The Sun.
London, England, 1844-07-02 00:00:00

BANKRUPTS.

HENRY WIER COLLINSON, hat maker, Stamford-
street, to surrender July 12, at two, and August 16, at half-
past eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Alsager, official as-
s•gnee, Birchin-lane, Cornhill; Hodgson and Burton, Salis-
bury-straet, Strand.
THOMAS SCOTT, baker, Colchester, July 16, and August
13, at one, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Belcher, official as-
signee, King's Arms-yard,
_Noergate- street ; Marriott, C.,1-
,chester.

WILLIAM HARDING, grocer, Seuthampton-street,
Camberwell, July 9, at eleven, and August 9, at eleven, at the
Court of Bankruptcy. Green, official assignee, Alderman-
bury ; Jordeson, St. Nlary-at-Hill.
FREDERICK ROBERTS, butcher, Handley, Cheshire,
July 10, at half-past twelve, and August 7, at eleven, at the
Liverpool District Court. Bird, official assignee, Liverpool ;
Nicholls and Co., Bedford-row, London.

NOTICES OF INSOLVENCY.
J. Newsome, engineer, Batley, Yorkshire.
S. Haddock, builder, Nottingham.
J. Woodward, lace manufacturer, Nottingham.
I. Webb, butcher, Formarton, Gloucestershire.
E. Swan, licensed victualler, Ipswich, Suffolk.
S. Rutley, carpenter, Bromley St. Leonard's, Middlesex.
T. Dobby, cab proprietor, Brownlow-mews, Russell square.
J. Quelch, jun., hair-dressefßeading.
G. Senior, candlewick-manufacturer, Manchester.
C. Cope, commission agent, Edgbaston, Warwickshire.
B. Barker, carpenter, Pontefract, Yorkshire.
J. Pratt, straw bonnet blocker, Dunstable Bedfordshire.
J. Ludbrook, watch-maker, oham, Cambridgeshire.
J. -Whitting, plumber, Flagon-row, Deptford.
H. W. Weston, agent, Vaughan-terrace, Shoreditch.
F. Turner, colliery viewer, Newcastle-upon. Tyne.
B. Polkinghei ne, Plymouth.
G. Stramonds, traveller, Brighton
T. Williams, box-maker, College-street West, Camden-town.
J. Barnard, coal-meter, Brompton, Kent.
J. Collis, coal-merchant, Berkeley-street, Clerkenwell.
G. Tucker, coffeehouse-keeper, Bath.
G. Bragg, grocer, Prittlewell, Essex.
W. Rushworth, tea-dealer, Bradford, Yorkshire.
.1. Crawshaw, weaver, Rochdale.
J. Wilson, trimming-manufacturer, Bethnal-green.
J. Jenner, shoemaker, Brixton, Surrey.
A. Jacobs, dealer in jewellery, Princess- st., Ratcliffe-highway.
G. Brodie, comedian, Craven-buildings, Drury-lane.
J. B. Harwood, master ma-triter, &stern-place, Poplar.
J. Ellard, furrier, Charlotte- street,Black friars-road.
E. P. Owen, Lien Aber, Merionethshire.
A. Macpherson, accountant, Albany-road, Camberwell.
If. W. Thomas, innkeeper, Andover.
S. W. Morris, law writer, Carey-street, Chancery-lane.
G. Watson, undertaker, Weston-street, Somers'-town.
J. R. Chapman, schoolmaster, Ferry-bill, Durham.
J. Whillier, baker, Hereford-street, Landport, Portsea.
T. C. Fletcher, schoolmaster, Ilkeston, Derbyshire.
S. Jefferys, maltster, Arnold, Nottinghamshire.
J. Bennett, licensed victualler, Nottingham.
S. Wheatley, farmer, Unstone, Derbyshire.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT
(THIS EVENING;)

HOUSE OF LORDS.
Their Lordships assembled at Five o'Clo:k.
CORN LAWS.

The Earl of RADNOR presented a petiti' n against
agricultural protection from Sydenham, in Wilts. The
petitioners stated that to the petitions which had been
presented in favour of protection to agriculture, many
agricultural labourers had been compelled to atta?,h their
signatures.
Lord METHUEN denied that such was the fact.

