The Sun.
London, England, 1844-06-04 00:00:00

ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY-THE
FREE TRADE QUESTION.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
Mr. SnITH, of Sheffield, rose to address the meeting. If
he could have pinned his faith upon any set of men, it would
have been upon his friends on the platform; but, having
carefully considered the subject, he had come to a diametri-
cally opposite conclusion. This question involved the exer-
cise of the right of private judgment. The question was as
to the best mode of carrying out the anti-slavery. prin-
ciple. The adopting Decal regalation,s_involved the principle
of applying to Government to inflict a pecuniary penalty;
upon than who differed with them in opinion. They had'
no right to do this. He held it was not the best course for
any-philanthropic body to apply to Government to carry out
its views. The society which sought such aid fettered their
operations and became mixed up with political parties.
Where
.was .the principle to end? Was it the province of
Government to interfere in this way ? No I They had too
much Government meddling already. If they had a right to
go to Government to carry out their views, so had any other
body a right to ask for the imposition of a tax to carry out their
views. They were establishing a dangerous precedent, and by
thus acting they were placing the anti-slavery principle at issue
with other great principles.—(Cheers.) Free trade was phi-
lanthropy upon its noblest basis. It was said it was a diffi-
cult thing to ask Government to maintain existing duties
and to impose fresh duties. The principle was the same. He
denied the existence of any such distinction as that now
sought to be established.—(Hear.) He did not hesitate to
say that if they succeeded tin their non-intercourse with
Brazil, they would inflict upon the population of Sheffield
and Manchester a degree of suffering of which
they had no idea. Sheffield was reduced almost
to a state of desolation by these fiscal regulations.
If they ceased to buy, they must cease to sell, and by re-
fusing to buy Brazilian sugar they tied up the hands of the
Sheffield workman, and prevented him earning his living by
his labour. These men thought the sympathies of the
Society should not be carried to the other side of the water
only. They demanded their sympathy—not their alms,
hut their assistance—to enable them to earn their
own living. He considered that their plan was
ineffectual for the suppression of slavery in the Brazils, be-
cause nothing was more delusive than certificates of origin.
• They would continually have forged certificates, and a re-
gular system would arise of defeating the law. Now, accord-
ing to our treaty with America, we should be bound to take
the slave-grown sugar of Louisiana on the most favourable
terms. It was true that Louisiana did not produce more
than enough for its own consumption; but Cuba sugar
might be imported into Louisiana, and the whole of the Louis-
iana sugar might find its way into this country. Wouldyou
take stolen goods? it was said. He knew no difference be-
tween the receiver and the thief; and he could not make any
difference between the man who took Ruseian tallow, know-
ing that it was purchased by Brazilian sugar, or he who wore
American cotton and the man who received Brazilian sugar
directly. But then it was admitted that all that was wrong;
but they wishectnot to do any more wrong. Let them first
take the mote out of their own eye before they attempted to
take the beam out of their brother's eye. They were not in a
position to go to the Government and ask them to impose a
pecuniary line upon those who differed with them in opinion.
Ile should therefore move, as an amendment, that the clause
in question be annulled.
Mr. JOHN' BRIGHT, M.P., rose to second the amend-
meat. It would be observed that with respect to this question
there were many points on which they were agreed. They
were all agreed in opinion as to their detestation of the
horrors of slavery and the slave trade. They were all agreed
that prima facie it would be better to have a free impor-
tation of sugar and of every other commodity. It would be
admitted that freedom of trade conduced to maintain the
peace of the world, and that restriction produced
first the war of tariffs, and then the war of force;
but it was said that - this "was an exception. .If
they refused to hold intercourse with nations holding slaves,
they ought also to refuse to hold intercourse with nations
committing crimes of other kinds. Now, that was an un-
tenable principle. If they refused the produce ofßrazil, they
should adopt the same rule with respect to Russian and
Egyptian produce. The produce of land which was stolen,
was as much stolen goods as the produce of labour which was
stolen ; therefoye they ought to refuse the produce of our West
Indian Island.% and of the United States. He considered the
principle absurd, but if they adopted it they should carry it otit.
