The Sun.
London, England, 1844-12-24 00:00:00

TFIE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY MORNING, DECEMBER 24, 1844

DEPARTURF. OF MR. O'CONNZLI..—At three o'clock
yesterday afternoon Mr. O'Connell left his rosidenc,. in
Merrion-square for Darrynane Abbey, in order to pass
the Christmas with the members of his family there as-
sembled. Mr. O'Connell intends to leave the Abbey on
the 16th of January, on his return to Dublin.
Mr. Smith O'Brien, M.P., has arrived in Dublin, from
Dromoland, county Clare, the seat of his brother, Sir
Lucius O'Brien, Bart. The Hon. Gentleman will attend
the meeting of the Repeal Association on Monday.

IRISH ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH.
The Evening Pest says—" We have seen a letter from
Rome, written by a distinguished ecclesiastic, dated Dec.
2, from which we take the following passage :
" Reports are spread here to the effect that the Bri-
tish Government are seeking for the right of nominating
Bishops in Ireland. Such a move is possible enough.
However, we may place full trust in the Pope, who has
always been attached to Ireland'."

THE CHARITABLE BEQUESTS

BILL.

Deeply, seriously do we mourn over the triumph
which the Government have gained over the Church
of God. For a time they have succeeded in binding
three Prelates of that Church to the chariot wheels of
the State. This is a cause of mournful regret to
every Catholic in the kingdom.
We certainly were of opinion that the three digni-
fied Prelates whose names are now before the world
as the sanctioners of this insidious measure, the fruit
of Protestant and anti-Catholic legislation, would not
have accepted the power of administering that mea-
sure, until it had been weeded of all its most dan-
gerous clauses. It has been said that Dr. Murray, in
reply to a deputation that waited on him from the
Regular Order of the Clergy, admitted that there
were certain modifications required, and which
he himself judged necessary to the right work-
ing of the Act. Our surprise is, that Dr. Murray,
who must be supposed, even without this declara-
tion, to be intimately conversant with the open and
palpable as well as the hidden dangers to the Catholic
Church, should accept office under an Act which no
man, save perhaps an O'Malley, has had the hardi-
hood to approve cf in its present shape. We are poor
judges of what becomes the dignity of a bishop, but
our opinion is, that, laying all other considerations
aside, it would be more politic for one of the most re-
vered dignitaries of the Church of the unbroken
erarchy to have positively and decidedly refused
office from the Government until the Bequests Act—
so intimately affecting the independence of his Church
—had been freed from clauses to which he, as well
as the great body of the clergy and laity, conscien-
tiously objected. Now, Dr. Murray, Dr. Crolly, and
Dr. Denvir have taken office under the Act as it is,
with all its imperfections on its head, relying on the
honesty of Sir Robert Peel, and confiding in the good
faith of an anti-Irish and anti-Catholic Govern-
ment I Did these exalted Prelates refuse offize until
the Act had been purged of its insults and its snares,
the Government would strike in a moment, for "a
catholic Bishop at any price" is the policy of a Ca-
binet whose greatest "difficulty" is Catholic Ireland.
To our mind, this acceptance of office, for the adini-
nistration of a confessedly dangerous and imperfect
law, is more precipitate than becomes the grave deli-
beration of members of the most august body in the
community.
We have repeatedly shown that the regular orders
of the clergy, to whom the Catholic Church in Ireland
is so everlastingly indebted, are struck off, at one
blow, from even the sanction and acknowledgment
of this nefarious law—that they are placed beyond
the pale of its provisions—that the insult sand base in-
dignities of the so-called Catholic Relief Act are sanc-
tioned and perpetrated by one accursed clause, which,
as it were, outlaws the purest, the best, the most
learned men in the Church of God. Against this
injustice, this foul wrong, this undeserved stigma,
the secular clergy and the majority of the hierarchy
have spoken out in the voice of indignation. Why
not? Is not the insult to one order an insult to
another ? Is not a danger to one a danger to another?
When the one branch of the great tree is lopped off
by the spoiler, is there safety for the other ? If the
Church of God yield one step to the force or the
fraud of her hereditary oppressors, is not her power
of further resistance weakened, her prestige broken ?
It is this fear, no less than the gratitude which the
whole Church feels towards an order illustrious for
its services as eminent for its virtues, that now binds
our Church to one bond of fraternity and union, and
raises a mighty voice of indignant remonstrance
throughout the land.
We might, were we so inclined, point out the in-
dignity offered to the Catholic prelates whose vene-
rated names we, as Catholics, regret to see paraded
in the columns of a Government Gazette—the in-
sulting difference between " The Most Rev. John
George, Lord Archbishop of Armagh, and Primate
of all Ireland"—and " The Most Rev. Archbishop,
William Crolly." But it is not about such trifles
that we seek to arrest the attention of our readers ;
it is of the principle of the act we complain—it is for
the iniquitous provisions we have fear—it is for what
we regard as the fatal entrapping of three of our
Prelates in the meshes of a Protestant and hostile
Government, that we mourn.