The Duke of RICHMOND also denied this, and said
that the Anti•Corn-liilP` -League had roused the
agricultural boLly in this couytry, and the con •
sequence was, that protection societies had been
esv,blished, by which the falsehoods indulged
ID by the Anti. Corn-law League, had exposed
^dnd laid bare to the public. He wished his Noble
Friend, the Noble Earl, when he next addressed the la-
bourers in his district, he would tell them that free trade
only meant low wages. -The Noble Earl, on a former
occasion, had alluded to a pamphlet which had been pub-
lished on this subject by Mr. Caley. He, (he Duke of
Richmond) was glad the Noble Earl had alluded to it,
because the result had been that the pamphlet of Mr.
Caley, little known before, was now eagerly sought
The Earl :of RADNOR repeated` that this pamphlet
contained the grossest exaggerations and untruth.
The Duke of CLEVELAND defended the Agricul-
tural protection societies from the imputations which
bad been cast upon them. Ile did not wish to enter
into a discussion on so extensive a subject on the presen-
tation of a petition. lie should, however, be always
ready to enter into a fair fight, and fully discuss the

The Earl of STRADBROKE argued that the rate of
wages were always reduced when prices of corn were
low, and were raised'as the price of corn increased.
After a few words from the Duke of BEAUFORT,
The Earl of RADNOIt said, it was idle to attempt
to disprove that wages depended upon the price of corn,
because everybody knew that they did not.—(Laughter
oa the Ministerial Benches.)
Lord ASHBURTON contended that cheap bread
and high wages could not exist together.
After a short conversation, the subject dropped.
(LEFT SITTING.)

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
The SPEAKER took the,Chair at Four o'clock.
Mr. GLADSTONE moved certain alterations in the
Standing Orders relating to railways, by which subserip•
Lion contracts entered into before the session of Parlia-
ment in which the Particular railway Bill was introduced,
should be valid. 'I he present Standing Order provided
that no subscription contract should be valid which was
entered into subsequently to rile last day of the session
of Parliament preceding the session in which the rail-
way Bill was introduced.
The rlterations were agreed to.
Mr. VILLIERS presented a petition from the agri-
culturists of Hartstone, in Norfolk, agreed to at a public
~.• , . meeting which was held in consequence of a recent de-
:.
cisiou of the House on the subject of the corn-laws. The
petitioners stated that they did not believe that a certain
,• ,price. for corn could be insured to them by law, and they
prayed for a total repeal of those laws.—(Hear, hear.)
RAILWAYS.
In answer to a question from Sir-J.-GUEST, on the
subject of railwayit,
Mr. GLADSTONE said that he was afraid he could
not give as full an explanation as he could wish to the
first part of the question, because, the question in what
degrea it was desirable ,that future railway companies
should be included in the inovisions of the Joint-Stock
Companies Bill, was one which requiredconsideration. The
sii,Lo'..3 of the provisions of Oita Bill might not be applicable
to those companies, but certain of them would be found
useful,
as applicable to railways as well as to other joint-
stock companies, in their earlier stages. He was glad
the Hon. Baronet asked the question, because it gave him
an opportunity of correcting a misapprehension which
existed on this subject. He was at a loss to imagine
how it could have originated, but a misapprehen-
sion had gone abroad that it was the intention of
thLjau to take away from the shareholders of
N' F.IV S Prtibibiti. incorporated 'under Act of Parliament, the
,-.
.c..,,,.
,rcp.,
_. of
lament.
liaTllll4y
4,..7.
where .it was conferred by
There- was no intention of inter-
midi privileges. He did Rot think that any
House would be ready 6 bring foaward such
1, or if one such were found, he did not

i .----I•4''''-' :: 4. ,7 Tie
' (t:;f:•:.::,./ •'.:; '..:--'- ,4 v..
-A -.',1":-.4.- i:714 ~... ilztrq
eli, .. , ',Z.:,;,'-' 1.•:j
\:::-','.---_-_---,:r., -,1./. '',,