They were told they were increasing national guilt. Who
were to be the judges of national guilt? He denied that We
were increasing national guilt, or the right of any body' of
men to call on the Government to interfere to make them
nationally moral in that respect. Everybsdy was anxius
to seal more of our cutlery to Brazil. We exported large
quaiMties of goods to the Brazils, and received in
return sugar, a portion of which was . refined.
In bond, and a portion taken to foreign countries.
Our ships took sugar from Brazil to Russia, and pureliakd
leather, and tallow, and flax, and brought them.to this code-
try. Did not the gentleman, therefore, who lit his candle,
or wore his shoes, or put on his shirt, incur the same amount
of guilt as if he used Brazilian sugar?—(Loud cheerk)
'There was no guilt in either. Then came the question of the
stimulus to the slave trade. Now he did not admit that the
total abolition of all discriminating duties would stimulate
slavery, although he was willing to admit it for the salve of
argument. The Committee admitted that they:petitioned go-
vernment in favour of the admission of free-labour sugar.
Now that would give quite as great a stimulus to slavery .as
the admission of all sugar, without. distinction. There was no,
essential difference between the effect on slavery of the pro-
position made by the Committee and that of the free traders.
The free-labour sugar of Java was in the markets of the
world competing with Brazilian sugar, and selling at the
Name price. It was absurd to say that ours was a better
market than any other—we did not give a higher price th n
any other parties; it was clear that the price here must be e-
gukited by that abroad. The 'free-labour sugar whi h
now went to Germany would come here, and its pl e
there would be supplied by slave-labour sugar. W h
regard to Lousianian sugar it should be remember d,
that every Lousianian planter exporting a hogshead ,of
sugar was entitled to receive n hogshead of Cuba sugar free
e.t. duty; that would set free the whole of the Louisianian
spdgar, which we were bound to take by treaty at the low4st
r ate of duty. Let them see the argument which they wire
giving to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, a planter, a d
the President-of the Board of Trade, a planter; they w e.
giving them every inducement to continue slavery in bra 11;
in order to keep up their own monopoly, which would of
. coarse fall whenever slavery should fall in the' Brazi s.
They made the Government odious abroad. The Braz Is
knew that the Government Was not sincere, and. therefore th y
viewed them in the light of hypocrites. It was no light nat-
ter far the Committee to weaken the exertions of. the frien -
of the antl-slavery cause in this country, by dividing it up a
this question. It. was giving a weapon to . monopoly, a d
monopoly was but a milder form of slavery. They w e
abetting a crime of precisely the same nature as that whi h
they warred against, although it might not come ie so hi/ -
t,
was a form. At the late meeting there was manifested a
strong feeling in favour of the abrogation of that Chaise ; a d
the Committee should recollect, that however Conscientiokis
and honest might be their scruples, those scruples were
of
participated in by the bulk of those classes who had beetle e
vary backbond Of the anti-slavery movement in this count ie .
They had no right to inflict upon the pporer clases of "t is
ti,
country the sufferings which they were inflicting on them y
the course they were pursuing. If they persisted in carrying.
cut this must unreasonable proposition there was scarcely an
lndividnal . in- the counties .of York or Lancaster who could
give the Society his cordial support. Throughout the king-
dom there was a difference of opinion with the Cordmitt e.
It was not essential, and why, therefore, should they obs i-
I
r ately adhere to it. He was sorry to hear from Joseph Jo n!
Gurney, 'as be had from others, ' that they would with-
draw -unless 'this resolutiOn were' carried. He doubted
whether the present was the sort of meeting .'n
which the question ought to be discussed. The question h d
been carried by a large majority in EXeter Hall against t e
resolution. The 'Govertiment were making use of the Com-
mittee as their tools merely—had no ' sort of affection for
them—and would throw them off' as soon as it' might suit
their purpose.
Mr. LEFE.OIr considerecl that the admission of slavio-
labour sugar would' 'area. ' the repeal of all 1t e
r
laWs which they had passed for the abolition of slave .
Mr. Bright said that this matter would interfere with t e
commercial policy of the country ; but if that. n
gentleman
thought so,ssurely the' best means would 'be to apply fort a'
remedy for this evil to the Legislature, add not impede tr t e
great Christian movement fohe abolition tree e.
