The Sun.
London, England, 1844-08-03 00:00:00

TII.h SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, AUGUST 3, 1844,

COURT OF SEWERS.
A Court of Sewers, for the city and liberty of West-
minster, and part of Middlesex, was held in the Sewers%
office, Greek-str&t, Soho-square, yesterday, at twelve
o'clock, Captain Bague, R.N., in the chair.
The collector's and clerks' reports having been re-
ceived,
The CHAIRMAN then said that the next business be-
fore the Court was to consider various payments, the
largest amount being a sum of 1,0001, due to Messrs.
J. and W. Bennett, the contractors, on account of
bills to Midsummer, 1844. The remaining payments
amounted to 3011. Bs. 4d.
Mr. LESLIE cautioned Hon. Members against signing
the Messrs. Bennett's cheque, without some previous in-
quiry into the mode by which they had got their
contract.
Mr. MARRYAT thought that the lion. Commissioner
ought to give the Court some reason for his caution.
Mr. LESLIE said he had discovered that a gross
fraud had been committed upon the public, by means of
which the Bennetts held a contract they had no right to
do. He (Mr. Leslie) was in a position to prove all he
alleged, and he would not hesitate to do so.
After some desultory discussion, it was decided that
the cheque be cancelled.
Mr. Bennett having been called in Court,
The CHAIRMAN said he was directed by the Court to
withhold the cheque for 1,000/., as a Commissioner had
made a charge against Mr. Bennett.
Mr. LESLIE did not charge Mr. Bennett with fraud.
He said a fraud.upon the public had been committed by
some one.
Mr. MARRYAT said that the impression on his mind
was, that the Hon. Commissioner's remarks had been
levelled at Mr. Bennett.
The CHAIRMAN—.At all events the cheque was with-
held in consequence of those remarks. It had been
stated that a gross fraud had been committed.
After a few remarks from Mr. ALLASON,
Mr. LESLIE said that the short of the matter was that
Mr. Bennett had attained a contract which he was not
entitled to. He did not say that Mr. Bennett was in
fault, but he did say that a gross fraud had been com-
mitted on the public, and when he had discovered that,
he questioned the propriety of their again signing
cheques for one, three, or four thousand pounds, until they
had further inquired about it. He did not say
that Mr. Bennett then present, or that his late father
did wrong. The charge he made against somebody was,
that the public had been injured to an enormous amount
—how much he could not say, and was afraid to hazard
—by a gross fraud perpetrated somewhere, by which
Bennett's tender had been made to appear smallest,
when it was unquestionably not so.
The CHAIRMAN said that Mr. Bennett would probably
wishlte address the Court upon the subject.
Mr. BENNETT would wish to ask the protection of the
Court, because an imputation had been cast upon him by
an Hon. Commissioner, inasmuch as it was said that he
was connected with a fraud.
Mr. LESLIE did not say so. He said a gross fraud
had been committed somewhere.
Mr. ALLASON thought that if the question of the
subject under discussion were put in the usual way, it
would greatly expedite matters. He thought that Mr.
Leslie's statement ought to be substantiated.
The question was then put by the Chairman, and it
was unanimously agreed that the subject should be
brought before the Court.
Mr. LESLIE said that the three persons whom he
would refer to in the remarks he should make, were
Mr. Donaldson, Mr. Dowley, and Mr. Doull. He re-
gretted that the first was not in Court, but he would be
corrected by the surveyors if he stated what was incor-
rect in reference to this transaction. Before they entered
upon the last contract, a form of tender was sent out to
all the competitors, and it was arranged out of Court
that certain quantities of bricks, and other materials
should be stated on these forms. Mr. Bennett, who sup-
plied this Court with bricks at that time at the rate of
425. the thousand, inserted in his tender at 305., being a
reduction of 12s. upon the thousand, and why There
were 350,000 bricks inserted upon the form, which the
other competing parties put, at 385., 395., and 40s.
a thousand. But were these 350,000 bricks
supplied ? No. The amount of bricks for the last
three years, both for the eastern and western division
amounted only to 73,000. He (Mr. Leslie) had always
been convinced there was something wrong in the man-
ner of getting up these contracts, but when he had
brought evidence before that Court, it had not been al-
lowed to be put upon the minutes. He was now going
to adopt a different course. From past experience he
did not like this tribunal, and he meant to tender his evi-
dence to the Commission on the Health of Towns, then
sitting at Whitehall, of which the Duke of Bucclench
was chairman. But if they wanted him to go into the
case now, he would not shrink from doing so.
Mr. ALLASON thought it would be, perhaps, advis-
able to suspend altogether the inquiry, until the other
parties were present.
Mr. LESLIE said it was Mr. Allason who, in the first
instance, wanted him to go on.
Mr. ALLAsort—Because the lion. Commissioner
