to get into debt to the amount of
5,1691. 16s. 23. For several large sums included in this
amount he had legal proceedings instituted against him,
and, judgment boing taken out, he was thrown into
prison, where he lay till the 24th of December last,
when he made application to the Court for its
protection. He was then opposed by several of the
creditors, and, after an adjourned hearing, he was
ordered to be detained till the present. He now came
up for his discharge, To-day he was again opposed by
two of the creditors, Mr. Malims appearing for Mr. Day
of Bull street, Manchester-square, and Mr. Sturgeon
for John Clements, solicitor, f Fenchurch-street.
Mr. Cooke appeared for the insolvent. The objee-
tion urged by Malims was, that the debt
of 74L 10 :. owing to Mr. Day, his client, was on an
accommodation bill drawn by the insolvent, and accepted
by a Mr. Rayner on behalf of the former. It came out
in examination that this was not altogether the truth,
and the objection was overruled by the Court. The ob-
jection taken by Mr. Sturgeon was of a similar character,
the Learned Gentleman representing the insolvent
as a person without visible means, raising money when-
ever he could upon accommodation bills, for which, in
some instances, he was in the practice of allowing almost
cent. per cent. discount. There were no assets to meet
the debts set forth in the schedule.

Mr. COOKE, on behalf of the insolvent, entered into
a long statement, how the latter had been involved in
some unfortunate trading expeditio❑ to India in 1842,
which laid the foundation of his subsequent embarras-
ments.

His HONOUR did not think the insolvent had acted
from fraudulent intentions, but that he had been exceed
ingly imprudent. The punishment he had already re-
ceived he thought sufficient, and he would therefore
grant him his protection from that day.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
NORFOLK ClRCUlT.—Norwich, April 8.
(Before Mr. Justice PATTESON.)
ALLEGED MANSLAUGHTER.—Raymond Gashes, aged 48,
was indicted for that he, being an apothecary and man-mid-
wife, so negligently, carelessly, rashly, and feloniously con-
ducted himself in his attendance on one Jane Mary Lovett,
in her delivery, as to inflict divers mortal wounds on her
body, whereof she died on the 9th of January last, at Cos-
tessy, in this county.
Mr. Evans and Mr. Palmer appeared for the prosecu-
tion ; Mr. Prendergast and Mr. O'Malley defended the pri-
soner.

From the evidence of Honor Mortar and other witnesses
it appeared that Mrs. Lovett had had nine children before
the occasion which terminated fatally, and that on former
occasions a difficulty had presented itself in the removal of
the placenta, the danger from which was well known by
medical men to increase with each labour. On the 19th of
January the poor woman was taken ill, and the defendant
called in to attend her at eleven o'clock. For some time the
difficulty anticipated did not arise, but it did at length, and
the nurses suggested further advice. The defendant, how-
ever, declined it, saying that "if there was a room full
of doctors they could do no more than he was doing."
After this he seemed to be using great exertions with the
view of relieving the patient of the placenta, and after a
while a round substance came forth, such as had never been
seen before by the nurses in their experience, and be was
then seen to use his scissors under the clothes. At that in-
stant the features of the sufferer underwent a sudden change
and shock, on which the "doctor" observed "she was very
sadly, and he would go and fetch some medicine." So say-
ing, he placed the substance above mentioned, and some
other thing which he had afterwards taken from the bed, in
a vessel, which he took away with him. In the course of
half an hour afterwards the patient died in great pain, and,
being duly buried, nothing more would, perhaps, have been
heard of the case, had not the defendant, when interrogated
by her mother, stated that the substance he had taken away
was a tumour, weighing three ounces and a halt; and that
he had taken it to Mr. Crosse, the well-known surgeon in
this city. This was, for the time, satisfactory to the in-
quirer, but afterwards a suspicion was excited that the de-
fendant had not conducted himself properly towards the de-
ceased ; and her body being exhumed under the direction of
the Coroner, was submitted to examination by Mr. Crosse
and Mr. Francis, who ascertained that the uterus and a
considerable quantity of the large intestines had been torn
away. The evidence of these gentlemen was given to day
to the above effect, but as its details were of a purely profes-
sional character, it may suffice to state, that they gave it as
their opinion that great blame was attributable to the de-
fendant if the removal of those parts was ignorantly effected
by him, and still more so if it had been accomplished know-
ingly. At the same time, they admitted that the case was
not one of every-day occurrence, and that no stronger term
than ignorance ought to be attached to his treatment of the
patient, while the most skillful surgeons and operators were
known to have " made mistakes."

Mr. PRENDERG AST, on behalf of the prisoner, contended
that the course pursued towards him was somewhat harsh,
as it was unfair to expect from every man embarked in so
critical a profession the consummate skill of an Astley
Cooper or a Dr. Conquest, whose book on midwifery he
largely quoted.
Mr. Justice PArrEsoN, in summing up the case, thought
that the question was not whether the defendant wilfully had
removed the parts in question, for no man in his senses
could do that; but it was for the jury to say whether, under
all the circumstances, he had done more than fall into a mis-
take. For a mere error of judgment he did not think that a
medical man ought to be made criminally responsible, unless
he had displayed gross professional ignorance or inattention
to his patient. The nurses all bore testimony to his kindness
and attention, and it would therefore be for the jury to say
whether they thought he had acted with such gross igno-
rance as was imputed to him by this charge.
The jury, without much hesitation, returned a verdict of
Not Guilty.
With this case terminated these assizes, and a Norfolk
Circuit, which will long live in the memory of those engaged
in it, by reason of the very important criminal trials by
which it has been signalised.