:1 s

think a seconder could be got for it. The proposition
would be utterly ridiculous and inadmissible.
In answer to another question from Sir A. GUEST,
Mr. GLADSTONE said, that the conferring the pri-
vilege of limited liability on new railways, was only just
less absurd than the proposition he had •Justspyken of.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE IN SCOTLAND.
Mr. WALLACE rose to move that an humble address
be presented to her Majesty, praying that her Majesty will
be graciously pleased to appoint a Commission to inquire
into the conduct of the Judges who presided at the as-
sizes held in the city of Glasgow, in the month of May
last, and especially into the circumstances attending the
trial of Alexander Walker, accused of an assault with in-
tent to ravish a girl of tender age, n amed G race Macfarlane.
The Hon. Member said he regretted that he felt it his
duty to bring forward this subject, for it was one which
referred to the misconduct of one of the highest Crimi-
nal Judges of Scotland. He had not determined to do
so until he had well considered the course which
he was about to pursue, and being confirmed in
the view which he had taken by a great many
persons in his own part of the country. At the late
assizes held at Glasgow a person was tried for assaulting
a young girl, who was not thirteen years of age, in the
most violent and brutal manner, with intent to violate
her person. It was necessary that he should detain the
House for a very few moments, by endeavouring to ex
plain to English and Irish Members the great distinction
between the mode of conducting; criminal cases in
Scotland and the mode of conducting them in this country
and in Ireland. In Scotland they had a public functionary
who was now in that House, viz , the Lord Advocate,
whose special duty it was to be public prosecutor in
all cases of criminal delinquency.. That individual, either
in his person or in the persons of his representatives,
was, in fact, the grand jury of Scotland, and it depended
entirely upon the manner in which cases were brought
before him or his representatives whether or not any
particular case was brought before the Criminal Court.
There was another wide distinction between the two
systems. Previous to the trial of any criminal in Scot-
land the: evidence againSt 'Min was first taken before the
Local Court which was called the Sheriff's Court. It
was then transmitted to the Lord Advocate, and after
being sifted by him, or his deputies, it was decided
whether or not the case should be brought on
for trial. Such were the stringent measures taken
to purge and purify the evidence before any crimi-
nal was brought up for trial. Another very ma-
terial distinction which existed was, that the
juds were appealed to by the counsel on
botlj sides as to the relevancy of the indictments, and
after it had been decided that it was relevant the judge
had no further right to interfere with the trial. Now,
he had to complain of a most unprecedented and extra-
ordinary interference on the part of the judge, and he
had to ask the House of Commons to institute an inquiry
into these singular proceedings. In the case to which
he had to call the attention of the House, Lord Justice
Clerk and Lord Wood were the presiding judges. It was a
regulation in Scotland, that trials for rape should be tried
with closed doors, and in this case he admitted that that
regulation was complied with. The Hon. Gentleman
then proceeded to read the oath administered by the
jury, which was, he said, of the most solemn character.
He admitted that the usual forms were observed,
and that the jury were chosen in the usual manner.
The jury proceeded to the trial of Alexander Walker
for the assault on the girl, and Lord Wood was the pre-
siding judge, when the case was in so extraordinary a
manner broken in upon. The document he should now
read to them was a statement of facts by one of the pro-
testing jury ; that gentleman said that the verdict was
not that given by the jury at all. The return made to
the House of Commons was therefore not a true return.
The Hon. Member then read a letter, signed by a per
son named Guffy, from which it appeared that Mr.
David Muir, the Advocate Depute, had been treated in
the most ungentlemanly manner by the Lord Jus-
tice Clerk, and in which it was denied that the
jury had given a verdict of not guilty. Now
he (Mr. Wallace) would unhesitatingly state that he
_believed there never was a more deserving assistant in
the Lord Advocate's department than Mr. Muir, the
young man who had been abused by the Lord Justice
Clerk. There was not a more rising young man
at the bar than Mr. Muir. No counsel had
ever been so insulted or so brow-beaten as Mr.
Muir had been by the Lord Justice Clerk. He
wished to call the- attention of the Home Secretary to
the subject, for the appointment throughout the whole of
Scotland had been ascribed to the Home Secretary.
That judge had been placed over the heads of eleven
of the judges, to many of whom he was greatly
inferior, and he was speaking the opinions of the other
judges who presided at Glasgow, and of the jurymen,
and of all who were present in Court, when he said, that
conduct more insufferable, more disreputable, more
unprovoked, or more provoking, had never been
exhibited than had been exhibited by the Lord
Justice Clerk on that occasion. The trial
had been carried on with closed doors. The girl
who was the prosecutrix, was only twelve or
thirteen years of age, and a more horrid, brutal, and
disgusting assault; had never been brought before a
Court of Justice. He had all the documents relating to
this disgraceful transaction in his possession, but he
would not weary the House with the disgusting details.
It would be the duty of the Home Secretary
or the Lord Abvocate, to defend the conduct of
the Judge if they could. He was passing
through Glasgow at the time, and he was told that if he
went to the Criminal Court he would see, on the part of
the Lord Justice Clerk, the most disgraceful conduct in
brow-beating witnesses and counsel, and that, in fact, he
was acting hke a bear. Ho had gone there a short time
before the Court rose, and the Lord Justice Clerk
interfering with counsel on both sides, had conducted
himself in a manner that would- have disgraced a petti-
fogging attorney. He had never heard of imperti-
nence as bad been exhibted by the Lord Justice Clerk
on that occasion, and if an inquiry were allowed he
would prove the truth of these statements by the testimony
of judges, counsel, magistrates, jurymen, and spectators of
the Court of Assize. They would hear from the Lord
Advocate if he had given a just description of the cha-
racter of Mr. Muir, his deputy. The Lord Justice Clerk had
interfered in a manner which he dared not to have done
if the Lord Advocate had been present. The office of Lord
Advocate was paramount to alilothers. No man could
define the bounds of his jurisdiction, and no judge would
dare to interfere with his conduct in the prosecution.
He was the public prosecutor. It would be well if
such an office existed in England. It was an
office of the greatest benefit to Scotland,
and if that office were degraded the people
of Scotland would know that it had been so degraded by
the present Government, and by the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman who now filled that high and important office.
Relying with confidence upon the justice of the case, lie
had not the slightest hesitation in moving for a com-
mission.

