The Sun.
London, England, 1845-12-12 00:00:00

splendid monument erected to the noble Duke. He saw
in its features the stern appearance of the warrior
—the stern appearance of the chief who had
led our armies to victory—(Hear, hear)—but he
could not help thinking that the artist had exe-
cuted his task too faithfully, and that he had copied
frpm the statesman the same stern inflexibility that
ought to belong only to the warrior. If men would
place themselves in false positions they must ex-
pect to subject themselves to inconvenience, and
have their conduct open to all sorts of anim-
adversion. He felt that he had said enough, and
would conclude by seconding the resolution proposed by
Mr. Wire.
The RECORDER then read the resolution, and had just
called for a show of hands, when
Mr. LAWRENCE rose and said that he wished to say
a few words. They were aware that men were often led
by circumstances into errors in both thinking and acting,
and it was easy to put forth statements, but very difficult
to bring forward facts to support them. He was one
who thought an alteration in the corn-laws was requi-
site; but he did not quite agree in the view taken by
his friend.—(Hear.) He agreed with him to a cer-
tain extent in the statement that the greater portion
of the population of Ireland feed on potatoes, but he
would ask him the question, whether, if they did not
feed them on potatoes, they could give them anything
better ? They were too poor to afford food of a better
quality. Ireland was a more important country than
England with regard to corn, as more corn was exported
out of her to other countries than from England, while
they fed on potatoes. But would his friend show
that they were able to get better food while their wages
were as low as they were at present ? He was much
struck by the remark of an Irishman, at Coleraine, who
said that potatoes were eightpence per stone there, but
were only fourpence per stone at Tipperary.
and said also that they were not half so well off there,
although wages were the same. They might depend on
it that whenever food was cheap the people got idle and
unable to work.—(This remark was followed by uproar.)
The resolution would not answer the case that had been
put, that because the Irish had no potatoes, that, there-
fore, there should be a repeal of the corn-laws. The
population of England was not fed on pota-
toes, and as a proof of that he would
refer to what took place in the metropolis and the great
manufacturing towns. The people of England, he be•
lieved, were better fed than the people of any nation in
Europe. The question of disease in potatoes had nothing
to do with the corn-laws. That they ought to be
repealed was his opinion, but he believed the effect of
that would be to lower the price of wages.— (Cries of
" No.") He asserted that such would be the case. It
might be said that corn was an exception to all
other matters connected with commerce; he did not seethe
effect of that argument; he thought it would be, in some
measure, unwise to do away with the import ditties
altogether. He thought, if the corn-laws were re-
pealed, a new law should be introduced, fixing a duty of
ss. The remedy of opening the ports could only stave
off the evil.—(Hear, hear.) He asserted again that there
should be a ss. duty on corn.—(Laughter.) He only
asked for fair play in the discussion. His friend, the
mover of the resolution, had said, that if the Court agreed
with him, which he had no doubt it would, he should move
another motion; he had no doubt it would so. He did
not think the resolution met the case fairly, and he
thought his friend in bringing it forward had
been most deficient in his argument—he had
never known him more so in his life. The
first proposition held that this country was great,
powerful, and wealthy, but that a large proportion of
the inhabitants were reduced to a potato diet. He
denied the fact.—(Hear, hear.) He challenged his
friend Mr. Wire to the proof.—(Hear, hear.) If
he had brought such proof, he (Mr. Lawrence)
would at once submit, but in the absence of
all proof he would not submit to the dogma
of his friend Mr. Wire.—(Hear, hear.) The fact
that the Irish were fed upon potatoes had nothing to do
with the corn-laws whatever. It had to do with wages
and nothing more.—(Hear, hear.) And he trusted that
the railways now in progress in Ireland would remedy,
in part, the evil. He considered that evil was in part
caused by absentee landlords. But what was the fact?
Why, the people of this country consumed
more animal food and wheaten bread than any
other people in the world. (Hear, hear.)
It was stated that there was a deal of suffering in con-
sequence of this national economy. He did not know
what the term meant. Was the national practice meant
by the phrase ? But he found, also, that this suffering
was attributed to erroneous legislation, in excluding
the importation of food, restricting the extensiwi of
commerce, and shutting out from the people the good-
ness of God. He denied this position. He denied the
fact.—(Shouts of laughter.) Instead of restricting
commerce by arbitrary laws, Great Britain has been
liberal above all the countries of the earth in her mer-
cantile usages. He believed that as regarded the
threatened famine, more was said on the subject than
was true. He understood that they were dealing with this
question in a commercial view, but he could not see what
commerce had to do with the failure of the potato crop.
It would be too idle to reply to what had been said in
support of their views by those who maintained the en-
tire abolition of all restrictive duty. Why, every man
stood aghast to know how this could be effected with
a due regard to meeting the exigencies of the
state. Was not clothing as much a necessary
as food?—(No, no.) Now he conceived that those who
differed from him would be very glad to resign
one half of their food for decent clothing. The
question for them to consider was, whether,
under the existing state of things, they could
