The Sun.
London, England, 1845-06-18 00:00:00

its own expenses.—(Hear, hear.) But instead of that, the
expenses of the Government in the Colony now were about
36,0001., not including a debt of 60,000/.—( Hear, hear.)
He (Mr. Buller) had heard that the Government had re-
called Captain Fitzroy, and that it was the intention to send
Captain Grey in his place. Now he (Mr. Buller) did not
wish to say anything in reference to Captain Grey; but at
the same time he did think, that such a man as Sir Henry
Pottinger, or some person of experience like him, would be
the proper party to send out.—( Hear, hear.) He had now
done with this subject, and he would conclude, by propos-
ing the resoiutions of the Committee, which he was willing to
admit, could not be passed without some modification. But
he would call upon the House to tell the colonial officers that
they could not exercise an uncontrolled power in respect
to this colony, without being brought to account for their
acts.—( Loud cheers. )
Mr. MONCKTON MILNES said he would detain
the House with only a few words, after the splendid
speech of his Hon. Friend. This was a question not only of
great national importance, but one which would affect the cha-
racter of England throughout the whole world.—( Hear, hear. )
He regretted that he, like every other Member of that House,
knew very little of this subject, when he first became a mem-
ber of the Committee from whom these resolutions had
emanated. He must act upon his own convictions such as
they were. The first consideration which enforced itself upon
a person with respect to the state of this country was the em-
ployment of the surplus population of the country. He had great
regard for colonisation, as it was a matter of vital and
immediate interest. It gave him great satisfaction
when he saw the old spirit of colonisation, as it were, in one
moment, making head. He believed that, notwithstanding
the hard words that had fallen from his Hon. Friend, he would
agree with him (Mr. M. Milnes) that no one Member of that
House would for a moment believe that any Englishman would
be guilty—for he must use the word guilty—uf any desire
to perpetrate injustice on the natives of New Zealand. Still,
however, he did not bAieve that the feeling which existed in
this country was that the sacrifice of the English population in
New Zealand was to be justified by the preservation of the
savages of New Zealand. After the great detail which had
been gone into upon this subject, he should think it very im-
prudent in him to intrude on the House. He would, how.
ever, call the attention of the House to what Professor
Spain had said upon the question and state of New
Zealand. The Honourable Member then read several
extracts from the correspondence of Professor Spain, in
which the writer stated that the British law and authority in
New Zealand were totally disregarded. The notion of the
value of property held by the natives of New Zealand was
widely different to what it was in civilised society. The whole
matter could not be more clearly put than in one sentence in a
very excellent work by young Mr. Wakefield, in which he said
that the purchasers of land in New Zealand were not purchasers
of land between such and such boundaries, but were purchasers
of all rights, and powers, and authorities within certain limits.
He (Mr. M. Mitnes) would implore the Government not to
lose sight of this subject, but to do all in their power to better
the condition of so important a colony as New Zealand.
He owned he had strong feelings of sympathy with the sufferers
in those distant parts. In England the East India Company
were creating India, when England was losing America. The
empire of Eastern India was a lesson to Governments to trust
to the energy, and sense, and justice, and honour of the Eng-
lish people. Men of all politics and principles were now banded
together, confiding in the intregrity and ability of a public
Company, and requiring that the local Government of New
Zealand should not emanate from the Colonial-office at home.
—( Hear, hear.) The Government of this country was
not capable of adapting circumstances for the benefit
of a distant colony. Men were sent out to a station
of society of which they were comparatively ignorant, and to a
situation which, if occurring and so filled at home, they would
be declared totally unfit for. When Englishmen were so tenacie
of unlicensed authority, and pre-eminent for their love of free-
dom, as well as their impatience of undue restraint, they
should make excuse for the feelings of those who, subject
to the mercy of petty officials, at times gave way to irritation.
—( Hear, hear.) He thanked the House for the attention
with which he had been heard. He had ventured to address
the House on a subject of deep importance, and would con-
clude where he began, by declaring that the only excuse he
had for seconding the motion was a wish to direct the attention
of Members to that great question, and show them they must
meet it with all their hearts and feelings, as a question involv-
ing the interests, not of individuals, but the whole of this