ought to be prepared with his charge, or at once give
it up.
Mr. LESLIE did not shrink from the charge ; so far
from it, he should go to another tribunal where it would
be gone into. He had to complain of observations made
by Hon. Members round the table. One Commissioner
had affirmed—it was perhaps in undue time—that no
charge he (Mr. Leslie) had ever made in that Court
had been substantiated. He denied that assertion in Coto.
Mr. BAYLIS would ask Mr. Bennett if any complaint
had been made at any time by a Commissioner with re-
gard to his contract ?
Mr. BENNETT—There might have been a few bad
bricks delivered upon the ground, and removed in con-
sequence—but beyond that nothing.
Mr. LESLIE resumed. He would call on Mr.
Hertslett to produce the minutes of July, 1844. (The
clerk read the minutes of the Court, determining upon
advertising for contractors ; with the advertisement in-
serted in the newspapers in :consequence.) The first
point of proof was, that the contract was given to the
alleged lowest competitor, and on that ground only was
he accepted. They would observe that Mr. Bennett's
tender was 1,6641. 11s. lid., while that of Mr. Bird's
was 1,7321. lls. 911; but let them examine closely the
items forming that tender. Let them look at the
digging. The tender of Mr. Bennett's was 25., Mr.
Bird's was is. 9d.; and so on with the other items of the
contract. But h would ask Mr. Doull a question.
Were not the figures, for instance the 350,000 bricks
supposed to be required were not these figures
arranged between Mr. Dowley, the chairman, and him-
self, at a conference out of Court? He waited an answer.
Mr. DouLL—They were done by the officers of the
Court certainly.
Mr. LESLIE—WeII, an indirect answer was better
than no answer. Let him direct their attention to the
eastern district, where the amount of stock-bricks was
put down at 150,000. Bennett's tender was at 30s. per
1,000 ; he was slupplying them at the same time at 425.
is
—(Hear, hear.) Bird's was 395., and, therefore, h
amount for them was 2921. 108., while his competitor's
was only 2251. For the western division there were
200,000 bricks put down, and here again the difference
between 30s. and 395. told well in Bennett's favour. But
let them not forget the simple fact that the contractor was
not called on to supply those bricks. On that item alone
Bennett obtained the advantage, although on almost all the
other items Bird's tender was the lowest. He would tell
them that the whole account of bricks supplied by Bennett
since the Ist of October, 1841, did not amount to 73,000.
But let him reflect himself a little, and take the items se-
parately. For digging in the eastern division Bennett con-
tracted for 950 yards at 2s. —951. Bird's was only 831., yet he
lost the contract. In the western division there were
6,500 cubic yards of digging, which, at Bennett's rate,
would be 6501. ; but at Bird's, 568/. 15s. ; yet Bird lost
the contract. Now the result of all this was, that an
enormous loss had been sustained by the public, and was
he not justified then in characterising the thing as a gross
fraud, and exposing it as he tried to do? Why the tender
bore a suspicious look on the face of it—to contract for
bricks at 303. when supplying them at the same time
for 42s ; but that gave him his contract.
Mr. MARRYAT—Don't be so sensitive.
Mr. LESLIE—I think that every man who has taken
his oath as a Commissioner in this Court, ought to feel
sensitively, when public property is voted away so care-
lessly, so negligently, as it has been done in this case.
The other items showed that Bennett received more than
Bird had tendered for, in varying amounts from 1i to
100 per cent. (The Hon. Commissioner here entered
into a minute investigation of the items of the respective
tenders of Bennett and Bird, to prove his allegations.) Now,
he had set out by saying that a gross fraud had been com-
mitted on the public. He did not say by whom ; but it
evidently appeared from the figures he had presented to
the Court that the tender of Mr. Bennett had been, by
the instrumentality of the fraud, made to appear
the lowest, when it was not really so. He had
obtained his contract principally on the two items
of bricks, and he had already shown what
proportion they bore to the rest of the material and
work in the contiact. He had shown to demonstration,
throughout the whole of those items, the enormous
wrong that had been committed on the public, and he
asked the Court if he did more than his duty as a sworn
Commissioner, in telling them not to sign the cheque
that day ? He had been often taken to task in that Court
for doing what he conceived tc be his duty. He did not
mean to confine himself to that Court. He would
go before the Commisson at Gwydyr House,
and ask them to make a searching inquiry
into this matter. He wished a former Court to let the
contracts go out for the works in Wellington-street, to
allow the excavations and the constructions to be sepa-
rately tendered for, and they had refused to do so; but he
hoped they might, in time, get into a proper mode of
saving the public fund as much as possible. That was

