The Sun.
London, England, 1845-04-21 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, MONDAY EVENING, APRIL 21, 1845.

pass. For himself, he (Lord G. Somerset) would not
vote against the second reading, in the hope that the
alteration would be made.
Mr. COMPTON said that after what had fallen from
the Noble Lord, he would not press his amendment.
The amendment was then withdrawn, and the Bill was

The Earl of FORTESCUE presented petitions from
various places, complaining of the Bill passed last
session fur abolishing imprisonment for debt under 201.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF QUEENS BENCH, April 19.
CUMMINS V. WILLESFOND.

The Noble Earl also presented a petition from Exeter,
signed by several hundred persons, against the sale of in-
toxicating liquors on the Sabbath, and several petitions
against the Maynooth grant. The Noble Earl thought it
almost needless to say he was opposed to the prayer of
the latter petitioners.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY presented peti-
tions from Ireland against the Maynooth grant. -
The Bishop of ST. DAVID'S also presented petitions
against the grant, and two against the union of the sees
of Bangor and St. Asaph.
The Bishop of BANGOR presented petitions from
different places in Wales to the same effect.
The Earl of RODEN presented petitions against the
endowment of the college of Maynooth, and others
praying the House to appoint a Select Committee
previous to the second reading of the Government Bill,
to inquire into the class-books and tenets taught at
Maynooth. The Noble Earl could not see how their
Lordships could object to the Committee, seeing that it
would have the double effect of allaying the excitement
on this subject, and convincing Parliament and the
country who thcr there was, or was not, doctrines and
tenets taught at Maynooth which were detrimental to
the British constiution. If there were, he did not think
it would be becoming in the Government to persist ix
their measure. He gave notice that, before the second
reading of the Bill, he would move the appointment of
the Committee.
NEW POOR-LAW (IRELAND.)
Earl RODEN presented petitions also from several
places in Ireland, against a new poor-law in Ireland.
MAYNOOTH.

read a second time.
THE NEW COMMITTEES.
Lord PALMERSTON reported from the Committee
on the railways in group B, that the Committee assem-
bled at twelve o'clock, at which Thomas Wyse, Esq.,
and the lion. F. F. Berkley were not present, and were
not present for an ht,ur after that time. They,
however, came within half an hour after one
o'clock, but no inconvenience arose from their tempo-
rary absence.—(Loud cheers.)
Lord G. SOMERSET said that as this was the first
occasion on which these Committees had assembled, he
did not intend to found any motion on the report
which had been made. On a future occasion, however,

if such a report were made, he should feel it
his duty to move that all absent Members be taken into
custody by the Sergeant-at-Arms ; and he trusted that
the House would support him in this.
Mr. WYSE was not aware of the necessity of such
close attention to the rules of the House, but as this was
the first time which he had made such an omission, he
trusted the House would excuse him.
Capt. FITZHARI)INGE BERKELEY was equally
of opinion with the rule NI hich had been adopted. He
was anxious to fulfil the duty which the House had im-
posed on him, but he thought that there was a defect in
the rule by which the House wished to proceed.
He was aware that sufficient time was no-
minally
given, for there were fourteen days notice of
attendance on the Committee ; but he had been absent
from town for a fortnight, and it was not to be wondered
at that such a thing should escape his memory. lie
would suggest that some notice should be given by the
clerk of the Committee, or by some other properly ap-
peinted person of the day of attendance.
Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET said that as the
Chairman of the Committee had reported that no in-
convenience had resulted from the negligence of these
gentlemen he did not propose that the House should
take any proceedings respecting them, but he should ob-
serve that the notice of these Committees was
published in the votes on Saturday morning, yet he had
no objection to such a notice as the Hon. Gentleman
had suggested; and should any further negligence
occur, he should deem it his duty to take some notice
of the matter, and he trusted the House would support

BAIL COURT, April 18.
(Sittings in Banco.)
(Before Mr. Justice COLERIDGE.)
THE QUEEN V. ALDRED.