affect the objects some gentlemen seemed so anxious to
carry out? If they abolished all those protection laws as
they proposed to do, they would act unjustly, and
destroy those interests that had grown up under them,
and which, he maintained, deserved to be supported.
Ile would conclude by proposing this amendment, " That
a petition be presented to her Majesty,:praying that the
corn-laws should be abolished."
Mr. PRENDERGAST considered it would be better not
to press the amendment.
The amendment being seconded, was read.
The RECORDER, after a short discussion upon a point
of order, decided that the amendment proposed by Mr.
Lawrence was in order.
Mr. CORNET thought they had better withhold their
clamour on this subject, and leave it in better hands.
Mr. STEVENS thought that the present was the proper
time for the Court to adopt the motion that had been
brought forward. The deficiency of food in the country
called upon the Court to do so. He trusted that the
Court would agree to a memorial to her Majesty, pray-
ing her to take into her consideration the situation of
the country, and support those measures that would
allow free access to food into this country before famine
took place.—(Hear, hear.) He had supported a motion
for the repeal of the corn-laws for years, and he would
support it now.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. W. JONES had always been an advocate for a
fixed duty, instead of the sliding-scale.—(Hear, hear.)
He believed that the corn-laws were a subject
on which every man might fairly differ. He knew
something of the failure of the potato crop. In a
district in Wales, in which he had a farm, the po-
tato crop on it was deteriorated to the extent of three-
fourths, and yet he was no worse off than his neigh-
bours. They used a great amount of oatmeal in that
district, principally got from Ireland, and this article,
which a short time ago was 18s. a sack, was now 30s.—
(Hear, hear.) He thought something ought to be
done, and hence he cordially supported the original re-
solutions.
Mr. Nonais objected to the amendment proposed. It
was a high and honourable privilege they possessed to
approach her Majesty as memorialists ; and there were
only two courses open to them then—namely, to avail
themselves of this privilege, or to adopt the amendment,
and petition the Legislature on this important subject.
He objected to the amendment, as it involved a proceed-
ing which was not in agreement with the usages and
peculiar privileges of that Court. Nor did he think it
the proper course under existing circumstances. The
case of Holland had been referred to in a previous stage
of the debate, and what, he would ask, was the reason
of the prosperity of that country? Because they were
free-tradeis in corn, as well as in all other articles of
commerce. A permanent scarcity of food had been the
effects of the corn-laws ever since their adoption ; and
with the increase of the population going forward, it be-
came a matter of necessity for them to do something to
provide food for the people.
Mr. WIRE said he should only occupy the time of the
Court for a very few minutes. He wished to make but
one or two observations on the speech made by his Hon.
Friend beside him (Mr. Lawrence, we believe). His Hon.
Friend first apologised for his desertion of his former
opinions, and any gentleman had a perfect right to do so
either in private or in public.—(Laughter.) He (Mr.
Wire) was exceedingly glad to find that in this case the
change in his friend's opinions had been for the better,
for as before they had been for a fixed duty upon corn,
they were now for its total abolition.—(Laughter.)
His Hon. Friend was following the example set him not
long ago by an illustrious individual, and he was glad to
find that that example was contagious, for it even took
Broad-street in its march, and had reached the heart and
head of its worthy representative, Mr. Deputy Corney,
who had seconded the motion for the abolition of the
corn-laws.—(Continued laughter.) It was his (Mr.
Wire's) intention very shortly to direct his Hon.
Friend's attention to one or two fallacies in his speech,
which, by the by, was not only for the corn-laws, but
against and beyond the corn laws.—(Laughter.) His
lion. Friend had stated that his first proposition was
fallacious, as this was nut a question of corn, but of com-
merce. Did the lion. Member suppose that he could im-
pose this argument for a moment ? did he mean to
say that a question of food was not a question of wages?
--(Hear, hear.) Did it make no difference to the work-
man, if by the abolition of these cruel laws he coull
get a greater quantity of food for a lesser price than at
present?—(Hear, bear.) It was not a question of wages
alone—it was a question of food also.—(Cheers.) But
the Hon. Member had said that they must show how
better food could be had even were the corn-laws abo
lished. Why thus:—lf the corn-laws were abolished—if
all restrictions on the importation of food were done
away with, then Holland, Poland, Egypt, and America
'You'd pour their grain into Britain, and take her manu-
factures in exchange. Did the Hon. Member not hear
the
anecdote told of Mehemet Ali, the present Pacha of
Ee"YPt ? When the imperfect condition of his muskets
was referred to, he said, " True, I know that English
muskets are bettair, but I have no money to purchase
them. If England should take my corn, then I shall be
enabled to take her muskets in exchange."—(Great
e "--(Great
cheering.) And thus would both of these
countries be
benefited. But another extraordinary argument of the
llon. Gentleman's was, that if food was cheap, the people
would be idle. It was all very well to speak of the
delights of labour ; but what man would work
in a heated atmosphere for twelve hours, if ten
hours would be sufficient for his wants? Why
any man would be mad who should do otherwise, His
Hon. Friend had told them not to forget that he was an
advocate for a smaller fixed duty, and yet his friend had