II
ale would trouble the meeting no further than by protesti g '
strongly against any measure' that would present any obst
lion to the negotiations which the Society might enter intd
with. the Government.—(Cheers.) - 1
A king discussion here rose upon the proposition of ad-
journing' the meeting until four o'clock, which was supported
by Mr. George Thompson, Mr. Bright, and the majority of the
meeting, and' eventually carried.

The meeting resumed at half-past three o'clock,. although
it was understood to have bean adjourned for an hour from
three o'cloCk.

After a few words from Mr. J. STURGE, in support of the
original motion,
Captain STUART contended that commercial slavery would
not exist without there were consumers of the save-grown
articles, who acted as employers of the slave traders. He
entreated the meeting to disregard what had fallen from
Mr. Thompson, and recollect the final account they would
have to render of their conduct in encouraging slavery.
The CRAIRMAIC put the amendment, when only seven
hands were-held up in its favour. He next put the original
motion, in favour of which 82 persons voted.
After- the Chairman deolared the original "Motion to be
'carried, a vote of-thanks was passed to him, and the meet-
-fitg 'separattd.

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.
FROM THE EVENING PAPERS OF YESTERDAY. •
GLOBE.—The prison doors have closed upon -O'Connell,
and upon those who took a prominent part with him in the
repeal agitation. Pending the decision of the House of
Lords on the writ of error which is to come immediately
before it—and which may even pronounce illegal the very
judgment by which the parties are suffering—it might
be deemed impertinent, if not presumptuous, in us to
raise an argument upon the points which await the deci-
sion of such a tribunal. The attention of the legal
profession in both countries will be fastened upon the
proceedings in error ; and the people of those countries,
but especially those of Ireland, will await, with breathless
anxiety, the decision which will reverse, or affirm, the judg-
ment pronounced by the Court of Queen's Bench in that
country. The doubt that still rests on the legal validity of
the proceedings in no respect diminishes the responsibility of
the Government to public opinion, nor exonerates it from the
censure which it has justly incurred by the prosecution. The
former is solemn ; the latter Is severe. At no period of the
agitation whence the Government affected to apprehend
danger—which, had it really felt, would have led to an
earlier. interference with the " monster meetings"—was the
peace of Ireland so fearfully perilled as when O'Connell was
conducted from the bar of the Court to the prison to which
he, with his coadjutors, was doomed for taking part in
those meetings. Whether the law was really stretched
beyond its due limits to reach the leaders of the Re-
peal movement, or whether it was merely extended to
its utmost length, in order that it might reach them, we
will not now argue. One thing is certain—the ingenuity of
the most skilful sophists has been tried, and has not pre-
vailed, to mystify the long-delayed interference of the Go-
vernment,or to avert the conclusion which flows from it. The
meetings were spread over a period of several months. They
amounted to forty-nine in number. No interference on the
part of the Executive gave notice of any apprehension of dan-
ger to the public peace, or of desire on the part of the autho-
rities that they should be discontinued. The legality of the
object for which the meetings were held was admitted. The
constitutional right of meeting was unquestioned, and un-
questionable. If the mere question of numbers diminished or
vitiated ,the right, the Government was bound to ad-
monish, to warn, and—if in its dscretion it thought pro-
per to proceed to that extent—te prohibit, the meetings.