his case.
The CHAIRMAN thought they should hear the Sur-
veyors of the Court in explanation, because, perhaps,
the facts so strongly advanced by Mr. Leslie could be
very easily explained by them. He thought they should,
therefore, call on Mr. Dowley to do so.
Mr. HAwEEs thought that the officers should have
time given them to prepare an answer. In fact, he
thought the present business quite out of order.' He
would therefore move that the matter be adjourned till
Tuesday next.
Mr. KENDALL seconded the motion.
Mr. LESLIE was opposed to the adjournment. They
had both their officers there. His statement was a mat-
ter of figures, given from' the books of the Court in a
plain and straightforward manner ; and he did not see
why they should not reply at once in the same spirit.
He had given notice—in fact, he had written to the
clerk requesting these extracts, and he would read
the correspondence. (The Hon. Gentleman did so.) He
thought that granting this adjournment would be the
most effectual means of throwing the inquiry overboard.
Mr. HAwKES—OII no I
The CHAIRMAN put the motion for adjournment, when
10 supported it, and 11 were for continuing the inquiry.
Mr. Dowley -was then requested to explain what he
knew of the mode of supplying the numbers in the form
gi tender,

Mr. DowLEv—There was only one question that re-
quired answering, and he really could not give any ex-
planation about it. Mr. Douall being engaged in the
accounts, probably could give a better explanation than

he could.
Mr. DOUALL had heard the charge which had been
made of fraud and mancnnvre, and he wanted expres-
sions to convey the astonishment he felt at the extent fo
the charge. For himself, he spurned all idea of being
connected with fraud in any shape. But he regretted
that his memory would not serve to give satisfaction to
all parties. Had time been given, he might have been
more enabled to have furnished all the information re-
quired by the lionourable Commissioner. The
last contract had been entered into in 1841, a period
of three years ago, and to that period he was called to
speak from recollection. The preceding contract was in
1836, and of that one he himself knew nothing. The
items adduced by Mr. Leslie were but a small propor-
tion indeed of the amount of labour that would be re-
quired in furnishing a complete and satisfactory return of
the whole question. He believed the numbers in the form
had been copied from those in the previous contracts,
and he was the more confirmed in this opinion by the
exact similitude of the figures. He would at once ac-
knowledge that there seemed a mistake in the number
of the brilks required—(" Oh, oh," from some llon.
Commissioner)—but as to fraud there could be enter-
tained for one moment not the least idea of it. The same
forms were sent to all the competitors, and no communi-
cation whatever had passed between the officers of the
Court and the contractors. He would be happy to answer
any question put by the Court, or to give any other in-
formation which might be required of him.
After several questions of lesser importance had been
asked by various Commissioners,
Mr. LESLIE said that having waited till all the Hon.
Members had done, he would, in turn, ask a few questions
of Mr. Donal]; and first he would ask if the contract had
not been given to the competitor who was supposed to
furnish the lowest tender?—Yes.

