The Sun.
London, England, 1845-07-18 00:00:00

E SUN, LONDON, FRIDAI EVENING, JULY 18, IMS.

discussion had proceeded. He hoped that the inhabitants of the
three kingdoms would be treated on a perfect equality.
The clause, as amended, was then agreed to.
Clause 74 was then proposed.
Mr. SH ARMAN CRAWFORD objected to the clause
altogether.. They had no such power in Ireland as that which
was empowered by this clause. And he did not see why it
should be given in Scotland and England, when it was with-
held in Ireland. As the feeling of the House, however,
appeared to be against him he would not press it to a division.
The remaining clauses of the Bill were then agreed to.
On the motion of the LORD ADVOCATE, the following ad-
ditional clauses were inserted in the Bill—" That in estimating
the annual value of lands and heritages, the same shall be taken
to be the rent at which, one year with another, such lands and
heritages might, in their actual state, be reasonably expected
to let, from year to year, under deduction of the probable annual
average cost of the repair, insurance, and other expenses, if any,
necessary to maintain such heritages in their actual state, and
all rates, taxes, and public charges payable in respect of the
same. Provided that no mine or quarry shall be assessed unless
it has been worked during some part of the year preceding tha
day on which the assessment may be ordered to be levied.
That no person shall be liable to be assessed in any parish or
combination, on his means and substance, unless the estimated
annual value thereof in whole shall exceed 301. That clergy-
men shall be liable to be assessed for the poor in respect of
their stipends. That in all cases in which, by the provisions
of this Act, notice or intimation is required to be given with-
out prescribing the particular form of the notice, or the manner
in which the same is to be given, it shall be lawful for the
Board of Supervision, from time to time, to fix the form of
such notice or intimation, and the manner in which the same
is to be given."
Mr. SNIOLLETT moved the insertion of the following
clause after clause 36—" That where the one-half of any
assessment is imposed on the owners, and the other half en
the tenants or occupants of lands and heritages, it shall be
lawful ftir the Parochial Board, with the concurrence of the
Board of Supervision, to determine and direct that the lands
and heritages may be distinguished into two or more separate
classes, according to the purposes for which such lands are used
and occupied, and to fix such rate of assessment upon the
tenants or occupants of each class respectively, as to such
boards may seem just and equitable.
The clause went through the different stages, and was agreed
to without opposition.
Lord DUNCAN proposed that the board of supervision
should have power to unite two parishes, whenever such
parishes should think it expedient to be combined for the mere
effectual management of the poor.
The clause was agreed to.
Lord DUNCAN inquired whether the revenues arising from
harbours were to be assessed to the poor-rates?
The LORD-ADVOCATE said he had not yet perused the
Harbour Act, and was not prepared to give an answer.
Clause 16 was then agreed to with amendments.
The further consideration of the Bill was postponed till
twelve to-day, the Chairman was ordered to report progress,
and the House resumed.
BILLS OF EXCHANGE.
In the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir
J. GRAHAM moved the third reading of the Bills of Ex-
change Bill.
Mr. MILNER GIBSON said that in 1839 an alteration of
the usury laws took place, which exempted all bills of
exchange not having twelve months to run, and
all sums of money not exceeding 101. from the effect
of the usury laws. His object was to repeal the restriction
which was contained in the Act of 1839. It was necessary for
the public advantage that no restriction should be placed on the
power of borrowing money on landed property. The opinion
of Sir Samuel Romilly was, that laws against usury were very
injurious to the landed interest, because it compelled land-
owners to borrow money from illegal sources, Sir Edward
Sugden said he considered those laws had been decidedly
inimical to the public interest. He was quite sure that the
continuance of the Bill any longer, instead of being a pro-
tection, would operate most injuriously to the landed interest.
In times when money was scarce many valuable and important
improvements in land would be lost to these proprietors if this
restriction on the interest of money was preserved. He thought
money should be free, and that no restriction should be imposed
on the rate of interest that should be charged. He moved that