Oh, the history of our struggles and triumphs is
glorious in its lesson of firmness and fortitude !
When the altars of God were defiled, even in the
name of that Great Being; when the bishop was
hunted down by the bloodhound of an accursed law;
%hen the priest fled to the cave and the mountain,
to offer up the holy sacrifice, of the mass in dark-
ness, or under the arching canopy of Heaven ; when
transportation and death were words familiar to the
ear of the minister of religion—even then there was
less fear for the independence of that Church, whose
first struggles were in the bloody arcna, and whose
foundations were bathed in the life-tide of its martyrs,
than there is now, when, amidst the approval and re-
verence of the world, it is threatened by the vile
contamination of a Protestant State. Riy that
threatened danger be soon averted by the det'rinined
union of the clergy and the laity.—Cork Examiner.

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.
PEON THE EVENING PAPERS OF TRW/ERDAL
GLOBE.—The landlords—ever on the alert to
serve themselves—are devising means to obtain a
large slice of the surplus revenue which the incomes.
tax and the Chinese compensation money have placed
at the disposal of' the Minister. Not satisfied with
even this sacrifice of the general interests at their
shrine, they, by indirect attempts, would willingly
fasten the income-tax in perpetuity unpon the en-
tire nation, if, by so doing, they could obtain the
removal of the malt-tax. The increased consump-
tion of barley would—so the landlords calculate—
enable the farmers to cultivate the growth of that
article at a profit commensurate with high rents.
Thus the landowners' incomes would, they are led to
hope, remain untouched by the tariff and the Cana.
dian Corn Bill of the Government, which threaten to
lower agricultural prices, and consequently to peril
rents. The farmers have not, it is true, responded
with their usual unquestioning alacrity to their land-
lords' call. They evidently begin to suspect that the
reciprocity of interest on which the landowners
expatiate at agricultural dinners, is a mere
one -sided reciprocity : that, whatever changes
take place, the advantages to be derived
from them are engrossed by the landlords, who
avail themselves of them as a pretext for raising
rents; while the losses they occasion are left to be
borne by the farmer, without compensation and with-
out consolation--except, indeed, effusions of wordy
condolence, and exhortations to hope. But whether
the farmers will second, the movement against the
malt-tax, or regard it as a landlords' question,
there is little reason to doubt that the landed
interests will employ all their influence with the
Government, and use all their power in the
Legislature, to obtain the object on which they have
set their hearts. It becomes necessary, therefore,
to guard the public generally against this contem-
plated movement of the landed interests. It should
be met by a counter demonstration from the great
body of the community. The whole scope and ten-
dency of legislation in former Parliaments bears
evidence of the sleepless vigilance with which the
landlords have employed their power in Parliament
for their own exclusive advantage. Under one pre-
text or another, successive Parliaments have yielded
themselves to this powerful interest ; and have so
shaped their enactments as, on the one hand, to
exempt the landed interests from bearing their fair
share of taxation ; and on the other, to fetter the free
operations of trade and commerce by restrictive
duties, in order that the produce of the soil might
be protected against that of foreign growth. Every
attempt to diminish taxation by reducing duties
on the importation of agricultural produce from
foreign States, and even from our own Colonies,
has been invariably resisted by the landowners.
It; on the other hand, a new tax was to be levied,
the force of the landed interest has been in-
voked to obtain either an entire exemption, or a
partial relief, from its operation. The foundation of
this claim set up by the landed interest to special fa-
vour in the distribution of taxation, is uniform; it is,
nevertheless, fallacious. Its success affords a striking
illustration of what falsehood, if persevered in, will
effect both on those who employ, and those who habi-
tually listen to it. " The peculiar burdens borne
by land," is the statement put forth, and—in the
face of facts which demonstrate its utter ground-
lessness—admitted to a considerable extent by those
who, if they do not, ought to know better. This
argument—false and selfish as it is—will be again
used, as it has often been used within the walls of
Parliament. In the appeal which will be made for
the removal of the malt duty it will be put forth by
the advocates of the landed interests as the basis of
the claim. When pressed for proof of the assertion,
that land is disproportionately burdened —that it
has taxes exclusively or peculiarly its own —the
answer is ready. " The land-tax is," say they,
" a burden peculiar to land, as its very name imports."
What, then, are the facts of the case ? If it can he
shown that this, the strong-hold of the landed inte-
rests in their defence of claims to exemption on the one
hand, and to protection on the other, is untenable,
their case, as against the community, is overthrown.
Let us then look on the land-tax question, with a
view to ascertain whether it be capable of serving the
landlords in the way in which they have employed it.
Sir John Sinclair, in his work on the Revenue, esti-
mates that when the land-tax was first imposed in the
reign of William the Third, and during the reign of
that monarch, the amount contributed to the Exche-
quer was 34 per cent. upon the entire revenue—being
more than one-third of the whole taxation of the
country. Mr M'lntyre, in his " Influence of Aristo-
cracies on the Destinies of Nations," gives the same