Mr. LESLIE—Then as to the quantity of bricks. How
many were inserted in the form, and how many fur-
nished in the three years by the contractor ?-350,000
were inserted, but I cannot say how many furnished.
Mr. LESLIE—Iie says it for you-73,000. Now, as to
York paving 21 inch thick, how-was that tendered for?
Mr. Bennett's was 7d., Mr. Bird's 64d. Which got it ?
—The 7d.
Mr. LESLIE—Oh ! the highest got it. Now, as to the
three-inch, what were the tenders there ?—Bennett 10d.,
Bird Bd.
Mr. LESLIE—Who got it ? Bennett.—(Laughter.)
Mr. LESLIE—The tenpenny man got it then. Then
-as to the 4-inch landing, how do we find ourselves there?
—Bennett 18d., Bird is. • •
Mr. LESLIE—Who got that ? Bennett.—(Laughter.)
Mr. LESLIE—Now go to 5-inch landing. What of
that ?—Bennett, is. 9d., Bird, Is. id.
Mr. LESLIE—Who had that ?—Mr. Bennett.—(Con-
tinned laughter.)
Mr. LESLIE—What ! the highest man still ! And
now to another item. Bedding, landing, and oak plank-
ing, per foot ,• how were the tenders for those ?—Ben-
nett, id., Bird, id.
Mr. LESLIE—And who got it ?—Bennett.
Mr. LESLIE—NaiIs and other items showed a similar
result. The really lowest competitor lost, and Bennett
was the chosen contractor. And his bill under the
contract so obtained amounted since Michaelmas
1841, to 41,649/. 17s. Nothing could be more unfair,
and he thought he might end as he had begun,
by stating that a fraud had been committed, and that he
had proved it.
After a very long and desultory conversation, in
which Mr. Willoughby, Mr. Hawkes, and others took
part,
A resolution was moved by Mr. B. C. SALE, and se-
conded by Mr. ALLASON, that "it appearing that, aster
a full examination of the surveyor that the charge of
fraud brought by Mr. Leslie respecting Mr. Bennett's
contract has not been proved, the sum of 1,0001. be paid
forthwith to Messrs. I. and W. Bennett, contractors, on
account of bills up to Midsummer, 1844."
The remaining business was remitted till next meeting
day, and the Court then adjourned.

COURT CIRCULAR.
WINDSOR, FRIDAY.—The Queen and Prince Albert
walked this morning in the pleasure-gTounds of
the Castle. Her Majesty and his Royal Highness also
took a drive in a pony phaeton.
Their Royal Highnesses the Prince of Wales and the
Princess Royal were taken airings in the morning, in
the slopes and gardens of the Castle.
His Royal Highness Prince Albert rode out on horse-
baek
attended by Major-General Wemyss, Equerry in
Waiting.
Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent visited her
Majesty at the Castle.
In the afternoon the Queen and Prince Albert took
an :tiring in a pony_ phaeton and pair, the Prince
driving. The Equerries, the Hon. Colonel Grey and
Major-General Wemyss, attended her Majesty and his
Royal Highness on horseback. The Countess of Dun-
more, Lady in Waiting, and the Hon. Misses Stanley
and Hamilton, Maids of Honour in Waiting, followed in
an open pony carriage and four.
The Royal party returned to the Castle at six o'clock.
Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent took a drive
from her residence, Frogmore Lodge, this afternoon, in
an open carriage.
The Royal Family were taken airings in the after-
noon.
The royal dinner party at the Castle this evening in-
cluded her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent, the
Lady Charlotte Dundas, and the Countess Wratislaw.

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge had a small
dinner party yesterday, at Cambridge House. The com-
pany included Prince Edward of Saxe Weimar, the
Prussian Minister, the Netherlands Minister, Baron
Brenner, Dr. Pertz, Mr. Fane, and Colonel Keate.
The Royal Duke and Duchess afterwards honoured
Lady Brougham with their company at her Ladyship's
evening assembly in Grafton-street.
Lord Eliot and the Attorney-General for Ireland had
interviews with Lord Wharncliffe yesterday, at the
Council- office.
The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council sat yes-
terday morning, at ten o'clock, at the Council-office.
The Lords present were the Lord President, Sir
Edward Hyde East, Sir Edward Ryan, Vice-Chancellor
Knight Bruce, Dr. Lushington, and Mr. Pemberton
Leigh. The case of " Shumsoonissa Khanum v. Raj
Jan Khanum," was concluded. Their Lordships deli-
vered judgment—that the sentence of the Court below
be confirmed, with costs.