The LORD ADVOCATE said, that he would en-
deavour, as far as possible, to avoid the niceties of the
law alluded to by the Hon. Gentleman ; and would only
state such circumstances as he thought would constitute
grounds for resisting. The Hon. Member alluded to
-the nature, the powers, and the duties attaching to the
office he had the honour of holding ; he was fully sen-
sible of the importance of those duties, and the respon-
sibility which attached to the exercise of them ; and,
therefore, he had endeavoured, being obliged to intrust
the performance of some of those duties to other per-
, sons, to select such persons as he thought were most
competent to discharge those duties, and he subscribed,
in every respect, to the character given by the Hon.
Gentleman to Mr. Muir. It was true, as the Hon. Gen-
tleman had stated, that a prisoner was not put upon his
trial till his case was investigated before some local ma-
gistrate, and till such a body of evidence was adduced as
would justify tfie committal of the prisoner—that being
done the examination was submitted to those who acted
with him in the office of Lord Advocate, and they saw if the
evidence was sufficient to put the party on his trial. In
the case of Mr. Walker, the public prosecutors were of
opinion that the evidence adduced betore the Magistrate
was sufficient to put him on his trial ; but any person
who watched the progress of trials, and particularly
criminal trials, must be aware that the evidence adduced
at the trial was not the same as that which the public
prosecutor had reason to expect. Now in this par-
tiuclar case the trial proceeded with closed doors, under
the authority of a statute, which directed that this
course should be adopted in cases where the evidence was
unfit to be heard. Now the charge against the judge,
as he understood it, was this, that during the
progress of the trial there was an undue interference—
not on the part of the presiding Judge, but on the part
of the Lore Justice Clerk, who was said to have con-
ducted himself in such a manner, that a course was
abandoned which ought not to have been abandoned,
and that a party was allowed to go away who ought to
havebeenconvicted. He did not admit thataJudge sitting
at the trial had a constitutional right to stop the course
of a trial which, in the opinion of the public proscutor,
ought to proceed, because the public prosecutor was
charged with the interest of all parties concerned, and
he was to see that the interests of justice should not
suffer ; but he thought it was conducive to the public
interests for a judge, who saw the principal witness, on
whom the weight of the prosecutionfrested,and the other
witnesses also failing, and that there was no probability
of a verdict being obtained, the opinion of the judge be-
ing decidedly against the prosecution in suc'h a case,
he did not think that it was improper or con-
stitutionally wrong for the judge to stop the prosecution.
Now what was the record in this case? It appeared
from that, that the prisoner having pleaded not guilty,
an interlocutor of relevancy was asked, for the purpose
of disposing of the points of law before the case pro-
ceeded to trial, and it never could happen in Scotland,
that after the trial was concluded the proceedings were
rendered nugatory because the matter set forth in thein-
dictment was not sufficient. After four witnesses
had been examined, the prosecutor stated that he should
abandon his case. The prisoner therefore had no op-
portunity of making a defence ; and he must say, in
allusion to what had been stated with respect to the
foreman of the jury, that it was a most fortunate thing
for the prisoner that that juryman did not try him.—
(near, hear.) If the jury did not return a verdict at
all, it was the duty 'of thp Court to dismiss the prisoner,
never to be tried again. The protest was not given in
until the next day. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman
then read a letter from the Clerk of the Court
to the Solicitor-General, stating that when the
question of " not guilty" was put to the jury,
they said they had no objection to that verdict.
In this particular case both judges were of opinion that
the evidence was not sufficient to sustain a charge of
rape. The girl's own evidence was contradictory. This
he stated on the authority of the Advocate-Deputy him-
self. He read a letter from that gentleman, stating that
the evidence of that girl was shaken and that a verdict
,
of " not guilty." was returned, against which the written
protest of the Jury was not presented till some time after-
wards. He saw nothing to complain of in thecase. He did not
gather from the statements before him that the conduct
of the judge was at all overbearing, and he informed the
House that that gentleman had been for eighteen years