country. They must trust to the honour and energy of the
New Zealand Company, who would doubtless co-overate with
her Majesty's Government, if allowed, to establish in the
Pacific a nucleus of commerce, civilisation, and power, equal
to that which had arisen in the East. and assist in establishing
in those seas an Antarctic India.—(Hear, hear.)
The question having been put,
illr. HOPE rose, uner no ordinary feelings of embarrassment,
not only from a sense of the magnitude of the subject, but of
his inability to do justice to the character of an absent party,
against whom aspersions had been cast in the strongest manner,
reflecting both on his character and motives. He had been
charged with hostility to colonisation, and with hostility to the
Company. As to colonisation the Noble Lord looked upon it
as one of the greatest remedies of the country, but he did not

regard it as apanacea for all evils or a remedy for paupers.
\r‘ hen the present Secretary for the Colonies succeerhd the
Noble Lord the Member for London, he found a discussion
pending between the Government and the Company,
but so far from pressing the opposition which was
at that time offered it, he rescinded the in-
struct'ons of the Noble Lord and used his best efforts

to co-opera•e with the Company. The sentiments then en-
tertained of the conduct of the Noble Colonial Secretary he
(Mr. Hope) found thus expressed in the Parliamentary Re-
ports of last year, page 42 :—" The Directors cannot conclude
this letter (a letter signed by the chairman, Mr. Somes, now
Member for Dartmouth) without offering your Lordships a
tender of their thanks for the generous conduct you have
evinced towards the Company, and their cordial thanks for
the orders to be issued to the Governor of the Colony." Since
then, every concession had been made that was felt con-
sistent with his duty, and the collision with the Company could
be accounted for solely by the Company making a demand
which involved the interests of a third party, and the ques-
tion of what was the right by which the New
Zealanders held the tenure of their land. Then it