Not a single breach of the peace had occurred at or
had arisen out of, any one of the numerous meetings. No
sooner did the authorities intimate their will and pleasure
that the "monster meetings" should cease to be held, and is-
sued a proclamation to that effect, than it was obeyed. With
a promptitude that deserves to be mentioned to his honour—
with an earnestness which attested his anxiety, O'Connell
exhorted and commanded the masses over whom he ex-
exercised an absolute control, to return every man to his
own home. The implicit obedience yielded to the proclama-
tion, by which the Clontarf meeting was prevented, is the
best possible proof that had a similar interference on the
part of the Government been deemed necessary at an
earlier period, a similar submission to the constituted au-
thorities would have been shown. The public tranquillity
was placed in much more peril by the imprudent, if not
preconcerted, lateness of the hour at which the procla-
mation was issued—allowing of scarcely an opportunity of
preventing the coming multitudes from reaching the ap-
pointed rendezvous—than by any or even all the meetings
that had preceded it. Whatever had been the calamitous
consequences of an accidental collision between the military
and a part of the people, coming—as they had been wont
to come, without expectation of interruption, and with-
out intention of harm—the Government would have
been the direct occasion of the calamity. Not a single overt
act alleged against O'Connell, in support of the conspiracy
chargo upon him and his coadjutors, bears so suspicious an
appearance as the issuing of the proclamation, at the late hour
at which it appeared, does against the Irish Government. But
for the promptitude andenergy with which its manifest ten-
dencies were counteracted by the address that O'Connell drew
up, printed, and dispersed among the multitudes when on
-their way, to the meeting, the plains of Clontarf might have
bercome an Aceldama, and the history of that day's doings
have been Written in blood. On the head of the Government
theist rest the blame of the long-continued agitation. History
will pronounce upon the character of the policy by which the
Government has sought to sustain itself in Ireland, it the
immediate consequences of that policy do not show how ill-
suited were its measures to establish order among its
inhabitants.
. STANDARD.—The debate of Friday.night suggests two
considerations. First, whether it is proper to protect public
worship from outrage by offences less than breach of the
peace. Secondly, whether better and cheaper tribunals for
causes testamentary than the ecclesiastical courts can be
found, for it will not be enough to show that those courts
haVe faults, except some means of amending these faults be
proposed, and some better courts substituted. Now, with
reference to the fii•st point, it will not be disputed that public
worship may be scandalised and interrupted by many things
short .ofbreach of the peace, by many things that constitute
no common law offence. Is there to be no protection against
such scandals and offences, or if it is proposed to guard against
them, will it be quite safe to enlarge the present juris-
diction of the lay tribunals, as to the construction of what is
decorous or indecorous in public worship—to refer the matter,
fel. exam-dc, to police magistrates. We very much doubt
whether this would be a step in furore= libertatis. As to the
causes testamentary, We know not what tribunal can be substi-
tuted for .the ecclesiastical courts in such cases, except the
courts of equity. Causes testamentary are precisely of that
kind which the ordinary tribunals of the country cannot
entertain, because they have not the necessary machinery,
and are, in all respects, framed with a view to the litigation
:-"Of-a different kind of. questions. Everything, in fact, to be
properly the object of a common-law suit, must be reduced
to one or more distinct definite issues, whether of law, or of
fact, or of both ; bat testamentary causes cannot be re-
duced to 'such distinct issue or issues. Even. were wills
always written in strict legal language, which they are not,
they give rise to a multitude of contingent and complicated
questions, which can be dealt with , only by a process
analogens to that of the Roman law, and of courts of
equity. Abolish the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts
in testamentary cases, and you send every will cause to
London to be made the subject of a Chancery suit. That is,
at the very time
.when you are bringing 'the common law
home to every 'man's .door by the establishment of local
courts, you d.estroy thirty-five local courts of equity in
order to Centralise the subject of their jurrisdietion in
LoMEM, at an enormous addition of expense to
the unhappy parties; compelled to. resort to them.
Does' not this look very like folly and contradiction? One
word upon the question of costs: Why are the costs se heavy ?
The. Legislature' has abandoned its charges upon suitors, 'by
the remission of stamp duties ; the judges, .we believe, are
seriously .desirnus to. reduce the amount of costs ; the bar
haS Surrendered a great deal of its profits ; still costs have
undergone no sensible diminution, if they have not
rather increased. This is a riddle which we believe
every unprofessionalpan wishes to see solved, but which, as
we have reason to inow, even eminent lawyers cannot solve.
The late Chief Baron Abinger having, about two or three
years ago, declared from the bench, that it was impossible to
run up the. costs of writ, declaration, and interlocutory
judgement beyond five pounds, a friend, the protector of
a poor man persecuted by a shark, assured the Noble
MANI; whom he met the next day at dinner, that these costs
had been, in a very simple case, run up to ten pounds. Lord
Abinger .expressed his disbelief. On ..a subsequent day,
however, the bill of casts, regularly taxed at 10/. Ils. 4d.,
was presented to him : he examined the items, shook his
head, and came to the conclusion that until the whole
system Of costs is changed, so as to make excessive charges
penal, the Legislature and the Bench must labour in vain.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
.(YESTERDAY.)