Lord BROUGHAM presented petitions from several
places against the grant to Maynooth. He was quite
anxious to bear full testimony to the conscientious
feeling with which the Noble Earl was prompted in
moving for an inquiry into the state and proceedings of
Maynooth; but as he differed from the petitioners whose
prayer he had presented, he would suggest that, before
the inquiry was made at all, the parties summoned before
the Committee should be examined not by way of oath,
but by declaration ; for he thought that the evidence
would be more free and full than if it were to be re-
stricted. If his Noble Friend (Earl Roden) was op-
posed to this grant, why did he not come for-
ward during the last fifty years in which the grant had
been made. The endowment was in fact no endowment
at all, or at least it was no more than it had always been
since it had been granted. The child was a true formed
child, though a small child it was true—(Laughter)—
and with all the nature of the creature about it. Twenty
) ears ago he (Lord Brougham) had brought forward
a proposition in the other 'House of Parliament fur
paying the secular Roman Catholic clergy in Ireland,
which was carried by a majority of 160, and he must say
that he felt mortified—net ashamed—but mortified—
that no advance had been made since that time.
The Earl of MOUNTCASHEL could answer all the
remarks which had dropped from the Noble Lord, but he
should refrain from doing so until the measure came
properly before them. He thought the Noble Lord wes
clearly out of order, and he thought that the better plan
would be to defer any discussion on the subject until the
measure came before their Lordships.
Lord BROUGHAM was really very sorry that ex-
cited his reproof. He would deprecate the Noble Earl's
anger, for all anger was hard to bear ; but if
he was so unfortunate as to excite the Noble
Earl's reproof, he supposed he must bear it ; but
he had one consolation, if it were not more severe in
future than it was to-night, whether from experience or
habit, he thought he should not find it intolerable.
The Earl of CLARE presented 137 petitions against
any grant to Maynooth, and also for some alteration of
the working of the poor-law in Ireland, and expressed his
deep regret that any increase was made in the grant to
the college of Maynooth without any sufficient know-
Isdge of the proceedings and influence of diet college.
The Marquis of BREADALBANE presented a great
number of petitions against the grant to Maynooth, and
stated that he thought that the way in which his
Noble and Learned Friend (Lord Brougham) had
treatal the conscientious scruples of these petitioners, he
thought it was unconstitutional.
Lord BROUGHAM explained that lie did not treat
the petitioners with disrespect, but thought that if they
condemned the grant they ought to have found out its
fault fifty years ago.
The Earl of lIADDINGTON presented petitions
from Glasgow and other places, in favour of the grant
to Maynooth.
The Earl of EGLINTON presented several petitions
against it.
Lord WODEHOUSE also presented petitions against
it from several places in Suff. lk.
SMALL DEBTS BILL.
Lord STANLEY presented petitions from Blackburn
and several other places in Lancashire for the repeal of
the Small Debts Bill of last year. The tradesmen con-
ceived that this Bill was a great injury to their interests.
RAILWAYS. _

him.
Mr. WYSE believed that the Committees ought to he
attended, and he did not wish at all to shirk the re-
sponsibility which fell upon him as a Member of that
Committee.

Colonel WOOD said that he had received two notices
of different significations, and for different purposes, and he
wished to know by which of the two he was to be guided
Mr. BARNEBY, Chairman of the Committee of
group C railways, reported that Joseph Soames, Esq.
had rot been present at the Committee until one hour
after it had commenced its proceedings, but that no in-
convenience had resulted therefrom.—(Laughter.)
Lord G. SOMERSET said that as the circumstances
were the same, the proceedings must be the same as in
the last case.