IMPORTANT COURT-MARTIAL.
t SECOND DAY.
DEVONPORT.—The Court re-assembled at ten o'clock on
Thursday morning to hear the defence of Lieut. E. E. Gray,
late commander of her Majesty's brigantine Bonetta. At
the request of Lieut. Gray, Mr. Elworthy read the defence,
as follows :—The first charge, and that in which, individually,
I am the most interested (as I believe I may venture to say
no evidence has or can be adduced to connect me with the
second and third charges), is for disobedience of orders in
causing the French vessel to be detained and searched, she
having at the time displayed her proper colours, &c. Gen-
tlemen, I beg to state that it never was my intention to
ground my defence on my not having received the orders,
the breach of which is charged on me. I admit that I had
them, and I shall, I trust, show this Court that I intended to
be guided by them. As I understand the question for the
deliberation of this Court upon this first charge, it is whether
or not there was any sufficient cause for me to suspect that
the vessel which I saw with the French colours was not bond
fide a French vessel. Ido not understand that the hoisting a
French flag was of itself to preclude me from satisfying my-
self of the nationality of the vessel ; because if the mere act
of hoisting such colours would entitle the vessel so hoisting
them to the benefits of the-convention between France and
England, the effect would be to give protection to the slave
trade, inasmuch, as in my case, there are ships looking out
for slavers which are not supplied with French warrants.
I therefore submit, that if I establish to the satisfaction
of this Honourable Court reasonable cause of suspicion I
shall be entitled to an acquittal of this charge for dis-
obedience of orders ii having boarded the Luiz d'Albu-
querque, and examined her papers. Beyond this, gentle-
men, I do not attempt to justify the search which was made.
I never intended it should be made, and I am compelled to
say I never intended she should be searched ; neither did I,
as far as I have any knowledge of what I did, give an order
for the vessel to be searched. It will be for the Court, when
the evidence is produced, to judge whether the" officer who
searched acted under a misapprehension of my order or not.
As to the grounds for suspecting this vessel, I would first
state that the exterior appearance answered entirely to the
description of one I was in search of, stated to be a Brazilian
from Bahia. Her build and rigging were precisely that of
the Brazilian slavers. She was in the exact position I should
have expected to meet the vessel I was in search of. We
chased her for twenty-four hours before we came up to her.
During that time she steered a course to avoid me, and, up
to the moment of her hoisting the colours, I and all on board
took her for a Brazilian slaver. Upon her hoisting French
colours I remarked, " If she is French we cannot keep her."
Gentlemen, what led me to this remark ? It was my know-
ledge of the orders, and that I had not a French warrant.
But should I have performed my duty to my country, if,
with these suspicions on my mind, I had instantly given up
the chase ? My feeling is, that I should not, and I most' re-
spectfully beg to put this part of the case prominently to
every individual member of this Hon. Court. If it was my
duty to have instantly left the chase and resumed my station,
without taking steps to identify her nationality, then I am
guilty of a breach of my orders, but guilty under a gross mis-
conception of those orders, and of the service I was engaged
in. But if you, gentlemen, should be of opinion that
under these suspicions, I ought not to have been satisfied, by
the mere exhibition of the flag, but, that I had a right to
board the vessel to look at her papers and ascertain the truth,
if I may so term it, of the colours, then I hope you will find,
at the end of this case, that, as in the commencement I acted
as became an officer, so I continued to act to the end of the
matter ; and, it is well known that the hoisting of false co-
lours is a very common deception. The French flag is not
very frequently desecrated by affording its sanction to slavers,
and therefore I the more readily doubted its being the true
flag of the vessel. With this impression I ordered, in the
usual way, the second in command to go on board the French
vessel, and examine her papers strictly. The fact of the men
going armed, and of their being picked men, are, I humbly
submit, quite unimportant, because, for whatever purpose
they were sent, they would not go to a suspected slave ves-
sel unarmed ; besides, I intended they should go on this occa-
sion to a vessel which I suspected would prove a prize. These
were the facts which preceded my sending the boat—these
the grounds of my suspicions—and these, I think, are all the
circumstances which are involved in the first question, my
sending the boat to examine the papers. I look at the
hands of this Hon. Court for that consideration which is
always accorded to an officer in the zealous execution of
his duty ; and, although I do not ask for myself anything
but what the facts of the case fairly justify,
.yet I do ven-
ture to beseech this Honourable Court to give to all the
circumstances thus far alluded to the construction, which
they would fairly bear if they were entirely separated