estimate. Speaking of the state of England, in the
reign of William of Orange, he says—" More than a
fourth of the public revenue was derived from the
land-tax. At that time the whole of the revenue was
about 4,600,0001., of which the tax on land was about
1,300,0001." No fact is better capable of demonstra-
tion than that, since the close of the 17th century, land
has increased, in the ratio of productiveness, to a greater
extent than any other description of property. The
incomes of the landlords have been doubled, trebled,
quadrupled within the last half century. The
sites of large towns, and the land in their neighbour-
hoods, have, in several instances, increased them
twenty-fold, thirty-fold, sixty-fold. Reasoning by
analogy, land-tax should have borne an increase pro-
portioned to the increased revenue requ'red for the ser-
vices of' the Government. How stands the fact ? In the
year 1842, the total amount ofrevenue was 52,000,00 W.,
to which the land-tax contributed 1,200,0001. The
land-tax redeemed since 1798 ought to be added to
this, seeing the annual payment was sold for a value
equal to it. If this be done, the land-tax ought to be
taken at about 2,000,0001. What, then, becomes of
the landlords' stock argument, that the land-tax is a
burden so heavy that it ought to procure for land
an exemption from the fair proportion of the
public taxation, and protection for the produce
of the soil at the expense of the consumers ? A third
at the very utmost, has been added to the land-tax ;
while the common taxes have been increased nearly
twelve times in amount within the same period ; and
this, notwithstanding the vast increase in the produc-
tiv-ness of land would have justified a proportionate
augmentation of the tax which is referred to as its
peculiar burden, in consideration of which it has a
claim to exemption on the one hand, and to protection
on the other!
STANDARD.—We publish to-day another letter
from the Bishop of Exeter, the first composition of the
Right Rev. Lord that we have ever printed with re-
gret. The letter, which is addressed to the Dean of
Exeter, might, we think, as a whole, have been spared,
without any injury to the Bishop, or to the peace of
the Church. Even supposing Dr. Bull and Chan-
cellor Martin to have acted wrong in calling on the
public to arbitrate in the division between them and
their diocesan, surely it was not necessary for the
Bishop to imitate the conduct which he condemns.
When a
.party challenges an umpire as incotn-
petent to judge between him and his adversaries, a
simple protest is his proper course ; and there is a
manifest inconsistency in arguing before the offered
arbitrator, to convince him that he is incapable of judg-
ing of an argument, if not unworthy to be addressed.
Besides, the general objection to such a letter as we
publish, there are particular objections which we
cannot overlook, but which we cannot notice without
great pain. In the first place, in this new letter—as
through the whole of the unhappy controversy in his
diocese—the Bishop, certainly from no want of can-
dour—for a more candid or honourable man does
not lire—but, probably, because attending more
than is fitting to details, leaves altogether on one
side the real cause of discontent—the innovation in
doctrine, with which the attempted innovations in
practice are connected, and of which they are the
symbol. We believe that there is not a single in•
stance, except, perhaps, his Lordship himself, in
which a clergyman, not more or less fa-
vourable to the Tractarian heresy, has taken
an active part in promoting the innovations. In
the second place, the Bishop, in his letter to the Dean
of Exeter, seems to brand as schismatics all of the
clefgy and laity, that is nineteen-twentieths of
the whole body of the Church, who offer a respectful,
but firm resistance, to the changes introduced by the
Tractarians. Now this, we humbly- submit, is most
unjust. Besides the manifest impropriety in lan-
guage of calling the compact and immensely preponde-
rating majority of any body separatists from that
body, more than mere separation is necessary to
constitute schism. Schism must be active and aggres-
sive, if there be any meaning in language ; here it is
applied to what is passive and inert. This the Apos-
tle very clearly points out in his warning to the
Roman converts, to mark and condemn the makers
of schism. "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark
them which cause divisions and offences contrary to
the doctrine which you have learned, and avoid them."
' Now here, we have described as clearly as words
can describe schismatics—they who cause divi-
sions. We have here no less clearly described heretics
—they who cause offences contrary to the doctrine
which you have learned. And if a man were required
to describe the leaders of the Tractarian move-
ment, he could not describe them with more
truth and precision. No less, too, than the de-
scription of the offenders is the solemn in-
junction " to avoid them ;" but if to avoid such
;laincesthofe
pcuibtylicanmd,orisnhitp,
the
constitutesfied
is St. Paul a teacher of schism. In the third place,
l above
ay es
c h all,
we must, with sorrow, object to the time when, and
the circumstances under which, the Right Rev. Lord
advances the authority of the Church. This, we con-
fess, is what we feared all along from the most un-
happy controversy. The people have long and
earnestly invoked the authority of the Church
MIDLAND CIRCUIT.—Lincoln, Dec. 20.
to relieve them from the pestilent heresy that has ;
(Before Mr. Justice ParrEsost.)
poisoned the minds of too many of the young and . The principal part of the day was columned in trying
The
for the concealment of birth and assaults upon
uninformed ; but the Church has not answered
to the call. The only authority that has as , females.
yet condemned the Tractarian heresy is the Uni- I Of the former Jane Covey, aged twenty-four, Fanny