The matter then dropped.
NEW WRIT FOR LEOMINSTER.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE moved for a new writ for the
borough of Leominster, in the place of Mr. Greenaway.
THE DEVONPORT COKE AND GAS BILL.
On the motion for the third reading of this Bill being
made,
Mr. HUME moved as an amendment that this Bill
should be read a third time that day six months.
Dr. BOWRING supported the amendment.
Sir GEORGE GREY spcke in favour of the third
leading, stating that the question was already decided
by the Committee.
The amendment was then withdrawn, and the Bill
was read a third time and passed.
PLYMOUTH AND -STONEHOUSE GAS BILL.
The Plymouth and Storehouse Gas Bill was read a
third time and passed.
WEST LONDON RAILWAY BILL.

On the motion of Mr. MANGLES the West London
Railway Bill wss read a first time.
NORTHUMBERLAND RAILWAY BILL.

The Northumberland Railway Bill was read a second
time, and ordered to be referred to a Select Committee.
BOSTON RAILWAY.
The Boston Railway Bill was read a first time.
BARNSLEY JUNCTION LINE.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
GUILDHALL.

Mr. STEWART WORTLEY presented a petition
against the Barnsley Junction Railway.
Mr. DUNCAN presented a similar petition.
GLOUCETER AND CARLISLE LINE.

Mr. BOUVERIE presented a petition in reference to
this Bill, but whether for or against we could not hear.
SOUTH-EASTERN LINE.
Mr. AINSWORTH asked for leaue to bring in a Bill
for the formation of a Maidstone and Rochdale branch
on the South-Eastern line.
GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY EXTENSION.
Sir R. 11. INGLIS presented a petition from the heads
of the Oxford University, praying that the House would
.sanction the Great Western Railway Extension from
Oxford to Rugby, in preference to the one proposed by
the Birmingham Company.
THE RAILWAY COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD
OF TRADE.

Lord BROUGHAM presented a petition from a
nobleman in Ireland, which was prompted by a
tenant of his in consequence of the line entirely
destroying his farm. He also presented a petition from
the siter of a nobleman, who complained that the line of
the proposed railway would not only pass through the gar-
dens of the cottagers in which she resided, but would also
cut off all the supplies of water from the whole of the
village. This and so many other instances of trespassing
on private property, that he should feel it his duty
to-morrow, to take the sense of the House upon several
clauses of the new Railway Bill, which in his opinion
went to systematise this encroachment on private pro-
perty. I
SHERIFFS' BILL (WALES).
On the motion of Lord WHARNCLIFFE this Bill
was read a second time.
[LEFT SITTING.]