the clause be added to the Bill.
Mr. WILLIAMS objected to the clause. He thought a re-
striction on usurers was a necessary and salutary arrangement.
Were they not restricted by law, in many instances poor
tradesmen and small shopkeepers would be victimised by un-
principled money-lenders, leading to bankruptcy and ruin.
Usurious interest had been the curse of all the nations of the
world. It was denounced in Scripture.—( Ironical cries of
"t Hear, hear.") Perhaps that was no authority with Hon.
Gentlemen, but it was with him. He knew of instances in
which needy tradesmen had been mulcted by money-lenders of
60 per cent. for the use of money. He objected to the Bill
being extended to five years, and hoped that the Right Hon.
Gentleman would limit the Bill to one year. If he did not, he
(Mr. Williams) should certainly move that it do not pass.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER differed
with both Gentlemen who had spoken, and adhered
to the Bill as it was before the House. With
out expressing any opinion as to the advantages or dis-
advantages of abolishing altogether a fixed rate of legal inte-
rest ; for the reasons which I have stated to this House I hope
the House will agree with me in thinking it wise to agree to
provisions of the Bill for the limited period I have mentioned.
The period was long enough to prevent any doubt as to the
continuance of the Act. He would not enter into the ques-
tion whether or not landed proprietors should not borrow mo-
ney on the same terms as on other property which was not
real. Ho would not discuss the question as to the propriety
or impropriety of continuing the usury laws. He thought
that question was settled. He did not believe that the argu-
ment of the Hon. Member for Coventry had any weight, nor
that the House attached any importance to it ; at all events,
it had no bearing on this case. A high rate of interest had
been deprecated, but the annals of this county would furnish
numerous instances where men had been saved from ruin by
having the opportunity of obtaining money even at a high rate
of interest, and being thus enabled to keep up their credit.
Mr. F. BARING had ne wish to endanger the Bill, but he
thought that the suggestion of his Hon. Friend deserved at-
tention. He thought there ought to be a revision of the Bill
in a future session, and that a Commit tee should be appointed
to inquire into the effect of the usury laws on the landed inte-
rest, and he hoped that, if that assurance were given, his
Hon. Friend would withdraw his motion. The Chancellor of
the Exchequer did not seem to know what the state of the law
was. If this Bill did not pass, the Usury Act would apply to
all bills of more than three or six months date, so that, al-
though the Bank Charter Act was only a temporary one
in its general provisions, it was in effect a per-
manent one in r sspect to this particular.—( Hear.)
The Honourable Gentleman quoted from the evidence given
before several Committees to show that the repeal of the usury
laws had had a most beneficial effect. He did not understand,
therefore, why the Chancellor of the Exchequer hesitated to
make this a permanent measure. They had had the best evi-
dence that it worked well for eleven years. He could not under-
stand why teen should be prevented from dealing with their
money as with anz other property. He regretted that the
Chancellor of the Exchequer thought it necessary to render the
Act merely one of continuation. If his Honourable Friend
would not consent to withdraw his motion upon the expectation
of a Co nmittee next year, he would vote with him.
Sir R. PEEL would have no objection to the appointment
of a Committee to inquire into the operation of the law as
regarded the land. He did not know but it might appear that
the land itself would be benefited by being placed in the same
condition as other property. In the meantime, he thought
that there could be no objections to the continuance of this
Bill for five years.
Mr. WARBURTON said that his Hon. Friend had reason
to be satisfied with ihe result of his motion, as it elicited from
all sides such satisfactory testimony. There could be no doubt
of the good working of the Act.
Mr. V. SMITH said, as the Right Hon. Baronet intended
to appoint a Committee on the subject during the next session
of Parliament, he should only hope that it might meet the
general wish. He hoped the Hon. Member for Coventry (Mr.
Williams) would be upon it.
Mr. H UTT was satisfied with the explanation which the
Government had given to the House, and congratulated the
lion Member for Manchester on the success of his motion.

..-.. -
Mr. MUN TZ hoped to see the usury laws abolished.
Mr. GIBSON then withdrew his motion.
After a few words from Mr. WILLIAMS, the Bill was read
a third time and passed.
THE JURORS' BOOKS (IRELAND) BILL.
This Bill was read a second time.
NAVAL MEDICAL SUPPLEMENTAL FUND
SOCIETY BILL.