versity of thaOrd. Highly to the honour of that
ancient seat of learning and of sound religion, it
has done its duty ; but it has not been very zealously
seconded by the Church, if, as has been said, we
hope untruly, the person silenced at Oxford for
heretical preaching was almost immediately after
his merited disgrace invited by a Bishop to his
diocese, and invited to preach there, doubtless, the
very same doctrines which had caused him to be
punished in the University. Be this, however, as it
may, the people have complained, if not loudly or dis-
respectfully, still universally, and earnestly com-
plained of the seeming connivance of the Bishops
at the advances of the Tractarian heresy, because
the law has not been put in force to reduce the
false teachers to silence. The complaint has
been, we believe, so far unjust that the
bishops, whatever their nominal authority, have
really no available power to repress the dissemination
of false doctrines. £his want of power in the bishops
is then their real defence, we think their only
imaginable defence, against the connivance too
generally imputed to them. Is it then wise,
is it courteous, to the Christian people to
make a display of power in pampering
and encouraging the Tractarian schismatics
when the bishops are obliged to throw
themselves for their defence upon their want
of power to repress the Tractarian heresy 'What
will the people—what can the people—think of the
use (and this is a utilitarian age) of a power which is
impotent for the protection of those Protestant Gospel
truths which they cherish, and can be exercised only
when the enemies of these precious and highly prized
truths are to be gratified by its exercise.