Mr. T. DUNCOMBE rose to move, according to
notice, a resolution to rescind the eleventh section of
standing order, No. 87, which requires Committees on
Railway Bills to make a special report of the
reasons, which induce the Committees to adopt
or reject the recommendation of the Board of
Trade. In asking the House to concur with
him in rescinding the standing order, he would
state his conviction that the time bad come when
the House should understand more particularly what
was the relation in which the Committees of the
house were placed with the Board of Trade
by that order. (Hear, hear.) The questions
involved in the numerous Bills upon which the Board of
Trade had to decide affected property to the amount of
ene hundred millions sterling, and four thousand miles
of railway.—(Hear, hear.) By the decision of the
Committee of the Board of Trade the fortune or
the ruin of thousands would be determined.—(Hear.)
lie thought, therefore, that the time had arrived when
the House and the country should know whether tlie
Committees of the House of Commons should be merely
the puppets of the Board of Trade. It was time it should
he known whether those Committees were to be responsible
to the House and the public, or to a subordinate branch
of a subordinate department of the Government.—
(Hear, hear.) He did not very well know how
the railway department of the Board of Trade
was to get through its business.—(Hear, hear.)
By this arrangement they would have 23 speeches of
council for the petitioning parties ; 23 speeches more for
the opposing parties, and 23 speeches more in reply,
and in addition there would be a third party—the
Railway Department of the Board of Trade, represented
by the Hon. Baronet opposite (Sir G. Clarke) who would
have to state the reasons why a particular line was
chosen. The other day the Speaker called the attention
of the House to a clause in the Midland Railway Exten-
sion Bill, by which power was given to the Company to
make branches, and to take lands without giving :notice
owners. He had been given to understand that
the Board of Trade had been made cognisant of this
clause, and yet they never drew the attention of Par-
liament to it at all. He contended, then, that in that
ease the Board had neglected its duty. He also con-
tended that the Board had act( d the part of partisans,
arid their reports were totally unworthy of consi-
deration by the Committees on the Hallway Bills.
Unless it was to put the Committee of this House in
subordination to the railway department, there was no
necessity for passing that resolution at the time it was
passed. He did not see the power that was vested in
the railway department of the Eoard of Trade to Ga-
zette their intentions to report favourably or unfavour-
ably of Lily Bill, from whichvery bad consequences arose.
The Hon. Member then proceeded to read a list of the
names of lines reported against by the Committees,
and the expenes incurred each day by the respec-
tive parties in each Bill, and contended that it
was not fair or just to have such expenses entailed un
less the report were favourable to the line. He further
remarked that it was impossible that the Noble Lord
opposite could attend to all the business of the
Board of Trade, and therefore it had become a matter
of necessity to employ subordinates, to whom a
greater part of the business was left. The Noble
Lord bad entered into some explanation upon
this subject by mentioning a coalition that it was
intended should take place between that and an-
other department by which greater facilities for the
despatch of business would be offered, but no such
coalition appeared to have been heard of at the Board
of Trade. tie then called attention to the reports on the
London and Yoak and the Non castle and Berwick lines,
and said that a main trunk line had been divided
between three different companies on one of their lines,
but the noise kept up by the conversation going on be-
tween lion. Members on the beaches on both sides ren-
dered the Hon. Gentleman almost inaudible in the gallery.
Now if the Board of Trade were to lay down one prin-
ciple of guidance one day and another principle another
day, it would be impossible to place any degree of con
fidence in their reports. They decided in favour
of the London and York, with a view to
the interests of the agriculturists—of the farmers
on the line, and they proposed to send the
general public, who wished to go direct to York, round
by Cambridge. And why ? That they migkt bring
the traffic on to the Eastern Counties line.
He believe d that unless the House was determined to
assert its own dignity, that nothing would result from
the establishment of that Board.
Sir G. CLARK could not admit that the reports of
the Board of Trade upon the railway questions
submitted to them had given dissatisfaction to
the country. He believed, on the eontrary, that they
had given satisfaction to all the country except those
persons who have an illegal interest in the Bills against
which the Beard reported.—(Hear, hear.) For his part
he would bear testimony to the ability and assiduity
with which his Noble Friend Lord Dalhousie had inves-
tigated the questions submitted to the Committee under
his management.

FOREIGN SPECULATION.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.

Sia,-lYou are severe upon poor John Bull's " gulli-
bility," hut certainly justly so. If it was not for the
sake of innocent children and poor wives (who are sure
to be the eventual sufferers when the crash comes), men
who persist in lending money to foreigners really do not
deserve the repeated cautions given by yourself and other
journalists. It is hardly credible that men who must re-
member some of the dreadful miseries to families that
arose from foreign speculation in 1825 and 1826 (though
many, perhaps, have gone to their last home), losing
sight of all previous example, seem bent upon giving
(for any eventual return is out of all question) enormous
sums to companies they know nothing of; and for pur-
peses for which they have no guarantee will be carried
out, and moreover to the great injury of English specu-
lation. Sir, Ido not apprehend much, if any, serious
injury will arise from English railway speculation,
though, perhaps, some inconvenience, fora time;—many of
why, as fast as calls are made, the money
the lines applied for to Parliameht will not be carried
out at ell many will be postponed until next
session; and the successful lines, suppose they require
man willing and able to work, full em-
anufacturers, full employment to s spent—mind, zu our own county—giving full employ-
impli.fleoor3, ,
employ-
ment millions,
eton
t for every m
agricul-
turists, improving the revenue cheerfully, by increased
consumption, creating a strong probability of further
reduction of taxation, reduction of the national debt,
and, better still, little occasion for the cruel New Poor-
law. Yet all this interminable prospect of prosperity
must be lost, because men are not satisfied with spend •
ing their money at home. I can see plenty of employ-
ment for money at home for years to come, and safely.
There is plenty of room for investment of money in Ire-
land, Wales, and Scotland, in railways. You can explain
all this much better than I can, end pray do it; urge upon
o te to
be paid. Remind
, safe, is better than
twenty
the foolish men, with money in hand, asking " who'll
have
them of the money lent to repudiating North America;
remind them of the sums spent in mines in South Ame-
rica, Spanish Bonds, Portuguese Bonds, and a host of
others; then, if that will not stop the madness at present
existing for foreign investments, the case is indeed hope-
less.—Yours, &c.,
A MECHANIC AND SUFFERER IN 1825.