_ CLE,RKEN WELL. • .

Elias Bucey, a carver and gilder, residing at 15,
Suffolk-street, Camden-town, and Mary Crawley, of
31, Easton-street, Wilmington-square, were charged
with having been drunk and fighting on the previous
night, at 20, Lloyd-square, the residence of Mr. Tindal,
late churchwarden of Clerkenwell parish.
The male prisoner's face was covered with blood and
bruised, the hair of the female was dishevelled, and both
presented abundant evidence of having been engaged in
recent conflict.

After as few words from Mr. ALEXANDER, • • 'Mr. Tindal and his family having gone to the country,
Mr. G. Tnosersoar said he felt assured that slavery, in its the 'servant, Mary Bucey, who was left in care of the
moat odious form, existed in the production of other articles place, invited .the prisoner and several of her male and
of trade; but they
now sought te induce. themeeting to b e-- female acquaintances to, spend the previOas (Sunday)
Mere that the Government ought to discriminate the.particu-
I evening with her. The party arrived, the bottle circu-
lar articles which should be consumed by the great mass of
eelY
• fated ir, and the fun grew fast and furious—in fact,
the people. ' lie thought their conduct way 11-some degree
.n othilig eoUld exceed the hilarity which prevailed, when,
inconsistent, for they ,made efforts to do away with the
serfdom ,of Rosin, or the galling slavery • winch pre in an unpropitious moment, the subject of the Irish State
-
vailed in Egypt. But they never protested against come: trials ' and'ethe sentence upon Mr. O'Connell was men-
inercial relations with.. those. countries. .11e • eensidered tinned. Great difference of opinion prevailed. Th
all legislation upon this subject. was wrong, because they. male priSoner; bitelced by a'very strong party, contended
were only a minority, and consequently, had no right to that the trials were all right, and that the sentence was
coerce ' the great majority by legislation- They disclaimed just; but Mrs. Crawley, a daughter.of.",the Green Isle,"
all appeal to force, yet they sought for the Governmeht thought otherwise, and enforced her opinion in so earnest
force, which was nothing more than physical; and lie thought and veherneot a manner, that crowds of people were
it was a wicked prostitution of the powers of 6Overnme t-
to prevent a populatioh, of twenty-six inillionifrom trading _,,
i
' • *a
appurfltd to the street,' where elrs. Crawley finding her
''
' weapons insufficient, rushed to give striking•
attracted to witness the dispute. The.parties at length
with the 'Brazils or Cuba. The great ana.ss of the pee e
were opposed -to such a .course ;... and they nes r logical
committed. power into the . - handS of , Governme t proofs of her sincerity,
._ .
Sir any such rnirNse. No justification could be given fbr " And prove her doctrine orthodox
,tylniting: free trade, or preventing the people from purchasi4g- ,• 'f r ' -By divers bruites; blows, and linoeltS."
isgare;while there were ,so many other.. slave-a'rown Mr` In fact she belaboured poor Bucey so wofully that were
. slave- own ,
'
ties l'a ins.amption in this country. Lie'regretted to hear .
some of his friends pronounce those to b new.. fai I,„'sl d floc-'
it not for the timely arrival of the police he would have
*tionthan
Trines, and stiggestod that they should 9 lid lc. o 11
ed
Wilberforce. •He thougliftliat fot go e t .t, the days of speedily found himself in .a far worse condi, the
prisoriersee--The Police. took both parties into
• the protection oflibertv and State-,
philantrophy the Government Wae " calliti . interfere-'ettstody . .
pork to • •
with such fiscal regalatioas sialv•O' ' ""4 'u- . ' M - BIN A. —W 11prisoners, what have you to say?