Thorpe, aGred twenty-seven, and Rebecca Costingtor, f, were
convicted of the offence of concealing the births of their
bastard children. We do not publi,h the details, tut
the Learned Judge, after pointedly alluding to the serious
offence the prisoners had committed, sentenced Ii Anny
Thorpe to two years' imprisonment and hard labour,
and the two other females each to twelve months' im-
prisonment and hard labour.

Joseph Sharpe, aged twenty-three, was charged with
having, on the 3d of September, at Barrowlsy, com-
mitted a capital assault on a married woman named
Mary Leeson.
The facts were few. It appeared that, on the day in
question, the husband of the prosecutrix being absent
from his home longer than was expected, his wife be-
came apprehensive, and went in search of him. The
prisoner accompanied her, and when only two hundred
yards from the cottage ii which the Leesons lived, threw
her down, and, according to the evidence of Mrs. Lee-
son, completed his purpose. The jury found him guilty
of the common assault only, and the judge sentenced him
to twelve months' imprisonment and hard labour.
The calendar, which contains but two or three cases of
any interest, is likely to begot through with on Saturday.

NORFOLK CIRCUIT. Norwich, Dec. 2

The County Court was opened at an early hour to-
day, to enable his Lordship to pass sentence upon the
several prisoners convicted, either by verdict or confes-
sion, of arson. Accordingly Rutland, Dye, Medlar,
Rump, Parker, the two Quantrells, Baker, the two boys,
Harvey and Lessams, who as well as Parker pleaded
guilty, and Jane Watts, having been placed at the bar,
Mr. Justice WILLIAMS, with great earnestness of
voice and solemnity of manner, proceeded to discharge
that which he could not but feel to be a most unwel-
come duty. The exhibition now before him was most
painful to his mind, coming as it did so close upon
a recent penal example, in which he had borne a
part, in the adjoining county of Suffolk. It had
been hoped that the example and exhibition
then made would have tended to diminish and
check the commission of a crime which, in his (Mr.
Justice Williams's) opinion, ranked next in atrocity to
that of murder, being one which resulted from a settled
determination to do wrong, and was attended, moreover,
by no benefit to any single human creature, while it in-
flicted incalculable injury on those whose property was
destroyed, and, indeed, on all the labouring class too.
In one of the cases now before him, a witness had well
said that " a fire would be a bad job for we labourers,"
and if persons of that rank in society would but think
seriously on the subject, he was sure they would all
come to the same conclusion. His Lordship having then
briefly adverted to the distinguishing features o the
charges against the several prisoners, proceeded to sen-
tence all the men, and Parker (who had pleaded guilty
to two indictments), to transportation for 15 years, but
adjudged to the boys, Harvey and Lessams, in conside-
ra•ion of their
.extreme youth, imprisonment for one
and two months respectively ; and to Jane Watts,
whose case was of so singular a character as to induce
the jury to believe that she must have been mad, the
like punishment for 12 months.
Ills Lordship then adjourned to the Guildhall, where
three prisoners awaited him. Of these cases the follow.
ing alone was worty of notice :
Lucy Thorpe, aged thirty, was indicted for the wilful
murder of her illegitimate child
Mr. Palmer appeared for the prosecution, and the pri-
soner was defended by Mr. W. Cooper.
From the evidence of Mrs. Roll, whose husband keeps
the Dove Inn, in this city, and her daughter, if appeared
that the prisoner came in August last and demanded
lodgings fur herself and a child aged two years. Her
size even then attracted the notice of Mrs Roll, but on
her asserting that she was not enceinte she obtained her
object. Towards the end of a month her landlady's ste.-
picions were again roused by her increased bulk, but she
positively denied the charge, with more solemnity than
truth, for in a few days she gave biro to the being whose
fate was the object of this inquiry. It appeared that on
the night of the 10th of September, the prisoner had for
her bed-fellows her little boy and a (laughter of her land-
lady, aged fifteen. According to the testimony of this
girl, they passed the night as usual till six o'clock with-
out any disturbance; but ut that hour she was awoke
by the noise of a baby crying. On getting up, she
she saw the prisoner dressed and walking about the
room. She then went out to get some water, and on her
return was seen to wipe up setae blood which was on the
floor. Immediately after the noise was heard by the
witness, when the prisoner knelt clown by the bed-side,
and pulled the curtains clew down. Her son, who was
also awake, then asked his mother, " what that noise
was?" to which she replied, " that it must be some bird,"
and then got into bed again. The witness then got up,
and, having acquainted her mother with the transactions
of the night, an inquiry was made, which resulted in the
discovery of the dead body of a fine male child under the
bed, and covered up with towels. A surgeon having
been called in, certain marks were discovered on the
neck of the poor thing which led to this charge ; but, it
being impossible for the medical witnesses to-day to de-
cide whether they were to be attributed to accident
during delivery, or to design,
The jury were directed to Acquit the prisoner, without
any defence being gone into.
With this case the first Norfolk Winter Assize may
be said to have terminated ; fur, soon after its close, all
parties concerned therein, from high to low, having
packed up their bags, briefs, and bodies, went their way
across the market-place, rejoicing, no doubt. that the
festivities appropriate to the ensuing week were not to
be broken in upon and marred by any unwelcome and
close coi.taminaition with vice and poverty—those fruit-
ful sources of that wretched thing, a heavy calendar.