from, and wholly unconnected with, any other part of the
case. Now, gentlemen, it is for me to satisfy you as well as
I am able, that it never was my intention to search this
vessel, and, therefore, that I did not give the order. I beg
to refer to that part of the evidence for the prosecution, which
proves that I sent an order to stop the search. The witness
said he received an order by a quartermaster to stop the
search ; he was asked if that was done after my report from
him that he was searching, and his answer being in the
affirmative, the conclusion would be that I had altered my
mind, or that I thought they had searched enough. But,
gentlemen, the fact was, that having requested the clerk
(Mr. Parminter) to assist in examining the papers, and not
seeing our men, being on deck, I thought they were doing
that which I had not ordered, and I sent the quarter-master
with an order that they were not to search. From the time
my attention was drawn to the transaction, by their Lord-
ships' first letter, to this present moment, I have asserted,
both verbally and in my official correspondence, that Lieut.
Bullock acted under a misconception of my order. I now
declare, upon my honour, that I never (lid intend, nor, ac-
cording to my knowledge, did I, in fact, order Lieut. Bullock
to search the vessel. That officer does not positively state,
that I gave such an order. He says that he acted
under the impression he had received such an order. As
further proof of the improbability of my giving such an
order, I would remark, that a search would not have proved
of the least advantage, even if we had found slaves on board,
because I had not the warrant ; but it was essential to be
sure that she was truly French. I submit, that in the ab-
sence of positive proof, and seeing that in all the other points
of this case my conduct was that of an officer carefully exe-
cuting a duty of great delicacy, this Court will give to my
solemn assertion that weight which, in a doubtful case, it
would reasonably be entitled to. I have been much employed
in service of this nature, and have ever been particularly
careful. Amongst my testimonials there will be found special
reference to my conduct on similar occasions. I will now
proceed to what subsequently occurred. On my arriving on
board, I saw three or four Portuguese. The master (Bellet)
stated that he had no chronometer ; that he was on a voyage
from Bahia to IVydah, and produced his log, which consisted
of loose sheets of paper recently written, the ink being wet.
I had not the least doubt of the vessel being a slaver. I saw
the recently prepared papers, yet I knew that if truly French,
I could not detain her, and, therefore, most reiuctantly
quitted the ship, first entering on the log a minute of my
visit, and the cause of my not detaining the vessel. Although
I apprehend that no part of the evidence already given sup-
ports the second and third charges, I shall feel it my bounden
duty, with leave of this Hon. Court, to place the truth indis-
putably upon the minutes by producing all the officers I can
find who were on board the French vessel, as well as to
show what were my orders on board as to the return
of the boat, and I trust there will not exist any ground for
imputation of neglect or want of discipline.
A statement of Lieutenant Gray's services was here handed
into Court, together with a number of testimonials from
various distinguished officers under whom he had served,
who spoke of him in the highest terms as an officer and a
gentleman.
Captain Foote, of her Majesty's ship Madagascar, was the
first witness called, and in answer to questions by the pri-
soner, said—
As commanding officer on the African station, if I saw a
vessel under the French flag, which I suspected to be a
slaver, I should feel it my duty to board her; to ask the cap-
tain in the most polite and courteous manner to let me see
her papers, and, having ascertained she was a bond fide
French vessel, immediately to quit her, if the weather would
permit me to do so 1 but, if I had any reasonable grounds
of suspicion from incorrectness or falsity of the papers, then I
would take upon myself the responsibility of detaining that
vessel as a slaver, and search accordingly.
By the CoußT—Does Captain Foote think the papers were
false ?
Captain Foote—l don't know anything about the circum-
stances. I was perfectly satisfied with Lieutenant Gray's
official letter to Commander Hope transmitted to me in the
usual course of service, and reporting his having boarded
the Luiz d'Albuquerque on the 4th of July, 1842, because
Lieutenant Gray stated in that letter, that although the
Luiz d'Albuquerque was fully equipped for the slave trade,
yet he could not detain her, having no warrant so to do ;
but there was nothing in that letter relating to the searching.
All officers employed on the west coast of Africa on boarding
a French or American vessel report direct to the Admiralty,
per order, without waiting to do so through the medium of
the commanding officer.
The following question was then put to the witness by the
prisoner—Would you have been satisfied with my conduct if
I had not examined the papers of the Luiz d'Albuquerque
under the circumstances? Captain Foote—lf I had received
information that Lieutenant Gray had seen a vessel which
hoisted French colours, and had not ascertained her nationa