was that the Government refused to concede to an unjust
request, and withheld
,their ce-operation from the Company.
The Hon. Gentleman found it necessary to debase the cha-
racter of the New Zealander as low as possible. He stated
that they were no better than cannibals. There was little
doubt that cannibalism did exist at one time among the na-
tives ; but, on the contrary, the Hon. Gentleman might have
said that, out of the hundred thousand aborigines, at present
forty thousand were professing Christianity. He need not
have charged these inoffensive people with the abominable
vices he had mentioned. He stated also that, in his opinion,
the natives of Nero Zealand in every point of view were infe-
rior to the Caffres. This assertion was inconsistent with some
of the statements of his own agents, that there were natives
who owned vessels, were engaged in trade, and who, in various
departments of life, followed the practice and arts of Europeans.
—( Hear.) Why, then, did the Hon. Gentleman say that
these people were in such a debased state ? Why ? Because
it was necessary for him to show that they could have no
rights, or that their rights ought not to be regarded. He
would now allude to the treaty made by the Noble Lord, the
predecessor of the present Secretary for the Colonies, on which
the Hon. Gentleman had commented. He commenced by
making use of those powers of sarcasm which he so end-
nently possessed, for the purpose of throwing ridi-
cule on all the proceedings that had taken place.
With respect to the New Zealanders, he declared that there
should be an end to the solemn mockery, and he contended
that the whole affair was a farce, and a farce carried on for their
own benefit ; and as it was not convenient to carry it on any
longer with a profit, the time had arrived for doing away with
it altogether. The Hon. Member had admitted this ; also that
the New Zealanders were not competent to be dealt with by
treaty. Now, what was the case? If the Hon. Member says
that onr right was a right of discovery, and that no steps had been
taken to invalidate that right, therefore we must stand upon our
original claims of discovery. He would refer to a transaction
that took place at the close of the late Government in 1839,
with regard to the New Zealanders. He had found a memorial,
in which it was stated that an Act had been passed in the reign
of King William IV., which recognised the rights of New Zea-
land as an independent country. Subsequently Acts for colo-
nisation had been refused on the ground that it was not com-
petent for Parliament to legislate for a territory which was not
within the jurisdiction of the British realm. The country was
not part of her Majesty's dominions, therefore could not be
legislatel for. A national flag had been granted to the New
Zealanders, and Mr. Busfield had been appointed as the British
representative; how, then, could Parliament, after having
solemnly recognised their independence, now consistently re-
voke it altogether, and annihilate all that had been done? The
instructions of Lord Normanby, to which the Noble Lord the
Member for Tiverton had referred, declared New Zealand to
be a perfectly independent country. The treaty of Waratonga
stated that the family of the Queen was to remain in possession
of the sovereignty, and that the people were to remain undis-
turbed in the possession of their lands, estates, and forest pro-
perty, which they might individually or collectively own. It
was now proposed to set aside the right of pre-emption. As late
as the year 18:36 there were 2,000 British settlers in New Zea-
land on lands purchased from the natives, and these purchases
had not been made on a small scale, for out of the 1,000 land-.
owners, 760 were possessed of estates, each exceeding 1,000
acres. The New Zealand Company had made all their pur-
chases of land on the faith and honour of the natives, and :a
good and valid possession had been obtained. The New
Zealand Company had all along proceede4 on the assumption
that the natives were the legal proprietors of the soil, and
could dispose of it at pleasure. The proceedings of Colonel
Wakefield in the purchase of land, from the natives, left no
doubt on their minds as to the subject. He had bought estates,
on the understanding that they had power to dispose of the
waste lands, and it was preposterous to suppose to the contrary.
The treaty with the aborigines had been established entirely
on the strength of the understanding that the natives had
power to dispose of waste lands, and this fact established beyond
all doubt that the natives were the original and legitimate
owners. In 1839, it was considered expedient to colonise the
country, and the method of purchasing land from the natives
was adopted for the purpose. The Hon. Gentleman opposite
had stated that he would have taken the lands without regard
to the natives, and that the colonial laws would have authorised
his so doing, and he (Mr. Hope) would observe, however, that
the colonial laws referred only to the possessions which the Go-
vernment held in the country ; and in the treaty it was re-
solved that only such waste lands should be secured to the
Crown, as were not required for the use of the natives. This
treaty was made according to instructions furnished to Captain
Hobson, and on the principles already stated. That treaty
was made on the 6th of February, 1840. In a statement fur-
nished at the time, in reference to this treaty, there was a pas-
sage setting forth that the understanding upon which the treaty
was founded, was, th it the privileges and customs of the natives
in respect to the land should be preserved to them—that the
land should never be taken from them. This principle did not
depend on one statement, but on statements made by every
party who had had anything to do with the making of the
treaty—not only by the Colonial Secretary, but by the mis-
sionaries, much as their characters and veracity had been im-
pugned. In fact, every party had given the same interpreta-
tion to the treaty, who had been a party to its original execu-
tion. On the question of the right to the lands the natives had
been united, and they relied on the good faith of the Govern-
ment to protect them in their privileges. But the
Noble Lord, the Member for the City of London,
had himself assented to the same doctrine at that
time, being then Colonial Secretary. The Hon. Mem-
ber here read several extracts from dispatches forwarded from
the Government of New Zealand to her Majesty's Govern-
ment, with the opinions of the Noble Lord thereon, approving
orwefosupee
the principle which he (Mr. Hope) had been defending,
respecting
foundt the
h titleof the
Parliamentary nhaet i
Nyes
o fptehpee land. Papers
o flB3Tlh? The
No. extracts3ll
' page 10.
w
O. Theae a fallstatmentjustification of the Noble
o
twivhiecs_h
tbCeapetastianbliHbombesootn of the
Lord, then, if good for
anything,
rightet
o f termsth
eo f
ntahtei v
es treatyt to
ohfadtheconclh uded with the na-
the soil, and that no purchase of land should. be made
unless it was carrried out on a fair principle, with the consent
sanctionaonfdtbuendNerobtlheeLori . off the Government.
oTfhetheetantaetroiveeosi
nuroeterence to the dis-
onrlyevtihue
yinistrnee-
patches of Captain Hobson, recognised
tions which. the Marquis of Normanby had
en this subject, but were still more definiteP anclodsel-'d" ind
their character. Such were the conditions of the treatel decided
question was, whether the natives had given up theiry
sove-
reignty without some guarantee of the land. He maintained
that they had not, but that they only gave up their sovereignty
on condition that the right to the land should be reserved to
them. Such were the facts of the original transaction. 112