(LEFT SPEAKING.)

HOUSE OF LORDS.

Their Lordships met at Five o'clock.
The Bishop of LONDON presented petitions against
any further grant to Maynooth, and from Stirling
against the sale of intoxicating liquors on Sundays.
The Earl of WINCIIILSEA presented a large num-
ber of petitions from the counties of York and Somer-
set, against the Maynooth grant. The Noble Earl at
the same time presented petitions against intemperance
and the unions of the sees of Bangor and St. Asaph.
Several other Noble Lords presented petitions against
the Government proposition respecting the College of
Maynooth,

Mr. Sergeant KINGLARE moved for a new trial in this
case, which was a breach of promise of marriage. The
circumstances were fully reported when the action was
tried. The plaintiff had recovered 7001. damages. The
grounds stated were that the evidence produced at the
trial relative to the income of the defendant, who was a
lieutenant in the army, was not correct ; that the state-
ments made as to his keeping five horses were without
foundation ; and that the defendant had acted a most pru.
dent part in breaking off the match with the young lady,
when he discovered that his income did not amount to
more than 2501. a year.
Lord DENIIAN refused the rule.
TROTTING MATCH—BOWLES V. MILBOURNE.

Mr. V. LEE moved for a rule for a new trial in this
case. The action was tried in London, and a verdict
given for the defendant. It appeared that a wager for
50/. a side, for a trotting match, was laid between the
plaintiff and another party, and that 201. a side was
placed in the hands of the defendant, for the pui pose of
securing the performance of the wager. Previous, how-
ever, to its cowing off, the plaintiff' demanded from the
stake-holder (the defendant) the money which he had
placed in his hands, which the latter rt fused to give up.
The plaintiff then brought his action, but a verdict
passed for the defendant. It would appear according to
the argument of the Learned Counsel that the principle
upon which the verdict passed did not fairly apply in
this case, and he, therefore, contended that the plaintiff
ought to h sve recovered.—Rule nisi granted.

Mr. Rountsort stated that in this case an indictment
had been preferred against the defendant for certain
slanderous words he had spoken of and concerning
the Mayor of Yarmouth. To this indictment the de•
fendant had pleaded not guilty, but he was now an-
xious to withdraw that plea, and plead guilty, and he
hal also instructed him (Mr. Robinson) to express his
(defendant's) regret that he had made use of the words
complained of.
Mr. MARTIN said that he appeared on the part of the
prosecutor, who had felt himself compelled to insti-
tute the present proceedings, in doing which he was
not actuated by any personal feelings toward the de-
fendant, and after the expression of regret which the
defendant's counsel had made, he was willing to forego
all further proceedings against him on payment of the
costs.
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE—Very well.