moved the total repeal of those laws. Why, protection
resembled a nurse who denied her child the free air of
Heaven ; the poor thing, deprived of the necessary free-
dom, grew warped and stunted ; and so it was with pro-
tected commerce.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentleman
admitted that a large proportion of the Irish lived upon
potatoes, but he denied that the same thing held good in
England, Scotland, and Wales. He- could assure the
Hon. Gentleman that if he had gone through the houses
of the poor in that metropolis, he would have found that
the majority of the poorer classes lived upon potatoes.
--(Hear, hear.) He would not detain them longer, but
he trusted that the original proposition would be carried.
The RECORDER then proceeded to read the original
resolution again.
Mr. LAWRENCE wished to make some observations on
the amendment. _ _ _

Mr. JAMES—Did the defendant ever make any objec-
tion to this sermon ? Witness—No, he did not. I never
heard one word of complaint upon that point till to-day.
Mr. Collins himself read it to me when I called at his
house, and he appeared to be much amused with it.
A juror asked the witness if she had any idea of the
object Mr. Collins had in view in reading it to her ?
Witness—No, indeed I have not. He read it over to me
in the presence of his wife and his two children, and
they all laughed at it most heartily.
This was the plaintiff's case.

Mr. Serjeani GAGELEE then addressed the jury,
commenting upon the licentiousness of the sermon,
and declaring that it was one of the causes
which induced the defendant to remove his
children from the school. But he had another defence
to the action. At the time Mr. Collins placed his children
and Miss Matthews at the plaintiff's school, it was under-
stood that the defendant was to be at liberty to remove
them without giving the usual quarter's notice.
A witness was called to prove this fact ; after which
Mr. JA.DIES replied.
The Learned LORD CHIEF BARON then summed up,
remarking that there were two questions for the con-
sideration of the jury. Firstly, did the defendant
remove his children from the plaintiff's school
in consequence of the sermon ? If so, he had made
out his second plea, and their verdict upon it
must be in his favour. Secondly, was the quarter's
notice dispensed with by the plaintiff, and if it was, then,
again, the verdict must be for the defendant ; if not, it
must be for the plaintif£
The jury retired, and after an absence of about
half an hour, returned into Court with a ver-
dict for the defendant on the first issue ; and,
with regard to the second, the jury found
that there was no evidence to show that the defendant
removed his children in consequence of the sermon, and
therefore his Lordship directed the verdict to be entered
for the plaintiff on that issue.

The RECORDER said that the debate was closed, and
the amendment was then before the Court, and that he
could not speak upon it.
Mr. LAWRENCE said that it was only the day before
yesterday that the Lord Mayor had ruled that he could
speak upon the amendment, under similar circumstances.
The LORD MAYOR said that the amendment had been
spoken upon, and could not be debated again.
The RECORDER said that the original question having
been discussed, and the amendment having been de-
bated on, the Lord Mayor was of opinion that at
that stage of the proceedings no further observations
could be listened to.