1812, however, he found that the Noble Lord (Lord John
Russell) admitted that the treaty of 1840 was only a blind, and
that the rights of the natives of New Zealand were so compli-
cated, that he did not understand how they should be treated.
He did not blame the late Government; but the construction
put upon that treaty was originally put upon it by Mr. Spain,
who was appointed by Lord John Russell. The Noble Lord
the Member for London directed waste land to be obtained by
purchase, and therefore recognised the right of the natives to
sell. It had been said that the New Zealand Company ac-
cepted a Crown title, and did not make purchases; but such
was not the case, for they sent out thousands of persons as early
as May, 1840, to occupy land, for which they paid 170,0001.
Why, the New Zealand Company had laid it as one of their
claims upon the Government that they had expended large
sums of money in the purchase of land there. The Noble
Lord, in his letter to the New Zealand Company, clearly re-
cognised the purchases of the Company ; for he said that the
Company had made large purchases of land, fully equal to
make good any claims they had on the Government. The
lands which the Company bought had been in the possession of
the natives; and they clearly showed that the demand made upon
Government was altogether futile. The Right Hon. Gentleman
quoted the letter of Col. Wakefield, to show that the purchase
by the Company, and the title of the natives to sell were fully
recognised. J That was not the only construction. The agent
immediately objected, and having brought the natives before
the Court he abandoned the proceedings. Surely, that was a
course which no Government could sanction. Then he stared
that the instructions of the agent had been over-ruled by the
interference of Captain Hobson. And he states what those
instructions were, namely, that it was incumbent on the agents
to purchase the land before they disposed of it. Such were the
instructions, but he was aware that the Noble Lord (Lord J.
Russell) would not be ready to accede to that view of the
question ; and when Lord Stanley came into office he was
bound to abide by these decisions.—( Hear, hear.) Lord
Stanley had been charged with all sorts of dereliction of duty,
but the charge was altogether without foundation. Then
he came to the year 1840, in which it was asserted
that the Colonial-office had altogether neglected the interest of
all parties. Then there was the question of the lands, which
it was asserted ought not to have been conveyed, but he had
shown every legal power had been secured, and there could be
no fault whatever found with those proceedings. He was per-
fectly satisfied, from the whole of the proceedings of Captain
Fitzroy, that he had done his duty. In the case of Warranaki,
for instance, which was a case of reviving the duty to the
slaves of the colony through the influence of Christianity.—
( Hear, hear.) The House would at least be satisfied that
Captain Fitzroy had done all that in him lay towards the
amelioration of the condition of the slaves in the colony. He
now came to the other important settlements of Wellington
and Nelson, and it appeared from the report of the agent of the
Company that all was quiet. The same was the case with
respect to Nelson. He had shown, therefore, that Captain
Fitzroy had put the settlers in the possession of
their lands. That was one of the most important
points. Contradictory statements had been made to put the
settlers in possession of their land, but by the last dispatches it
appeared that Captain Fitzroy had returned to use military
force is order to take possession of that district. He, therefore,
felt that all the allegations which had been thrown out were
perfectly without foundation. He now came to a point much
commented on by the Hon. and Learned Member—he meant
the construction put by Lord Stanley on the 7th resolution of
the Treaty. The Hon. and Learned Member said its mean-
ing was perverted by a sort of trick. It would be recollected by
Hun. Members that that Noble Lord had always wet, essed
himself anxious to give the settlers the value of the pro-
perty, but it seemed to him, that the Hon. and Learned
Member objected to their having any land at all. But then
the Noble Lord was charged as being the occasion of the
unfortrnate occurrences that had taken place in the island.
He 'bought that a great deal of those transactions rested with
oti.er parties than the Noble Lord. He (Mr. Hope) would
refer the House to the resolution, and the observations made
thereon. He found that the resolution was to this effect,
that the conduct of the New Zealand Company, in taking
possession in defiance of the authority of the Crown, was
highly irregular and improper. The observations were in a
somewhat similar language. But, it was said,
that these dissatisfactions arose out of the detention of
land. He denied this.—( Hear, hear.) The dissatisfaction
had to do with the titles to the land, and not to its detention.
One case of a peculiar character had been referred to, as oc-
curring in the north of the island ; but this was nut a quarrel
between the natives and settlers, but between two septs of na-
tives. —( Hear, hear.) And yet this was the only case referred
to by Hon. Members. The Right Hon. Gentleman then re-
ferred to several documents to show that the Company had
professed to purchase lands from chiefs, who them-
selves acknowledged that they had no power to sell
them. It would be utterly impossible to follow the
Right Hon. Gentleman in all his derails, or indeed to make
any important port on of them intelligible. He said the
fact was that it was quite impossible to make valid the pur-
chases which had been made in a foreign land without any
serious or careful inquiry into the titles of the settlers. That
the Company had not inquired with proper caution into the
titles of those from whom they professed to purchase, was
proved in the inquiries instituted by Mr. Spain. He (Mr.
Hope) did not say that the gentlemen who had en-
tered upon the adventure did so with a full knowledge
that they were violating any rights. All he said was
that they had not exercised due caution.—(Hear, hear.) He
would pass over some of the accusations made by the Hon.
Member for Liskeard, and proceed to state what was the actual
state of the colony. The Hon. Member for Liskeard had re-
ferred to the reports of Dr. Evans as representing the state of
the colony. He did not wish to cast any imputation upon the
character of Dr. Evans, but he must say, that he had received
later intelligence, which satisfied him that not in Wellington or
Nelson had there been any violence inflicted by the
natives.—( Cries of " Hear, hear.') But in the Bay of
Islands there had' been some symptoms of insubordination
directed, however, against individuals, and not against the Go-
vernment. Capt. Fitzroy stated that the employment of force
was necessary, not so much for the repression of actual violence,
as to ensure 'future tranquillity and establishing the moral influ-
ence of the Government. The Right Hon. Gentleman then
proceeded to read dispatches and correspondence, from which
he argued that the course pursued by the Government was
forced upon them by the circumstances. Now with regard to
the Government expenses, he begged to say that when the
present Governor went out he found the colony in a state of
bankruptcy, and had restored it to solvency. As
to the appointment of Captain Gray, he begged to
say that the appointment of that gentleman to fill
the place of Captain Fitzroy was the best appointment
that could have been made under the circumstances. The
Hon. Member had called upon the House to pass the re-
solutions of the Committee in a modified form. Those resolu-
tions did contain much that the Noble Lord the Secretary for
the Colonies had often messed his approval of; but it would
not be for him (Mr. Hope) now to enter upon a discussion of
their merits in detail ; bet he found by a passage in a report of
the New Zealand Company, that they had made a pur-
chase of a large tract of land, which they had found
totally unoccupied, and took possession of without trou-
ble or opposition. So much for that part of the Hon. Mem-
ber's charge in reference to the dispatch of Lord Stanley of the
12th of August. Did he believe that these resolutions would
be beneficial to the colonists, no false pride would induce him
to oppose the motion. He believed, however, that such a
motion, if carried, would be most fatal to the colony, and he
therefore gave it his unqualified opposition. He
believed, that by the measures which the Govern-
ment were taking, the aborigines of New Zealand
would be the more readily brought to associate with the Euro-
peans, and those measures would be the means of abolishing a
system which was grounded on the destruction of the abori-
gines of the colonies.