On the order of the day for the second reading of this Bill,
Mr. WARBURTON complained of the manner in which
the funds had been managed, and suggested that the Bill
should be referred to a Committee up stairs for inquiry, with
a view to a redress of this grievance. If this were acceded to
he should not oppose the second reading.
After a few words from Mr. CORRY, who acceded to the
suggestions of the Hon. Member for Kendal, the Bill was or-
dered to be read a second time.
The Physic and Surgery Bill, and the College of Physicians
and Surgeons Bill were by Sir JAMES GRAHAM deferred
till to-morrow.
The second reading of the Stock in Trade Bill was postponed
I till Thursday.
THE GRAND JURY PRESENTMENTS (DUBLIN)
BILL.

pede it as virulently as he could, under the pretence of bene-
fitting the sailor, he (Sir G. Cockburn) was almost tempted
to throw it up altogether.
Sir C. NAPIER threatened to count the House if the Bill
were persevered in, when
On the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EX-
CHEQUER, the third reading of the Bill was adjourned
till to-morrow (this day).
The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the
House adjourned at a Quarter-past One o'clock.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS.
THURSDAY, JULY 17.
The Lords' amendments to the following Bills were
agreed to :
Lynn and Dereham Railway.
Middlesbro' and Redcar Railway.
Newry and Enniskillen Railway.
Dublin and Belfast Junction Railway.
Waterford and Limerick Railway.
Dublin and Drogheda Railway.

The Gravesend and Rochester Railway Bill was read a
third time and passed.
Railways (Selling and Lea.sing),—Bill to restrict the
powers of selling or leasing Railwaya contained in certain
Acts of Parliament relating to such Railways, ordered to be
brought in by Sir George Clerk and Lord Granville Somerset,
aad read a first time.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
HOME Cl RCUlT.—Chelltsford, July 17.
CIVIL SlDE.—(Before Mr. Justice COLKAIDGE, and a
Common Jury.)
zwza P. CARTER,.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff to recover damages
from the defendant for the seduction of his daughter.
Mr. Chambers, with Mr. Edwin James, conducted the case
on behalf of the plaintiff, and Mr. Sergeant Shee and Mr.
Wordsworth were for the defendant.
Mr. James (in the absence of his leader) addressed the
jury, and said that this was an action brought by the plaintiff
to recover compensation for what was termed by a fiction of
law the loss of his daughter's services, but in substance it was
to obtain damages for an injury committed by the defendant in
the seduction of his daughter. The Learned Counsel then pro-
ceeded to state that the plaintiff in this action had formerly
been an extensive farmer at Belcham, in this county, but he
had retired from business, and at the time of this transactitsn
was living, with his daughter Emma, the subject of the pre-
sent inquiry, and other members of his family, at a village
called Fox Earth. The defendant was the son of a wealthy
farmer in the same village, and he believed he was about 22
years of age. An intimacy had sprung up between the young
people, and the defendant was looked upon as her acknowledged
suitor, and no doubt was entertained of his intentions being ho-
nourable. It would appear, however, that he had deliberately
planned the seduction and ruin of the plaintiff's daughter, and in
March, 1843, he succeeded in obtaining possession of her per-
son, upon (as he was instructed) a solemn promise to make her
his wife. Their intimacy continued until the latter end of
1844, when the young woman gave birth to a child, and the
defendant then not only refused to perform his promise to
marry her, but had the cruelty to make a paltry offer of ss. a
week for the support of the child. The Learned Counsel,
after detailing some other circumstances, which will be found
in the evidence, concluded a very able and forcible address by
saying that the case was entitled to the most serious consideration
of the jury. A young girl, who, up to the time the defendant
crossed her father's threshold, was virtuous and happy, and
performed all her filial duties, had been disgraced and ruined.
The defendant found his victim virtuous and unprotected ; he
ruined and deserted her— _ _