The amendment was then put, and negatived.
Mr. GADSDEN then said that the petition called on
the Queen to exercise her constitutional prerogative, and
cause such measures to be taken as would meet the exi-
gencies of the people.
A member rose to order.

Mr. GADSDEN said that he was simply going to move,
as an amendment, " That this Court is of opinion, that
it is inexpedient at this moment to interfere, either
by petition or otherwise, in this important question, in-
asmuch as it believes that the Ministry has been dissolved,
and that it would be proper in the present state of affairs
not to add to her Majesty's embarrassment, and that, there-
fore, the further discussion of the subject should be post-
poned." He proposed this amendment, as he believed
that Lord John Russell had it all his own way, and
it would not be too much to ask him to wait until Parlia-
ment assembled.—(Loud cries of " No, no.")
The amendment was then put, and negatived by a
large maj wity.
A Member then handed up another amendment, and
the Recorder was proceeding to read it, when
Another Member asked if any amendment could be
read by the Recorder until it had been properly proposed
and seconded.

BAIL COURT, Dec. 11.
(Before Lord Chief Justice DeNmAN, Mr. Justice PAT-
TESON, and Mr. Justice COLERIDGE.)
At the sitting of the Court this morning their Lord-
ships gave judgment in the following case, which has
been so often before the public.