On the motion of Captain ROUS, the debate was adjourned,

SIR HENRY POTTINGER.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER brought up
the report of the Committee upon the proposed pension to Sir
H. Pottiuger.
The report was received, and ordered to lie on the tahle.".
The other orders of the :day were then disposed of, and the
House adjourned at Half-past Twelve o'clock.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS.
MONDAY, JUNE 16.
The Eastern Counties Railway (Cambridge and Bury St.
Edmund's Extension) Bill was read a second time, and coin•
mitted, and referred to the Committee of Selection.

The following Bills were read a third time, and passed :
Blackburn and Preston Railway.
Newcastle and Darlington (Brandling Junction) Railway.
Monkland and Kirkintilloch Railway.
Sheffield and Rotherham Railway.
Taw Vale Railway and Dock.
Waterford and Kilkenny Railway.

Boyd. John
Broadwood, H. .
Brotherton, J.
Brownrigg, J. S.
Campbell, J. 11.
Cartwright, W. R.
Christopher, It. A.
Clerk, Sir George
Clive, Viscount
Collett, John
Deedes, W.

Denison, W. J.
Denison, E. B.
Dodd, George
Douglas, Sir H.
Dugda:e, W. S.
Duke, Sir J.

Duncombe, T.
Duncombe, 0.
Duncombe, A.
Egerton, Sir P.
Feilden, W.
Forman, S.
Fuller, A. E.
Gladstone, W. E.
Gladstone, Captain
Godson, Richard
Hamilton, C. J.
Hamner, Sir J.
Hayter, W. G.
Hodgson, F.

Holland, Robert
ilornby, John.
Houldsworth, T.
llwhes, W. B.