called on Mr. Griffiths, at his dice, on the preceding Satur-
day, and that he was known to that gentleman, whilst she her-
self had been known to Mrs. Griffiths at the time she was in
the service of Sir Charles Forbes in Fitzroy-square. At that
period Mrs. Griffiths also lived in that square. The de-
fendant then proceeded to say that her father was in ex•
pectation of receiving pecuniary assistance from Mr. Grif-
fiths, and that he was at that moment ill in bed, and, of
course, was unable to cell upon him ; that he was in arrear
at his club, of which he had been a member and subscriber
for several years ; and that if those arrears were not paid by
a given time, he would be a loser of any benefit from that
society. Having concluded this story, she then requested the
loan of 10s. 6d. to enable her father to pay up these arrears.
Mrs. Griffiths thereupon inquired how it was that she had not
made an application to Sir Charles Forbes, when the girl re-
plied that her late master was from home, and was at Kensing-
ton, on a visit to his son, and that if Mrs. Griffiths would have
the kindness to make the advance, the sum should be repaid
ont of some money she had to receive shortly from the club,
after the payment of the arrears, on her father's account. This
promise, however, was not performed, but the defendant came
again and applied for another loan. Mrs. Griffiths upon this
gave a sovereign to her servant, desiring that she should accom-
pany the girl to the club, and then, if upon inquiry she found
. her tale to be true, to give her the money. The inquiry, how-
ever, led to the discovery that the whole of the statement was
fabricated, and therefore the sovereign was handed back to Mrs.
Griffiths.
The officer of the Mendicity Society said that he had known
the defendant for some time as a begging impostor, and further-
more that he had had her in custody on a previous occasion.