BARON DE BODE V. TUB QUEEN.
M
Lord DEN
AN said it would be necessary to enter at
some length into the preliminary history of this case, for
the purpose of explaining the general propositions of the
supplicant. It was alleged that the money which the
supplicant claimed had been paid into the Bank of Eng-
land, and that it was virtually received by the Crown in
trust for him, for the purpose of paying him compen-
sation for the property he had lost at the French Revo-
lution. It was alleged that this was as clear a fact as if
the supplicant's name had been mentioned in the treaty
that had been entered into between England and France.
On the part of the Crown very long and able arguments
had been urged to prove that even althongh the main
facts put forward by the supplicant had been proved in
evidence, still there could be no judgment in favour of
the supplicant in the form of his proceedings, inasmuch
as the property provided for by the treaty was only land
or chattels. The Court at first might feel some regret
that this line of objection had not been adopted at an
earlier period against the supplicant's claim, for it
might have had the effect of bringing the whole pro-
ceedings to a close, and have thereby prevented a large
expenditure of money. Considering, however, the nature
of the authorities that had been cited, and the obscurity
which hangs over their law, the course that had been
taken could not excite surprise ; for it was very natural
that the advisers of the Crown should require all the
facts to be distinctly proved which could constitute the
claim, without surrendering one point of their jurisdic-
tion. The dignity of the Crown was such, as to require
that if the right existed it should be pursued, without
coming to any decision upon matters merely technical ;
and it was the duty of the Court to examine as to
whether the facts which had been found by the jury
were such as to establish the rights of the supplicant.
The Baron de Bode made his claim in the character of a
British subject, for compensation in respect to property
which had been confiscated in France during the Revo-
lution. His Lordship having alluded to the conventions
of 1806, 1615, and the Act of the 59th Geo. 111., pro-
ceeded to say, it was declared that there was a sum of
418,000/. deposited in the hands of Commissioners to
pay off those claims which were guaranteed under terms
of the treaty between England and France, and that
more than 200,0001. of this money still remained in the
Bank of England, having been paid them by the Go-
vernment ; and the supplicant claimed this sum, to
make good the amount of compensation which he
sought. The first step taken by the supplicant was in
support of his character of a British subject, and the
Court would assume, without giving that point conside-
ration, that his position so far was satisfactorily proved.
The next question, however, was whether the supplicant
was in such a situation as that the treaty could be fairly
said to apply to him. The words of the treaty were to
the effect, that the subjects of the two powers residing
incat
hos
their
ntar tcerphy ya
itthi
committedcweur'
hl particular
cr h oautrhnoentcyraoy sh
t wiooffenresa
enl
withoutell
vbe p
ie angga rivi
i;
n disturbance,
but in hien to continueo
long
lawscase ofof any
suspicion of misconduct against the laws being com-
mitted, the parties shall be entitled to twelve months'
notice, in order that they may have full opportunity of
removing their property and effects frota the country.
This favour, however, was to be denied them if they
acted contrary to the established law of the country. That
was agreed to in 1806. In 1814 a provision was made for
the sequestrati.rt of theproperty of those who had com-
mitted certain offences against the laws of the country.
The treaty in 1815, in the 9th article, considered the ne-
cessity of executing the four additional articles of the
previous treaty, and it said that the subjects of the
English Government had claims upon the French Go-
vernment, such persons as, since the Ist of January,
1793, had suffered confiscation, and that they should be
idemnified and paid when their claims should be admitted
as legitimate. This was a disputed passage of the treaty,
and it was said that it only recognised those claims, and
indemnified such, as were made according to the terms,
and under the conditions, to be hereafter stipulated. In
the treaty of commerce which had been entered into, in
respect to emigration, it was declared that the supplicant
should set forth the whole particulars upon which he
founded his claim; but the second clause stated that if
these conditions were violated by him, he was to be pre-
vented from removing his property and effects. The
spirit of the two treaties, it was said, engaged to protect
the supplicant's property, provided that he made it clear
that the revolutionary government had confiscated his
property. The inquisition, however, merely stated the
facts that had occurred, and left the Court merely to
draw the inference that the property had been unlaw-
fully confiscated. It did not say that this confiscation
immediately followed the revolution in the country;
on the contrary, it appeared that there was a viola-
tion of the law of emigration on the part of the sup-
plicant. The Court could not take judicial notice of the
meaning of the word, nor pronounce the law in respect
to it. The general proposition could not be maintained
unless it was proved that the individual was not in any
way amenable to French law. If this law of emigration
was not proved absolutely void as against the supplicant,
they found that there was no complaint ever made of the
French tribunal having pronounced sentence under it.
They might constitute themselves a court of error in
point of law, and a court of appeal in respect to all sen-
tences pronounced against British subjects ; but, what-
ever they knew of the French Revolution, ttey would not
be justified in giving an opinion in any case without
direct proof of the whole particulars as well as the na-
ture of the inquisition entered into. It appeared that
the Baron de Bode had taken refuge in the Austrian
army at the time it was actually invading the soil of
Prince. No statement whatever appeared on the inqui-
sition that his claim had even been admitted, or any
amount ascertained ; but the contrary in both respects.
The Act of George 111., which was founded on the
treaty of 1818, had for its object the providing for those
claimants to whom the indulgence had been guaranteed.
These were such persons 95 had caused their names
to be duly registered within the period described
by the convention of 1818. The supplicant
alleged neither that his game or claim had been
registered until after the passing of the Act. The Court
could not see how it was possible to extract any claim,
legal or equitable, to the payment of any money, the
nature of which claim, or the amount of which had never
been clearly established. Until such an inquiry was
properly made, the Lords of the Treasury must have
had good reasons for refusing the indulgence (guaran-
teed under certain circumstances) to the supplicant. The
Court was, therefore, left to draw those inferences which
he should have drawn fur himself. Even it the main
facts were maintained, the question would remain as to
whether her Majesty should be said to have received
the money that the supplicant laid claim to. A rule for
a mandamus, to be directed to the Lords of the Treasury,
had been applied for before Mr. Justice Coleridge, who
discharged the rule on the ground that the Lords of the
Treasury were the servants of the Crown, acting for the
Crown, therefore there would be a great incongruity in
placing the Sovereign in the situation of issuing a writ
against the Sovereign. The Court thought it right to
express doubts upon some points of the case, but in re-
spect to this point, their Lordships had no doubt what-
g.pnin,mn andthfautrtlitheerrtehawtas
no it
e v
money
e r They
reewe
ievreed, therefore,by t
he so Sovereign,
eol
had
The
hn
eo
ot
tbhe
ee
rn
br
ue
s7ni
ev
se
sd
wt oa
st hn eo t u
os et.
po
ut
btlhi
ce
interest.So v e r e i g n.

Sir C. MARSHALL seconded the resolution.
The RECORDER then read it aloud. He moved " That
the Parliament of the United Kingdom should proceed
to establish a fixed and moderate duty."
The amendment, which excited great merriment in
the Court, was, after some little confusion and desultory
conversation, withdrawn.

The original resolutions were then put and carried by
an all but unanimous vote.

Mr. WIRE then moved " That a loyal and dutiful
address and petition be presented to her Majesty,
founded on the resolutions jnst agreed to, and
praying that her Majesty will use all the means
in her power to effect the opening of the ports for the
free importation of food."
The motion being seconded,
Mr. LAWRENCE moved as an amendment, to the effect
that it be mentioned in the address, " That on the
opening of Parliament, her Majesty be requested to re-
commend a fixed duty on corn of ss. per quarter."
Mr. PRIOR seconded the amendment, as one, which,
if adopted by the Court, would reflect great credit on it.
Mr. R. TAYLOR objected to their being called on to
support a principle which all parties in the state had
now repudiated.
The amendment on being put was negatived by an
immense majority, only two voting for it. The original
motion was then put and carried, with the same number
of dissentients.