LONDON ADJOURNED SESSIONS.
On Saturday, Mr. Elias Ben field, a merchant, resid-
ing in Great Tower-street, was indicted for having
assaulted the Hon. Captain Charles T_,_=wis, of the Grena-
dier Guards, on the evening of the 31st of March, and
for obstructing a detachment of the Guards as it pro-
ceeded from the Tower to the Bank. The defendant,
it appeared, was standing on the pavement talking to
a friend, when the picquet passed ; the foremost soldier
requested him to move on one side, and then endea-
voured, by laying his hand on his shoulder, to put him
on one side ; the defendant refusing, was about to be
forced off by the soldiers, when he laid hold of Captain
Lewis and pushed him into the middle of the road, and
then struck him violently over the head several times
with a piece of rough wood, which he held in his hand.
Mr. O'BRIEN, on behalf of the defendant, said he was
anxious to plead guilty to the charge, and to express his
deep regret for the assault he had committed. From
several serious domestic calamities the defendant at
times evinced great irritability of temper, and to that he
attributed the uncalled-for attack. _ _ _

Captain Lewis had consented to withdraw tills charge
on condition that .51. were presented by him to some
charity.
The RECORDER congratulated the complainant on the
kindness of feeling which he had shown to the defendant.
It was a very sericus offence, but he would not stand in
the way of the complainant's mercy, and therefore should
only bind the defendant to keep the peace.
Captain Lewis requested the 51. might be put into the
poor-box of the Mansion House.

On Saturday Mr. Lewis, of the firm of Israel and
Lewis, sheriff's officers, Strand, attended before Mr.
Alderman Farebrother for further examination, on the
complaint cf Mr. W. Cole, of Clapham, for substituting
a gold watch and diamond ring for similar articles of
greater value, the property of Frederick Lindsay Cole,
seized under an execution for debt. The evidence pre-
viously taken was read over, showing that the effects
seized by the sheriff having been advertised for sale by
auction by Mr. Izod, the complainant employed a broker
to purchase certain articles. He bought only the diamond
ring. Upon seeing it Mr. W. Cole found it was not his
brother's, and waited upon Mr. Izod, who said the ring
would be sold at a future time, and offered to return the
money if the ring produced had been purchased in error.
From the evidence of Mr. Harding, a solicitor, it ap •
geared that the defendant, who acted as a sheriff's officer,
sold him the ring by private contract. He gave 20/. for
the watch and ring. On the evening of the same day, or
the next morning, Lewis asked him to allow the ring and
watch to pass through the sale as a matter of form, as
that would be more regular. No application, however,
was made for the articles till after the sale, when Mr.
hod by letter, and Mr. Lewis in person, applied for
them, that they might be sold by auction and bought in.
Mr. Harding parted with them for that purpose, receiving
Lewis's written undertaking to return them or forfeit
501. At the sale they produced 32/.
Mr. Alderman FAREBROTHER, after consulting with
the City solicitor, pronounced his decision from a minute
drawn up by the latter. He said Lewis, it was admitted,
had lawful possession on behalf of the Sheriff, and the
right to the property remained in Cole, as the lawful
owner. The officer had a right to sell the articles to Mr.
Harding for 20/, if he intended to account for the money to
the Sheriff. If he intended to suppress the fact of that sale,
and to appropriate the money to his own use, that mo-
ment he completed the offence, and no act of the parties
subsequently could alter the character of it. It was
immaterial what Lewis had subsequently done r.ith Mr.
hod or Mr. Harding, to endeavour to recover the pos-
session of the ring, after inquiries respecting it had been
instituted. If it were a bona fide sale of the ring to Mr.
Harding, there could be no reason for inserting the
article in the catalogue, and by doing so strong evidence
was afforded that the former sale was a fraudulent con-
version, and not a bona fide sale. A jury roust determine
the intention of the officer, and he should require him to
find sureties to answer any charge that might be pre-
ferred at the sessions.