should have been very highlydisplfased, because

consider that the mere display of -a French flag may be done
by the most arrant Brazilian and Portuguese slaver, to avoid
capture; and it is very frequently done on the west coast of
Africa, both with the French and American flags.
What is your opinion of the state of discipline of the
Bonetta whilst under your command? Captain Foote—l
never saw the Bonetta but once, about March, 1843. I then,
in the usual course of service, inspected her, and I was per-
fectly satisfied with her state of discipline.
Mr. W. M'Dermott, assistant-surgeon, posed to having
gone on board the Luiz d'Albuquerque w the other offi-
cers; the object of the Bonetta going to New Sestos
was to look after a vessel of which they had received
information, supposed to be a slaver. They saw the
Luiz d'Albuquerque the day before she was boarded,
and chased her until they came up with her. He thought,
after he was on board of her, that she was a suspicious vessel,
from seeing two or three persons on board dressed in Spanish
or Portuguese costume, and from the captain not coining to
receive the officers, and when he made his appearance being
much agitated. There were several suspicious articles on
board—farina and beef, which is generally used for feeding
slaves, a slave deck, which was pointed out to him by Mr.
Elliott, and some slave irons.
Mr. W. Parminter, clerk on board' her Majesty's ship Col-
lingwood, and late clerk in charge of her Majesty's ship Bo-
netta, said, that about two a.m. on the 4th July the haze
cleared off, and they saw apparently the same vessel. Chased,
and fired a gun at a quarter-past three. She did not hoist
her colours until several minutes after the gun was fired,nor
did she bear up till a few minutes, after that. She got to
leeward of the Bonetta about four o'clock, and he went on
board in the cutter with Mr. Bullock, Mr. Elliott, and Dr.
M‘Dermott, with eight men. The passengers were not all
noted down in the papers, and his log was wiitten on sheets
of paper apparently done that morning, from the colour of
the ink being the same throughout.
Samuel Dumpily, Greenwich pensioner, was in the Bo-
netta on the day alluded to, and that he was doing duty as
master-at-arms, and that he searched the men one by one as
they came up the ship's side from the boats, on their return
from boarding the French vessel, and that he went down
afterwards and searched the boats, and found nothing what-
ever except a case of wine and a box of cigars, belonging to
one of the officers.
Lieutenant George L. Norcock, of her Majesty's ship St.
Vincent, had served several years on the coast of Africa, and
had repeatedly during that period of service boarded vessels
to ascertain their nationality.
By the prisoner—lf a vessel hoisted French colours, and
you suspected her of being a Brazilian slaver, what would
have been your duty if commanding a cruiser?
Lieutenant Norcock—Having commanded her Majesty's
brig Forester on that coast 18 months, I always considered
it my duty, on observing a vessel, to chase her, bring her
to, and board her, and ascertain her nationality. Finding
I was duly authorised to search, I did so. If I found she had
not hoisted false colours. I did not search her. During three
years I served on the coast of Africa, I
lours found that vessels
ls
were in the habit of hoisting any co they pleased
cruiser, therefore, could never ascertain what nation they
belonged to, or what trade they were employed in, as they
frequently had both false papers as well as false colours, and
the true ones have been frequently found concealed in the
most extraordinary places.
The Court was then cleared for a tort time, and upon its
being re-opened;

The PREsmENT declared that the Court was of opinion
that the charge had been proved ; that the second charge
was not proved; and that the third charge was partly
proved; and sentenced Lieutenant Gray to be severely re-
primanded, and cautioned him to be more particular in giving
orders for the future. _ _

The finding of the Court appeared to astonish all those
who had listened to the evidence.

THE REGATTA AT HAVRE DE

GRACE.

The superiority of the English watennen has been again
proved in the regatta at Havre. Encouraged by the success
which has hitherto attended them in their competition with
our continental neighbours, two six-oared cutter crews,
composed of London watermen, made their appearance at
Havre to contend for some valuable prizes, " open to all the
world," but their reception was anything but consistent with
the spirit of fair play. The boats they had taken over were
objected to by the Frenchmen, and although they had new
ones themselves the English watermen were compelled to
row in two old ones of their selection or decline the contest.
The latter was not at all congenial with their feelings, so
they set to work scraping, dressing, repairing, and altering,
the boats to which they were perfectly unaccustomed, to
render them as fast as they could for the event, in which
they were determined to take an activepart notwithstanding
the difficulties that had been thrown in their way. The trial
heat was rowed on Sunday, and eleven boats were afloat in
it, The London crews consisted of IL Coombes, J. Phelps,
11. Newell, 'l'. Coombes, R. Doubledee, 11. Green, and D.
Coombes, coxswain, in one boat; and W. Pocock, James
Dodd, W. Shelton, F. Lett, W. Robins, C. Campbell, and
J. Parish, coxswain, in the other. It was a runaway race,
and won by Coombes' party being first, and Pocock's second.
On Monday the French crews did not row, because it rained,
and Lett's place was taken by Parish, T. Dewes steering.
The grand heat was rowed with six boats on Tuesday, when
the foreigners hemmed in the English boats directly after
the start, and the French pilot-boat carried off the 1,500
francs, Pocock's party being second, and Coombes' third;
thus receiving 300 francs as second, and 200 francs as third.
In the whale-boat race for 1,000 francs, the Londoners hav-
ing borrowed an old boat and " operated" upon her as before,
mixed their crews, and the following stepped into her to give
their opponents some work :—Charles Campbell, Phelps,
Newel, Dodd, and Pocock, D. Coombes steering. Five boats
started, but the Londoners went away from them, and won
in gallant style.
Our men complain very severely of the treatment they
altogether received as wagermen.