Mr. WIRE then moved a resolution" That the address
to her Majesty be presented in the usual form," which
was also agreed to.

A deputation of five members was then appointed to
prepare the address, and immediately after they retired
to draw it up.
Upon their return, after an absence of ten minutes,
strangers were ordered to withdraw. During our ab
ence, we understand the address was read and agreed
to, and the Court adjourned at a quarter past five o'clock.

SHERIFFS' COURT, Dec. 11.
;Before Mr. Under-Sheriff BURcRELL and a Common

Jury.)
PROCLAMATIONS OF OUTLAWRY.
This being the County Court-day for Middlesex, Mr.
Kemp, the officer of the Sheriff, made proclamation in
the usual manner, and the following persons not answer-
ing to their names, were declared outlaws at the suit of
their respective creditors John Aden Smith, Henry
Hope Vernock, Augustus Pocock, Henry Lescombe,
John Mynde Cooke, at two separate suits; Robert Rout
ledge Craig-, the Hon. W. H. Byng, Richard Everett
Walker, George Swaby, George Pitt Rose, and Sir
Henry Chudleigh Oxendon, Bart.
SEQUESTRATION OF A CLERG Y MANS LIVING-SMITH

V. NISBETT.
In this case Mr. Gray appeared for the plaintiff, and
Mr. Phinn for the defendant, the action being brought
t:. recover the sum of 3221. 16s. 7d., under the following
circumstances:—
From the statement of plaintiff's counsel, it appeared
that in July, 1844, the plaintiff, Mr. Henry Vincent
Smith, recovered judgment against the Rev. Charles
Wetherall (whose name has been recently before tire
public in the celebrated action for trim. con., brouglit
against him by his son-in-law, Mr. John My nde Cooke),.
the rector of Byfleet, Northamptonshire, for a debt of
1,5001. The beneficial interest of the living came into
the possession of a Mr. Henry Nisbett, the brother of
the defendant, who was indebted to the plaintiff in the.;
sum of 3001., which the defendant covenanted to pay
with interest. This debt accrued under these cite
stances:—Some time since the Bishop. of Peterboogh,
in whose dioN,se the living is situate, issued his t .trratit

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVE_NING, DECEMBER 12 1845.

sequestrating the living of Byfleet, and ordering that
the debts of the Rev. Mr. Wetherall should be paid out
of the profits of the living. The plaintiff being the first
sequestration creditor at the commencement of last year,
sent in his claim, the defendant entering into a covenant
to pay him 3001., with interest. As this was not done
the present action was brought, the defendant admitting,
by allowing judgment to go by default, that there were
some profits of the living in hand.
Mr. H. P. GATES, solicitor, of Peterborough, said that
he held a warrant from the Bishop of Peterborough to
sequestrate the living of Byfleet, Under that seque,tra-
tion he was appointed to receive the rents, and had re-
ceived a sum of money amounting to 1,5611. Before the
23d of April in the present year he received the sum of
541/. 18s. 11 id. Of that sum he paid away on the 14th
of April to Mr. Du Pasquier, the defendant's attorney,
3001. That was the only sum that had been at the dis-
posal of the defendant, the remaining portion being de-
voted to repairs, the curate's stipend, and other things.
In November, 1E44, the balance was 380/.
Mr. PIIINN made several objections to evidence being
received of money received by the witness on account,
after the action was brought, contending that money re-
ceived on the 23d of April could not be taken into con-
sideration. _ _ _

On cross-examination, the witness stated that he was
the officer of the Rishop, but paid over to the defendant
the rents he received. He was not aware that Mr. Du
Pasquier had a lien upon the living. He paid the money
to him as defendant's attorney, under the sequestration.
➢ir. Du Pasquier gave him no notice that he had a lien
upon the living.
Mr. PHINN said he understood from Mr. Du Pasquier
that he had a lien upon the living, but as that appeared
not to be the fact, he would leave the case in the hands
of the Court.