Mr. Manning said, if the officer had been irregular in
his proceedings, that would not subject him to be con-
victed of felony.—The defendant was bailed.
A person who gave his name as William Pearce, was
charged with obtaining money by false pretences from
the proprietors of the Morning Advertiser newspaper.
Dr. SHERIDAN, the editor, began to state his charge,
when the prisoner interrupted him to assure the magis-
trate that the charge was scandalous, malicious, and ab-
surd, and was an attack on his reputation, which he de-
fied him to prove.
Sir CHAPMAN MARSHALL entreated him to be quiet
till the complaint was made.
Dr. SHERIDAN stated that he charged the prisoner with
sending to the newspaper a fabricated account of an in-
quest, which was not holden till the following day, and
which did not give the verdict the prisoner had antici-
pated. lie had a clerk to prove that the prisoner de-
manded and received 2s. for his false account, and he
had a reporter to show when the inquest was really
holden and what the result was. lie did not, however,
wish to press the charge against the prisoner, but merely
to show that these tricks were not to be played.
The prisoner said he had borne a good character on
the press for 24 years.
Sir CHAPMAN said, as Dr. Sheridan had kindly with-
drawn the charge, it was unnecessary to go further into
the matter, and he discharged the prisoner.
BO W-STREET.

CHARGE OF SIjOGLING.-CAUTION TO STEWARDS
OF VESSELS.-A man named John Murphy, who stated
that he was second steward on board the City of Bou-
logne steamer, now moored near the Custom-house, was
placed at the bar before Mr. Jardine, charged R ith
smuggling on shore a bottle of French brandy, with in-
tent to defraud her Majesty's customs of the duty.
A constable of the Thames Police proved that about
seven o'clock on Friday evening he was walking along
the Strand, when he met the prisoner carrying a bundle
in his hand. He asked him what it contained ? to which

he replied, nothing, except dirty linen ; but suspecting
there must be something more valuable than he stated,
witness inquired whether he had not some brandy
about him, to which he answered that he had
a little. Witness insisted on seeing it, and for that
purpose took him down Milford-lane, where, on search-
ing him, he found the bottle of brandy he now produced
in his side-pocket, which he said he bad brought ashore
for the purpose of drinking with a friend he was going
to visit. Witness then took him before the inspector,
by whose directions he was detained, and the goods
were seized. The prisoner in his defence said he cer-
tainly brought ashore half a bottle of brandy, or there-
abouts, in order to treat a friend ; but not wishing to
take it to him unless it was full, he went to a shop where
he had it replenished, but on his coming out he unluckily
met the constable, who questioned him, and he admitted
immediately that he had the brandy. He had no inten-
tion of disposing of it.
Mr. JARDINE asked whether the practice of conveying
goods ashore from the foreign steam boats was carried
on to any great extent?
The Inspector replied, that he believed there were im-
mense quantities landed at various times.
Mr. JARDINE said, if such were the case, the only
means to be adopted for stopping these proceedings was
to make such persons who were detected feel how ex-
pensive it was to treat their friends to smuggled brandy.
However, as this was the first case of the kind brought
before him, he would mitigate the penalty from 5/. to
20s. or in default he must commit the prisoner for a
month.
Murphy stated that the bottle was only half full of
smuggled brandy when he came ashore.
Mr. JARDINE said, that if there had been only a single
glass in the bottle, he would have been just as culpable
as if he conveyed ashore a large quantity.
The prisoner paid the fine, and was discharged.
MARLBOROUGH-STREET.
BEGGING LETTER GANG.— Charles Jarratt alias Con-
ten, Philip Musgrove alias Richard Wright, and Robert
Owen, were brought before Mr. Hardwick, charged by
the Mendicity Society with being confederated together
for the purpose of obtaining charitable contributions from
the nobility and gentry, by means of false and fraudu-
lent pretences.
The Earl of Listowel and Mr. Bailey, M.P., were present
to prefer charges of imposition against the prisoners.
The two first prisoners were taken into custody in the