Mr. r. . GII 3I e ,
uld tfiscourrige the slare
trade.—(Cheers)
, • : ' - Bueey—Well, I said O'Connell was the dupe of the
Mr. S. 'llowuNG thought that it Was Hut. right attribute lrish
to
error or sin to others because their conduct f
might be, eontratv did'nt think lie was the " cheese."
to the .views of the objectors. 'lle .denied that the effect • •
t Mrs: Crawley—Yes, I said he was the Liberathur—it
weuld'preSs so heavily upon the artisans Of Leeds'a
' manuiticturing towns, as InUl been representeril
iarge c, otheri was a cowardly - thing to throw wathur on •a dbrowning
n "s rat. • I said he had'ut a fair thrial. •
friends, Messrs. nrig,-Itt'and Thompson. Ile could hot uLer-
sU,del why the minority now-e-suppesing
,it 'te,be a 'iniecuat Both antics having finally expressed their regret at
_hue not quite as much right to anneal to the Govermejt their misconduct, they were discharged.
now as Clarkson had to appeal almost unsupported for the John Harper was charged with having fraudulently
abolition of slavery. -- - represented himself as an inspector of police, and with
Mr. SAMITEL GURNEY did-not believe that the majority of having assaulted police-constables 016' G, and 75 G.
the people of England, -if they knew the case thoroughly, The prisoner, a well-dressed, middle aged person, de--
would agree to a free admission of all : deserttions„ of, Scribed himself as a warehousman in Clieripside.
sugar. 'He had too high an - idea of the people "uf,ko:lllglrd. Police-constable 75 Ge h' b duty ' S
, eying een on- in .t.
to believe that. The general prosperity of Cuba IN"' kl ,4e ' JOlniTstreet, between eleven d twelve o'clock on the-
considered be materially .and ratildly increased if slavery previous night, w.as il an
faa ely acosted by the prisoner,
were abolished in that country, althclugh some planters and_ whoricemed to. b
even persons iniathority there might think otherwise. He recollect the e per ectl sober. The witness did not
first ex re 'Y
should next allude to the consequences that arose from the free constable by the collar ssPT
he used; but he seized the
admission of sugar from Brazil and Cuba to this:count,ry.
number. He was''.
in insisted on taking down his
The measure proposed.to Parliament by Sit R. Peel did not;
i ran down Wilderness-row, quietly permitted to do so. lie then
in any way emanate from' the anti-slavery party ;at the 1 . . 1 .-row, but soon returned, and with-
same time he (Mr. Gurney)r would assert' that it would oet having receive( the least provocation, struck 75 G
cause the admission of but a very small portion of slaVe-. . on Cie inouth; and when 216 G attempted to stop him,
gown sugar, although it might cause some increase aeon.: .he struck that officer a violent blow on the head ; said
aumption upon the conthient-orEurope. He 119ped that the" lie was an inspector of police, and defied any constable
Anti-Slivery Society would at all times use 'their influence, to
,interfere with him.--He was taken to the police
and that influence was great with the' Government, to adopt ' .•
Buell
measures
as would put an end to slavery.—(Hear, hear.) I, , •expressed regret' for his conduct, 'hut
Mr - - Ihe prisoner . • 4::rIBT regretted to see so small a meeting. After ' • reflecting upon the matter with much attention he felt bound i gave no explanation of it. . .
to say that his conscience com Bed 1 • to fMr'
him vote or the . BINGIIAN cautioned him against the repetition of
amendment. With respoet to di Pe . • tand told him that for falsely personating an impector
sconraging slave-grown pTo- I ,
duce by abstaining from the use himself to a fine of 10/, or a long,
most anxious to adopt
auy
practical
.of It, he for one would be. of police he subjected ,
of .
effect. ticel mode for • it • ' • •' . t' In default the paymcnt of fine
carrying into eterm• of imprisOnmen . •
Mr. BLAIR said he ecirishlercii.' he was committed to prison for five &FS.