Humphery, Alderman Russell, Charles
Inglis, Sir It, 11. Russell, J. D. W.
Irton, Samuel Sandon, Viscount)
James, Sir W. C. Seymour, Lord
Kemble, Henry Sheridan, R. B.
Lambton, H. Smith, A.
Lascelles, W. S. Smith, J. A.
Lawson, Andrew Somerset, Lord G.
Legh, G. C. Somes, Joseph
Lemon, Sir C. Stanfield, W. R. C.
Lincoln, Earl of Stuart, Lord J.
Lockhart, William Stuart, W. V.
Lygon, General Stuart, Henry
Mackenzie, W. F Strickland, Sir G.
M`Geachy, F. A. Strutt, Edward
M`Taggart, Sir J. Thompson, Alderman
Maher, N. Thornhill, George
Manners, Lord J. Tower, Christopher
Mines, R. M. Trotter, John
Mitcalfe, Henry Turner, Edmund
Morgan, 0. Vernon, G. 11.
Morris, David Villiers, Viscount
Neeld, John Waddington, 1.1. S.
Norreys, Sir D. J. Wawn, J. T.
Patten, J. W. Welby, G. E,
Peel, Jonathan Williams, William
Pendarves, E. W. Wilmington, Sir T.
Philips, G. It. Wood, Charles
Polhill, Frederick Wortley, John S.
Praed, W. T. Wrightson, W. B
Price, Richard
Pringle, Alexander
Rawdon, Colonel
Richards, Richard
ltoHeston, Colonel

TELLERS.
Estcourt, T. G.
Greene, Thomas

BANKING (IRELAND) BILL
Read a third time. Mr. Smith O'Brien's Clause brought up, and read
a first time ; Mo' ion made, and Question put, " That the said Clause
be now read a second time." The House divided

Archbold, Robert
Bellew, R. M.
Blewitt, IL J.
Bowling*, Dr.
Brocklehurst, J.
Browne, R. D.
Crawford, W. S.
Dawson, T. V.
Duncan, George

MINORITY-AYES, 24.
Gregory, W. H. Ross, David R.
Hume, Joseph Somers, J. I'.
Humphery, Alderman Trelawny, J. S,
Norreys, Sir D. Tulle, HMI.
O'Brien, J. Wawn, John T,
O'Connell, D. Williams, W.
O'Connell, J. TELLERS.
14a-radon, Col. O'Brien, W. S.
Roche, E. B. Somerville, Sir W.

MAJORITY-NOES, 77.
Acton, Colonel Denison, E. 8.. Lincoln, Earl
Allis, J. I'. Dick, Quintin Lowther, Sir J.
Arbuthnott, H. Dickinson, F. H. Lygon, General
Arkwright, George Douglas, Sir 11. Mahon, Viscount
Baird, William Entwisle, William Miles, William
Baring, F. T. Escott, Bickham Mitchell, T. A.
Baring, W. B. Forman, T. S. Nicholl, John
Baskerville, T. B. M. Fremantle, Sir T. Peel, Sir R.
Benbow, John Gladstone, Captain Peel, Jonathan
Bernard, Viscount Godson, Richard Polhill, F.
Blakemore, Richard Gore, Montague Round, C. G.
Borthwick, Peter Goulburn, Henry Smith, T. B. C.
Boyd, John Graham, Sir J. Somerset, Lord G.
Brisco, M. Greene, T. Somes, Joseph
Broadley, H. Grimsditch, T. Sutton, Henry
Brotherton, J. Hampden, Renn Thesiger, Sir F.
Browne, W. Hatton, Captain Thornhill, G.
Busfeild, William Hobhouse, Sir J. Tower, Christopher
Cardwell, Edward Hope, Charles Trench, Sir F. W.
Chelsea, Viscount Hope, A. Vernon, G. H.
Clerk, Sir G. I lope, G. W. Vivian, J. Ennis
Clive, R. H. Hughes, W. B. Wellesley, Lord C.
Cockburn, Sir G. Hutt, William Wortley, James S.
Connolly, Colonel Irton, Samuel
Coote, Sir C. 11. James, Sir Walter
Corry, Henry Jermyn, Earl
Darby, George Lefroy, Anthony

TELLERS.
Young, John:
Baring, Henry

L /kW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF COALVION PLEAS, June 16.
WANT V. GINGER.