The jury immediately returned a verdict for the plain
tiff—Damages, 3221. 165.:7d.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
NORTHERN CIRCUIT.—York, Dec. 10.
(Before Mr. Baron PLATT.)
Thomas Kirk, 27, and John Blades, 19, two stout
young men, having much the appearance of railway " na-
vigators," were indicted for that they, on the 27th of
September last, at Hawsker-cum-Stainacre, in the North
Riding, feloniously and violently did assault one Wil
Liam Ward, and steal from his person one shilling and
twopence.
Mr. Blanchard, with whom were Mr. Shaw and the
Hon. Mr. Phipps, conducted the prosecution. The pri-
soners were both undefended.

The prosecutor, an old man, in a bumble station of
life, stated that he lives at Stainacre, which is situate at
about two miles from Whitby. On Saturday, the 27th
of September last, he went to the town of Whitby to
make some purchases, and was on his way home, on foot.,
at about eight o'clock in the evening, when, at some
distance from the town, he saw two men in the road.
He could not recognise the prisoners ; but he stated
that on approaching the men there was something in
their manner which excited his apprehension, and he
could perceive that one of them had on a dark dress, and
the other a light one, and that was afterwards shown to
he the dress of the prisoners on the night in question.
They immediately closed upon him. One of them, he
could not say which, seized him by the neck ; he received
a blow on the neck or head, which felled him ; immedi-
ately after another blow en the side of his head. He had
a purse in his breeches pocket, containing one shilling
in silver, and twopence or twopence halfpenny in
copper, besides some halfpence in his waistcoat. The
men rifled his breeches pocket of the purse and its con-
tents, and then left him. On endeavouring to rise he
found a bludgeon, or a thick stick, of about two
feet and a half long, lying across his breast. This stick
he kept, and gave to a person living near by. It was a
round knotty stick, apparently a bit of a sapling, and
from its having a broken nail in it, was described by
Ward as having formed part of a paling-fence. Several
other witnesses were called to show that the men at the
bar were seen on the road near the place of the robbery,
both shortly before and shortly after it was committed.
A woman going out to milk some cows noticed them pass
near the spot at about five ; and some neighbours of the
prosecutor, who followed him on the road from Whitby
soon after he left, identified the prisoners as two men
whom they had met walking at a quick pace towards
the town, at about half-past eight. A police-officer of
Whitby said that he had met. the prisoners at a late hour
on the night preceding. They stated to him that they
were destitute, and without a lodging. He procured a
lodging for them for that night in a house in the town,
and there, it appeared, they had no means of paying for
either breakfast or dinner, as they left the house in the
morning, and took no meal there during the day. But
on the following evening (that of the robbery) they re-
appeared at their lodging-house, and they then brought
with them some bread and cheese ; and Blades, or. being
asked if they wanted any tobacco, said they had plenty.
A woman at the house asked them if they had " done
anything," and Kirk said, " Yes' they had got as much
money as would pay for their lodging," and for that
they paid 6d. Mr. Wilkinson, the constable of Whitby,
stated that, on being called on to apprehend the pri-
soners, he had asked them how they had obtained the
bread, some of which he found along with them. They
said they had begged it in the town, but could not say
where. The wife of a joiner, in Whitby, proved that, at
near nine on the evening of the robbery, Kirk came into
a shop kept by her, and there purchased about 21b. of
bread, fur 4d. He asked for some cheese, but they had
none for him. He was then alone, and he produced is.
in silver, receiving Bd. in copper for the change. The
piece of bread found by the constable was not now pro-
duced, but another piece was produced in Court, to show
the description of the bread found. The constable said it
corresponded exactly with that sold at the shop, being
of a similar shape, and what is termed " sad" (heavy)
bread. The woman from the shop deposed that
such was the kind of bread sold to Kirk. It ap-
peared from the evidence of a grocer, from another
shop at the next door, that Blades purchased
half a pound of cheese and half an ounce of to-
bacco at about the same time ; and he also appeared to
come alone. He paid fourpence for the two articles. A
medical gentleman, who had been to see the old man
professionally, immediately after be was robbed, said
that when he found him at his house he seemed half
stupified—" naazed." His face was covered with blood.
There was a severe wound on his right temple, and a
severe bruise behind the left ear, and his face was
scratched, as if from falling with it upon the ground.
Upon these facts, after the Learned Judge had taken a
full review of them in his summing up, the jury almost
immediately pronounced a verdict of Guilty as to both
the prisoners.
In passing sentence, the Learned JUDGE addressed the
men at the bar in terms of strong condemnation of their
crime. His Lordship reminded them that that crime
would but a short time ago have had to be expiated
upon the gallows, and told them that it' the prosecu-
tor's life had been taken away by their violence they
would certainly have forfeited their own lives as his
murderers. _ _