. .
The jury found the defendant Guilty.
The Learned JEDOE then sentenced the defendant to six
months' imprisonment in the House of Correction.
The other cases which were disposed of were destitute of
any feature of public interest.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
BOTV-STREET.
FRAUD ON A GAS COMPANY. —Mrs. Mann, landlady of a
public-house in Dean-street, Soho, and rilliam Newman, a
gas fitter, were summoned, the latter for laying a pipe into
the house and premises of the former defendant, which com-
municated with the pipe belonging to the Equitable Gas Com-
pany, without their knowledge or consent, and which continued
so to remain for forty-one days, which subjected them, under
the sth Vic., sess. 2, chap. 36 (local), sec. 162, to 40s. for
each day.
Mr. Humphries appeared on behalf of the complainants, and
Mr. Child for the female defendant.
Mr. Humphries said that in the month of February last the
female defendant contracted with the company, after which a
meter was placed upon her premises, with a quantity of
burners, according to the plan produced, from which it ap-
peared that the gas was supplied from the main pipe in
the street, communicating with the meter in the house,
through other pipes. There was another pipe marked red
in the place, running from the legitimate pipe, which was
surreptitious, and which formed the subject of complaint.
On the 3d of May, something occurred iri the house adjoining
the defendant's house, which caused a man to be sent by the
Company to take an account from the index, and having shut
up the pipe, he found that the gas still passed to the meter,
which he communicated to the Company, in consequence of
which the house was watched, and it was then discovered that
from the day in question, till the 18th of June, lights were in
full play to the number of eighteen. The female defendant
being apprised of the circumstance, she immediately went to
the other defendant, who applied to another company, who
ordered persons to attend on her for the purpose of taking her
orders ; but, being put in possession of the fact, they declined
to take any such order. It was manifest that the surreptitious
pipes had existed about forty-one days, the penalty for
which would amount to 52/., although the object of the Com-
pany was not severity, but that the public should know that
the parties committing such acts rendered themselves liable to
severe punishment.
Mr. Child said he was instructed to plead guilty on the part
of his client, and he hoped the Court would be lenient, as the
male defendant had acted without her knowledge, and,
although the burners were increased, there was no increase of
gas consumed.
The defendant was then ordered to pay a mitigated penalty
of 201., with costs.
The defendant Newman was then charged with the offence
above-mentioned, to which he pleaded not guilty.
The several officers connected with the company having
proved the case, the defendant was also convicted in a penalty
of 201., with costs.
The defendant said he had not sufficient goods to distrain
upon ; and after being detained in custody for some time, he
was ordered to attend on a future day to have the distress war-
rant made out against him, unless he was prepared to pay the
amount in the mean time.
SOUTH WARK
DESPERATE ATTEMPTS AT SUlClDl.—Yesterday, Mrs.
Eliza Roberts, the wife of Mr. Henry Boyden Roberts, a so-
licitor, was charged before Mr. Cottingham with making two
very determined attempts upon her life by poison and strangula-
tion on the preceding day.
Mr. Sidney Price, of 37, Union.street, Friar-street, Black-
friars-road, stated that the defendant, Mrs. Roberts, had been
lodging in his house for the last three months, and with her
child occupied one room on the second floor. For some days
past he and his wife observed that the defendant exhibited con-
siderable depression of spirits, and on the preceding day she
spoke of her husband, from whom she was separated, and said
that he had degraded her by giving her intocustody and sending
her to the station-house, and a ided that being tired of her ex-
istence she had resolved to terminate her earthly career, but did
not express by what means. The witness perceiving that she
looked ill, and suspecting that she had taken something of a de-
leterious nature, examined her room and found an empty phial
with the word " poison" written on a label. He questioned her
on the subject, but as she manifested no disposition to give any
information, he immediately sent for a medical man, and an
emetic and other means having been resorted to she reco-
vered after a short time ; but being in a very weakly condition
she was ordered to lie down and be kept quiet. The defendant
was then placed in bed, aid in a few hours afterwards when
witness's wife went up to her room to take her some gruel she
found the door locked. She knocked repeatedly, but without
effect ; when witness, being apprised of the circumstance, went
up himself and broke open the door. On entering the room
he found Mrs. Roberts lying apparently lifeless on die bed with
a silk scarf twisted tightly round her neck, her facie distorted,
and all the indications of strangulation perceptible. The liga-
ture having been removed, and restoratives having been admi-
nistered, she recovered, and as she subsequently expressed a
determination to destroy herself, the witness and his wife had
her brought up to this Court that steps might be adopted to
prevent a recurrence of the attempt upon her life.
Mr. COTTINGH Am inquired the cause of the defendant hav-
ing made this rash attempt to destroy herself, and whether her
husband was apprised of the circumstances of her narrow escape
from death ?
The witness, in reply, said that the defendant's husband was
a solicitor, residing in Church-street, Trinity-square—that a
separation had taken place between them about four years ago,
swing to her having an illicit intercourse with a Life Guards.
man—that Mr. Roberts subsequently brought an action for
cri.n. con. against the soldier, the issue was tried before the
Sheriff, when the defendant allowed judgment to go by default,
and the damages were assessed at 5001. Since that occurrence
Mr. Roberts and his wife had been living apart, and as he sub-
scribed nothing to her support, she was reduced from a state
of comparative affluence to great indigence, and it was the
pressure of want, he ( witness) had every reason to believe,
was the cause of her having made the attempts upon her exist-
ence. He added that he had forgotten to mention in the early
part of his statement that Mrs. Roberts, on finding she was
foiled in her attempts to destroy herself, had refused all sus-
tenance, declaring that she would starve herself to death, so
bent was she on self-destruction, and that she should lie down
and die at her husband's door.
Mr. COTTINGHAM inquired whether she had any relatives,
and how she had been supporting herself since their separation?
The witness said that her permits lived at Spalding, Lincoln-
shire—that they allowed their daughter a small pittance, merely
sufficient to pay her lodgings, and that she contrived to eke out
a miserable subsistence for herself and child by shirtmaking,
for which she was paid at the rate of fourpence a piece.
Mrs. Roberts, who appears to be about twenty-six or
twenty-seven years of age, looked very ill, and wept during
the investigation, said, in a tone scarcely audible, that being
in great distress, together with her child, she went a few days
ago to her husband's house, to solicit some pecuniary
assistance; that he peremptorily refused to give her a farthing,
and threatened to give her into custody if she came after him.
Finding that he was resolute in his determination, and that
everything conspired to make her miserable, she admitted
that she left his house with the fixed purpose of destroying
herself.
Mr. Corneal-we said that it was a most deplorable affair
altogether ; that evidence having been given before him
that the defendant had made two attempts upon her life, and
also had expressed her determination to starve herself to death ;
he was, therefore, called upon to place under restraint. This
he would de by calling upon her to find bail, and in the interval
lie should communicate with her friend:, and try if some ar-
rangement could not be made so as to relieve her and her
child from the pressure of want. The worthy Magistrate then
gave directions that the unfortunate woman should be taken to
the county gaol, and that in her present lamentable condition
attention might be paid to her consistently with the regula-
tions of the gaol.