Mr. Sergeant Channell appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. Sergeant
13) les and Mr. Montague Smith represented the defendant.
The plaintiff is a builder by trade, and the defendant is, or Mas
in May, 1844, the landlord of the Cape of Good Hope, Alban.
street, Regent's-park, where, in the beginning of last year, lie
thought fit to start a " Derby sweep." The terms of the lottery
were that each subscril,•a. should put down two guineas, and there
was to be a prize of 2001. for the holder of the first horse, and a
prize of 501. for the holder of the second, the winner of the first
prize "standing a dozen, and the winner of the second prize
three bottles of champagne. Among the subscribers was a person
named Saunders, formerly a clerk in the Post.office, but now a
publican, who, when the horses were drawn, had the good fortune
to get a ticket with " lonian " upon it. It will be recollected that
lonian was one of Colonel Peel's lot, and was a greater favourite
for the Derby than Orlando, who afterwards carried off the
stakes. Towards the latter part of April lonian. as a
leading favourite for the Derby, was of so much
value in the sporting circles to which the parties
connected with the case resorted, that the ticket drawn by
Saunders was at a considerable premium, and he conse-
quently commissioned the defendant, who was the treasurer of the
" sweep," to sell his chance. According to the account which
Saunders gave of the matter, the defendant told him on the first
Thursday in May that he had sold the ticket to a person for 61. 10s.,
upon which he had received 1/. deposit, and that the rest of the
money was to be made good on the following Sunday. The money
was not, however, made good at the appointed time, and Saunders,
after giving the party eight or nine days' time, agreed to return the
deposit to him, and treat the bargain as rescinded. He subse-
quently sold the ticket to the plaintiff for Si., and informed the de-
fendant of it, both by word of mouth and by letter. The defendant
did not say anything about his having sold the ticket himself, but
after the race was run, and the place of lonian, as second horse,
was establisbed by the result of, the trial of " Wood v. Peel" in
the Court of Exchequer in July last, the defendant told Saun-
ders he had sold the ticket before the race, and requested him
to return Want his money, observing " that he would sooner
forfeit 1001. than that Want (making use of a vulgar expres-
sion) should have the prize." The credit of the witness Saunders
was considerably shaken on his cross-examination, and if the
case had rested on his testimony alone, perhaps the plaintiff
might have had a verdict against him. He admitted that he had
left the Post-office upon a charge being made against him of open.
ing letters with a view of obtaining information about sporting
matters ; and although he denied that he had ever opened any
letters to see what "Running Rein" was doing, he declined to
say whether he had not done so to get information about " Red
Deer,'' who won the cup last year at Chester. Another witncs,,
however, named Thomas Dawson Smith, whose testimony was
above impeachment, confirmed the material portions of Saunders's
evidence, and stated that tke very day before the race, which took
place on the 22d of May, he went with the plaintiff' to the de-
fendant's house, and heard the letter from Saunders read, request..
ing the defendant to let Mr. Want have the ticket for lonian, as
he had sold him the ticket for 8/. The defendant then said that he
could not conveniently put his hand on the ticket, but that if the
horse won Mr. Want should have the money. A notice was also
served on the defendant on the 27th of May, in which the plaintiff
requested him to retain the money the second horse was entitled
to until the stakes for the Derby were given up to the horse enti-
tled legally to the first prize.
Mr. M. SMITH addressed the jury for the defence, and called
three witnesses to show that the defendant had sold the ticket in
question for 61. 10s. to two persons named Carter and Bowles,
from whom he had received that amount, and to whom, on the
9th of July, he paid 501., as the holders of the ticket. In the
course of their evidence the unpleasant fact was elicited that the
defendant had been one of the "defaulters " on the Derby last
year, and that he had offered ss. in the pound on his turf debts.

Lord Chief Justice TINDAL summed up the evidence, and told
the jury that if they believed the witness Smith, there could be no
defence to this action. The defence set up was, that Ginger hail
authority from Saunders to sell the ticket, and that he sold it, and
received the money. If so, why did he not pay it, or offer to pay
it to Saunders ? and why did he not, when asked for the ticket,
say that he had sold it, instead of saying " that he could not con_
veniently lay his hand upon it ?" Supposing his account to be true,
it was his own fault if he paid the money twice over.

The jury immediately returned a verdict for the plaintiff—
Damages, 501.

Attorney for the plaintiff, Mr. Pile; for the defendant, Mr.
Futvoye.

SHERIFFS' COURT, June 17.
(Before Mr. Under-Sheriff BURCHELL.)
CRIM. LOI.—CREAGH V. HEWGILL.

This was an inquiry to assess damages for criminal conversation
with the plaintiff's wife.

Mr. Sergeant Talfnurd, with Mr. Painter, appeared for the plain-
Lir ; and Mr. Robinson for the defendant.