.4.tebothe duty Of Go,
Nem- with robbing Mr.
moat to discriminate between the dishonest. Isabella Bowyer was charged
and the honest
reran; between the man who raises h' George Taylor of acontaining•B/ purse .
is Produce bslave ,
labour and him who does it by free labour, Y i On Saturday night Mr. Taylor, who lives in 28, Iron-

monger-street, St. Luke's, was returning home between
eleven and twelve o'clock. The prisoner came up to him
in Holborn, and jocosely asked him if he were good na-
tured ; he took no notice of her, but she walked almost
by his side, followed by another female up Liquorpond-
street, and into Charles-street, Hatton-garden; when he
came opposite to a dark gateway there, she, with sudden
violence, pushed him into it, and,thrusting her hand into
his' pocket, abstracted the purse and immediately ran
away with it, She ran to the other female, who at-
tempted-to hold-the prosecutor, but he burst away from
her and finally arrested the prisoner, who had only the
empty purse on her person.—Committed for trial.
Bartholomew Downey, of No. 2, Brook-court, Holborn,
was charged with having been drunk and riotous, and
creating a crowd in Holborn Union Workhouse, and
'also with having deserted his wife and family, whereby'
they had become chargeable to the Holborn union.
Mr. Wilkes, the overseer, deposed that on the 17th of
January the prisoner's wife applied to him for relief,
stating that her husband having deserted her, she, with
her children, were utterly destitute. He administered
out-door relief to them from that time to the present.
On the previous evening the prisoner came to the work-
house drunk. He assaulted Barlow the porter, and by
the violence of his conduct attracted a great crowd
round the workhouse.
Upon further inquiry, and from the prisoner's own
admission, it was ascertained that he had never left his
family at all, but consumed in idleness the relief meant
for his wife and children. Whenever the overseer visited
the house. he secreted himself.
Mr. BINGHAM regretted to observe that this was
becoming a very common practice. A case came before
him a short time ago in Worship-street Police-court, in
.which the wife who applied for relief to the parochial
authorities stated, that her husband had deserted her,
and was in Birmingham. She even deposed to the truth
of this statement before the magistrate, but it was sub-
sequently ascertained that the husband was at home all
the time, and when the overseer came concealed himself
in a. cupboard; where he was ultimately arrested. In
this case the parish authorities would do well to prose-
cute the prisoner at the sessions.
Mr. Wilkes promised to do so, and the prisoner was
fined 10s., or five days' imprisonment for the assault on
the porter.
• John Griffiths was fully committed for trial for steal-
ing a sovereign, the property of Sarah I3ridges, a servant,
at the house of Mr. Richardson, a gentleman, residing
in Belgrave-terrace, Holloway, in which he was tempo-
rarily employed as a painter.
MARYLEBONE.

A young man named Philip Stride was placed at the
bar before Mr. Rawlinson upon the following charge:—
Hardy, 205 S, deposed that on the previous morning,
about eleven o'clock, he saw the prisoner and three of
his Companions standing near thebridge at the Camden-
town station of the London and Birmingham Railway.
The prisoner stooped and picked up a‘large stone, which
he deliberately threw over the wall on to the line, and
witness soon afterwards found it lying within four
inches of the rail. He went after the prisoner, and took
him into custody, when •he denied having thrown any
stone, and said he had merely been playing with a ball.
Witness produced the stone, which weighed nearly 21bs.
Mr. RAWLINSON (to the prisoner)—This is a very
serious offence, and one which might have caused the
death of parties travelling. What do you mean by such
conduct? Prisoner—l didn't throw any stone, Sir ;it
was a ball that I had been playing with.
-The.constable said there was no ball on the line near
the -spot, and he was quite certain that the stone which
he bad brought forward for the inspection of the Magis-
trate was thrown-on the line by the prisoner.
Mr. RawLlNsosr convicted the prisoner in the miti-
gated penalty of 10s. ; in default of payment, one
month's imprisonment.
Timothy Steil, an Irish labOurei, was charged by John
Edgar, of 12, Queen-street, Edgeware-road.
It appeared that on Saturday night; last. as complain-
ant was walking, quietly towards hOme, the prisoner,
without saying a word, struck him a violent blow on the
head ; he (the prisoner) also attempted to hit him with
a hod which he had in his left hand. A policeman then
arrived, and after much difficulty the prisoner,- who was
vs:ry drunk, was conveyed to the station-house.
In reply to the charge, prisoner said, " Faith, yer
Honour,. I knOw nothing about it at all, at all ; and its
thrue that I didn't know I was locked up till I woke in
the cell yesterday morning."—He was fined 20s.