OXFORD ClRCUlT.—Storfford, Dec. 20.
(Before Mr. Justice COLTMAN.)
At the sitting of the Court this morning., the Learned
Judge directed Joseph Penn (who, on Wednesday last,
had been convicted of the manslaughter of Prudence
Hughes, at Sedgley) to be placed at the bar where-
upon, his Lordship sail, "You have been found guilty,
upon the clearest possible evidence, of the manslaughter
of Prudence Hughes. The jury, by their verdict, have
evidently taken a mast merciful view of your case, and
have acquitted you of the more serious crime of murder.
The sentence of the Court is, that you be transported for
the term of ten years."
John Sherri, an account of whose trial,'together with
that of Miss littilton and Mr. Hildreth, fur the conceal-
ment of the birth of a child, has already appeared in
our columns, was again placed at the bar, under an in-
dictment for using a certain in,trutnent on the 19th and
23d of October last, at the parish of Wolverhampton,
with intent to procure the miscarriage of Miss Jaue
Railton, a young lady.
The prisoner pleaded Not Guilty.
Mr. 13eadon appeared for the prosecution, and stated
the facts of the case clearly and concisely to the jury.
Miss Banton was then called several times as a witness
against the prisoner; but as she did not come into Court
for that purpose, the Judge ordered her recognisance to
be estrr sued.
Mr. BEADON then observed that it would be needless
for him to proceed with the case during the abs-nee
of so material a witness, and the Learned Judge directed
the jury to acquit the prisoner, upon which he was dis-
charged from custody.
Matthew Leach was then arraigned for cutting and
wounding Win. Skinner, with intent to do him some
grievous bodily harm, on the 2d of last September.
Mr. Beaden appeared for the prosecution; Mr. Neale
for the prisoner.
The evidence adduced tended to show that the prose-
cutor and some other men were together drinking in a
public-house at Sedgley, when the prisoner suddenly
came in and tried to take Skinner's pipe from his mouth.
This gave rise to a quarrel which ended in an inter-
change of blows. Both the prisoner and the prosecutor
fell to the ground, and a jug which Leach had in his
hand was smashed against the ground. On picking up
the prosecutor he was found to have received a severe
cut on the back of his neck.
For the defence it was contended that the injury was
inflicted by a broken fragment of the jug.
The jury found a verdict of Not Guilty.
John Given, Mary Gavan, and Margaret Muchintyre
(natives of the sister kingdom) were indicted for stab-
bing James Coyne and Hobert Coyne, with intent to do
them some grievous bodily harm, at Wolverhampton, on
the 25th of August last.
Mr. Yardley appeared for the prosecution. The
prisoners were undefended.
James Coyne, a labourer, stated that between eleven
and twelve o'clock on the night of the 25th of August,
he, with his wife and brother, were returning home along
Stafford-street, Wolverhampton. They had arrived
within twenty yards of their house, when they passed
James Gavan and other persons standing in the street.
Prosecutor said, Good night, lads." John Gavan put
out his leg to throw prosecutor down. lie escaped, how-
ever, but just as he had passed the party, he felt a knife
running into his left arm. He turned round and seized
John Gavan.. They wrestled, and the prosecutor re-
ceived a cut on the chin with a knife. His wife ran for
the police. He received tour cuts on the arm, and two
on the chin. Prosecutor did not know any of the other
persons.
Ellen Coyne, the prosecutor's wife, corroborated her
husband's testimony, and saw Mary Gavan make a
blow at witness's husband with a knife. Her husband
was on the ground at the time, and kicked off the blow
with his foot.
Bridget Coyne said that she saw John Gavan with a