The Learned SERGEANT stated the case. The plaintiff is a cap-
tain in the 54th Regiment, and the defendant had formerly been
also an officer in the army, but had retired. The lady who is the
unhappy subject of the present inquiry, was related to an English
family of the highest respectability, who formerly resided at Bou.
logne, and at present at Paris, but whose name he should refrain
from mentioning. The plaintiff married in 1839 or 1840, and in
1841 he was called to Englaud on duty, and went into
barracks; he afterwards went to Ireland, and, in 1843,
came to the resolution of taking a house in Dublin.
During this period the plaintiff and his wife had
been separate on several occasions of Mrs. Creagh going on
visits to her relations, and from necessity, through the professional
duties of the plaintiff; they, however, were always on the best
terms, and on parting in August, 1843, for Mrs. Creagh to visit
an aunt, at Woburn, before taking up her abode at Dublin, they
did so on the most affectionate terms, and, on the part of the plain-
tiff', with tha full expectation of her return, as up to that time
there was not the slightest suspicion of any improper intimacy
existing. Mrs. Creagh, however, lett her aunt, and it was soon
afterwards discovered that she had eloped with the defendant to
Belgium, where they resided for some time. The defendant, how-
ever, returned to England for a short time, when he was
served with process in this action, and he again returned to
Belgium, where they still resided, under the assumed name of
Carter. The Learned Sergeant said the plaintiff had adopted these
proceedings, not from a vindictive motive, but to enable him to
take ulterior proceedings to effect a legal divorce from one to
whom he was fondly attached, but who had been estranged from
him by the conduct of the defendant, and with whom all hope of
future happiness was entirely and for ever at an end. His object
very properly was that only, and not to put money, the price of his
wife's dishonour, into his own pocket. For that reason he (the
Learned Counsel) did not wish to aggravate the case by any remarks,
but to leave the plain facts before the jury, expecting such damages
at their hands as would vindicate the character of the defendant,
and prove that there had been no misconduct on his part which
had in any way tended to bring on this melancholy crisis. The de.
fendant was said to be in a state of great poverty; but the jury
must not take that circumstance entirely into their consideration
in giving their verdict, or poverty might sin with impunity. un-
fortunately, from the nature of the plaintiff's professional duties,
it would be impossible to give any strong evidence as to the terms
of affection in which the plaintiff and his wife had lived up to
the time at which the defendant had formed the acquaintance
which had terminated so unhappily for all parties.
Evidence was adduced, but (as observed by the Learned Under.
Sheriff) was very slight and meagre as to the terms on which plain.
tiff and his wife lived.

Mr. ROBINSON addressed the jury and expressed the defendant's
obligations for the moderate manner in which the case had been
opened, and urged that the domestic happiness and comfort of the
plaintiff could not have been great when the separations were so
frequent; he also urged that there was a great disparity in age,
the lady being now only 22 or 23, and the plaintiff 34 or 35—the
defendant being about 27 or 28. It had also been shown in evi-
dence that, when the parties were traced to Belgium, they were
found in a miserably small house, miserably furnished, the defen-
dant in his shirt-sleeves kneading bread for the next week's con-
sumption, and had been suffering under a paralytic attack, and de.
pending on the lady's friends.
The UNDER-SHERIFF briefly summed up, observing that the evi-
dence was very weak to show the domestic happiness of plaintiff
and his wife, but that, nevertheless, the jury must estimate their
damages on that account alone, without taking the poverty of
defendant into consideration.
The jury consulted for ten minutes, and then gave—Damages,
300/,

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
OLD COURT.
(Before the RECORDER and Mr. Alderman Huanes.)
Sarah Silver, a dellcate.looking girl, aged 18, was indicted for
concealing the birth of her male child.
The prisoner was in the service of Mr. Light, of the Queen's
Head, Church-lane, City. On the 20th of May she gave birth to
the child in the water closet, which was subsequently found em.
bedded in the soil. When taken in, it appeared that she sent for
her mistress. There was no evidence to show that she concealed
the birth, and the jury acquitted her.
The RECORDER desired Mrs. Light to be recalled, and he said
there was no imputation on the prisoner's character beyond the
unfortunate occurrence of giving birth to the child. He hoped,
therefore, she would endeavour to do what she could for her, that
she might not be utterly ruined.
Mrs. Light said she would adopt the Learned Recorder's sug.
gestion.
Mary Ann Salisbury, aged 19, the young woman who was taken
issito custody for attempting to commit suicide at Westminster.
bridge, and who told 10 romaiitie a tale to Mx. Norton, the magi*.