GRAVESEND.
The following is a return of the number of Passengers landed
and embarked at the Terrace and Town Piers, Gravesend,
in the month of July, 1844 :

Terrace Pier. Town Pier
118,334 _ _ _

Star Company, with 5 boats ...
Diamond Company, with 6 boats ....
Blackwall Company, with 3 boats....
Sons of Thames Comp., with 2 boats
Eagle Company, with 2 boats
Commercial Company, with 2 boats 8,132

98,169

114,352

37,126
15,278
316

224,635 167,072

Terrace Pier, with 9 boats 224,635
Town Pier, with 11 boats .... 167,072

Balance in favour of the Terrace Pier during the
month of July

57,563

Gross Number of Passengers
Of which,
To awl from Blackwall 253,474
To and from Hungerford Market ... 1
• Waterloo Bridge
Old Swan
Loudon Bridge
and other places through the Pool

391,707

COWES, ISLE OF WIGHT.
FROM OUR OWN CORRESPONDENT.)
COWES, AUGUST 1.
ROYAL YACHT SQUADRON INTELLIGENCE.
ARRIVALS.
July 26th—Resolution schooner, Duke of Rutland, from
Devonport and other ports ; Petrel cutter, Earl of Ilchester,
Southampton ; Fairy schooner, William Peareth, Esq.,
Sandgate ; Stormfinch yawl, Colonel Bowers, Southampton;
Amazon cutter, Sir John Walsh, Bart., Yarmouth.
27th—Galatea schooner, C. R. M. Talbot, Esq., M.P.,
Southampton ; Claude yawl, Thomas Gibson, Esq., M.P.,
London.
28th—Kestrel ketch, Commodore Earl of Yarborough,
Guernsey.
30th—Adelaide cutter, Sir Robert Gore Booth, Bart.,
Kingstown, Ireland ; Ariel schooner, Almon Hill, Esq., Cher-
bourg; Georgian schooner, William Lyon, Esq., westward.
SAILINGS.
July 28th—Witch cutter, Henry Oglander, Esq., for Brest.
29th—Kestrel ketch, Commodore Earl of Yarborough, on
a cruise to the westward; Corsair cutter, John Congreve,
Esq., ditto ; Naiad cutter, John Quantock, Esq., ditto ; Flirt
schooner, Sir B. R. Graham, Bart., ditto; Noran cutter, Sir
Henry old Hoghton, Bart., for Dover.
31st—Intrepid cutter, Earl of Tyrconnel, for Portsmouth,
left for the season.
YACHTS AT AND ABOUT THE STATION.
Schooners—Ariel, Georgian, Brilliant, Camilla, Galatea,
Zephyretta. Cutters—Pearl, Sparrowhawk, Alarm, Hebe,
Emerald, Petrel, Reindeer, Whim, Nymph, Amazon, Osprey,
Ariadne, Ganymede, Maid of the Mist, Owen Glendwr,
Spider, Medina. Yawls—Claude, Breeze, Stormfinch, Eagle.
IN HARBOUR.
Hawk schooner, Aurora cutter, Therese cutter, Will-o% the-
Wisp cutter, Fairy schooner.
FASHIONABLE ARRIVALS THIS WEEK.
Lord Southampton, to South Parade ; Marquis and Mar-
chioness of Blandford, to ditto; Mrs. Armstrong, to ditto;
Captain George St. John Mildmay, to ditto ; Mr. George
Norbury, to did(); Marchioness Wellesley, to Rosemount;
Lord Ernest Bruce, to Castle Terrace; Lady James Graham,
to Belmore House ; Lord and Lady Clonbrock, to No. 2 in the
West Cliff.
The harvest has commenced generally through the Isle of
Wight : the farmers are cutting and carrying.

STEAM NAVY of GREAT BRITAIN.
In September, 1841, there were 68 steam-vessels of all
classes in commission. On July 1, 1844, there were 89. In
September, 1841, there were 15 steam-vessels in ordinary ;
in July last, there were 12. In 1841, we had 8 on the stocks;
now, we have building 26. The amount of horse-power in
1841 and 1844 is as follows:

Sept. 1841.
In commission ...... 9,329
In ordinary
Building

The steam-vessels building al
Horse-power.
1
Terrible ... 800
Avenger 650
Dragon
Vulcan (iron)
Centaur
Sphynx

July 1844.
13,941
3,167
9,526