knife in his hand, with which he stabbed the prosecutor.
Michael Steaart, inspector of police, saw the prose•
cutor shortly after the occurrence. He was covered with
blood. Witness then apprehended John Gavan,
Mr. Edward Francis Dehane, surgeon,Welverhampton,
described the nature of the wounds the prosecutor had re-
ceived. They were such as might be inflicted with a knife.
The jury found the prisoner, John Gavan, Guilty of a
common assault, and the Learned Judge sentenced him
to be imprisoned twelve calendar months to hard labour.
The female prisoners were acquitted.
James Thompson, Benjamin Moore, and James Mar-
chant, were indicted for feloniously wounding Thomas
Westwood, on the Ist of June, at Kingswinford.
Mr. lluddlestone and Mr. Woolrych appeared for the
prosecution, and Mr. Neale for the defence..
The prosecutor, who is a glass-maker, had been very
cruelly ill-treated by three men, when returning home
from his work on the evening in question. The prisoners
were not clearly identified as the parties who had com-
mitted the outrage, upon which they were acquitted.
At about half-past four o'clock on Friday the business
of the winter assize fer this county closed, having lasted
altogether about eleven days. With the last trial here
the present Oxford Circuit terminated. The cases which
came before the Learned Judge on this occasion were
almost all of a very serious character, and the number of
prisoners was far greater than was anticipated; although,
however, several of the charges against them w ere of a
capital nature, only two men have been left by Mr. Jus-
tice Coltman for execution.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT
SENTENCES.
Sub:oined are the principal sentences which were
pass,d upon the prisoners convicted in the three Courts
at the late session t
Banishment.—Th* undernamed were sentenced to be
transported beyond the sea for the terms named---
For Serer. Years—Mary Davison, J. Prastly, J. James,
C. Heath, T. James, J. Sandfoul, G. T. Sanders, G.
Haines, T. Maile, J. Barnes, G. Sweeny (19), T. Brown.
Ten Years—T. Lucas alias W. Tupping, G. Welch,T.
Nl‘Phon, Sarah Diprose, E. Edwards, T. Miney, A. Wil-
son, C. Drake, W. Tefford, H. Barrett, T. G. Batley.
Fourteen Years—NV. Hill.
Fifteen Years—G. Palmer.
Life—W. Burgess, for the Bank robbery.
Imprisonment.—The following convicts were ordered
to be imprisoned in the Houses of Correction for the
counties in which their offences were committed, with
the adjunct of hard labour.
Two Years—J. Greenhall, E. Elbury.
One Year—L. Mayon, T. Kemp, Leah Mary Roper,
Charlotte Kemp, G. Molloy, H. Hiller, W. Trudge, T.
Turner, T. Leech, G. Reeves, W. Cox, G. Ryan, M.
Noon, B. Ewen, W. Key.
Nine Months—W. Contrail, E. Challis.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
(YESTERDAY.)
UNIO N- HA LI—
HOUSE BREAKING.— Joseph Astelford, a man
dressed as a mechanic, was charged with breaking
into the dwelling house of Mr. Court, at Meeting
House-lane, Peckham, and stealing three suits of
clothes and other apparel.
A brother of the prosecutor stated that at eight on
Saturday morning he left the property safe in the
bed-room of a small house attached to his father's
residence in Meeting House-lane, where he and his
brother slept. The front door was left on the latch,
and could be opened with a common latch key.
At the rear of the premises, which had connexion
with his father's house, a large dog was kept which
would not only make a noise but attack a stranger. At
eight in the evening he entered by the back door, and
proceeded into the bed-room, when he found that the
drawers had been broken open and robbed of their
contents. He also found the front door ajar, and
he had every reason to think that the entrance was
effected by that door, as it was seldom opened by
any one.