Sentence, to be severally transported for life.
Margaret Pattinson, aged 27. John Brown, aged 30,
and Mar Best, aged 28, were tried for having, on the
16th of October last, at Leeds, feloniously and violently
stolen a purse, two sovereigns, and some other ariicles,
from the person of Benjamin Wheaten
The prisoners were all convicted, and each sentenced
to transportation fur
Jonaoan Bennett, aged 25, a mechanic, charged with
manslaughter, in having killed Mary Knowles,, at Shef-
field, on the 16th of August last, was found guilty of a
common assault. It was proved that the prisoner had
struck the deceased some blows, while in a state of in-
toxication; but it appeared probable that she bad died of
apoplexy rather than from the act of the prisoner.
Sentence, to be imprisoned one week, the prisoner
having been in custody during three_ months_before his
trial.

(Before Mr. Justice ERLE.)
Joseph Broadbent was charged with an offence against
the bankrupt laws, in having on the 24th of October last,
at Leeds, feloniously refused and neglected to appear to
a summons of the Leeds District Court of Bankruptcy.
In the opening of the case by Mr. Hall, it was ad-
mitted that, although a notice to appear had been served
on the bankrupt, the manner of serving it was not in
strict compliance with the Act 5 and 6 Victoria, c. 122.
His LORDSHIP said he had considered that point
upon a previous occasion, and deemed such compliance
essential to support a criminal proceeding of the present
kind. Without it the prosecution must fail, according
to the view he took of the statute.

The prisoner was therefore Acquitted by direction of
the Court.

Joseph Hutchinson, 31, was indicted for having, on the
9th of August, at Sheffield, feloniously stabbed, cut, and
wounded Ebenezer Hutchinson with intent to do him
grievous bodily harm.
Thst i
oaohn:n
They had
ds togetheroc, nu
quarrels
brother,rnr
eals ;
acolliery tdh a
tt
habeto
pt
Ahr ofprosecutor
ee
crt
,uhiteiomffr.
It appeared. from the evidence of Ebenezer Hutchin-
hid heard that the prisoner had been telling tales against
him to the manager of the colliery, in order to cause
him to be discharged from his employ. On the day in
hehTandhviesefwteeohngre prisoneru,
pleanrnngitsdloyniViw eharras., undefended.
tion.
question they were m a public•house together, and after
leaving it the prosecutor saw the prisoner in the street,
talking with two other persons. He approached him,
and said, " Well, Joe, what hast got by thy tale-telling?"
The prisoner replied, "I'll tell thee." He (the pri-
soner) lifted his fists at the same moment, and squared,
as if to fight. The witness immediately knocked him
down. Shortly after they again met in the street, when
the prisoner came up to the witness, who immediately
felt himself stabbed by his brother. He " let his bowels
out." The wounded man then went to Mr. Shaw, the
surgeon, " carrying," as he expressed it, "his bowels
in his hand."
Mr. Clayton, the assistant of the medical man, proved
that the prisoner afterwards, in speaking of the wound
inflicted, said that he hoped his brother might die.
Mr. Justice ERLE, in sentencing the prisoner, observed
to him, that whenever recourse was had to deadly wea-
pons in this manner, an example would certainly be
made in the Courts trying persons for such offences.
This, was a remarkably aggravated offence, and the sen-
terr.te, therefore, was, that the prisoner should be trans-
ported for the term of fifteen years.
Liverpool, Dec. 10.
Their Lordships were engaged during the greater
*part of the day in the trial of a Oays of cases the parti-
culars of which are unfit for publication. Nothing of
pubic interest occurred in either Court.

DBATH OF SIR W. REID, BART.—We understand
that accounts have been received from Ceylon of the death of
Sir W. Reid, Bart., of Barra, who died on the 20th October,
on his passage from the Mauritius. The deceased Baronet
had only succeeded his brother, Sir John Reid, within the
last few months. The deceased was born in 1795.
POST-OFFICE.—It is a strange and anomalous fact
that a letter from Paris reaches Galashiels sooner than one
from Glasgow, the latter usually lying twenty-four hours at
Edinburgh,-yikeder Watch,