Constable, 47 M, stated that about ten minutes
past eight o'clock he was on duty in the Kent-
road, when he saw the prisoner with a bundle
under each arm. He asked where he got them ?
He replied that he was employed to carry them
by a man he never saw before. He afterwards
contradicted himself by saying he had found
them. After he had said so he dropped the bun-
dles, and ran away, but he pursued and took him
into custody.
The prosecutor identified the whole of the pro-
perty. The drawers and desk had been forced with
some brass compasses and a pair of snuffers, which
were lying about, and were broken to pieces.
In answer to the charge, the prisoner said he picked
up the bundles. As for the robbery, he was quite in-
nocent of it, and did not even know where the house
was situated. He wished to be remanded, as some
clue might be obtained of the real offenders.
Mr. TRAILL said he intended to do so until
Thursday.

THE FIRE in GUILDFORD-STREET

LATEST PARTICULARS.
Workmen have been employed almost unceasingly
from the time they could safely venture on the ruins,
in removing the burnt embers, but they had not disco-
vered the bodies of the two other unfortunate per-
sons. The ruins present a melancholy appearance.
The walls are black, and ruptured in several places,
and the fragments of a handsome pier-glass over the
fire-place of the first floor may be plainly distin-
guished. The whole of the floors have been carried
down to the ground or kitchen floor, and the mass in
which the two unfortunate men are buried presents
an extraordinary appearance : long joists of wood,
many of- which are standing nearly upright,
chairs, tables, hooks and book-cases, and other
valuable property. In the course of the morning a
number of articles of furniture, partially destroyed
by the fire ; books, some of which are stated to be of
extreme value, and irreplaceable ; and deeds and
papers, were removed into the street by the firemen
The walls of the house are in a dangerous state, being
cracked in several places, especially the upper win-
dows. Hundreds of persons remained about the
ruins until about one o'clock, when the police, acting
on the instructions Of their inspector, caused the
street to be cleared, fearing that any sudden falling
of the walls might cause a serious disaster. The time
for the holding of the inquest has not yet been fixed,
and it is probable that it will not be held for a day
or two.