The Sun.
London, England, 1845-07-23 00:00:00

THE
__SUN, LONDON, WIODNESDAY EvENING, JULY 23, 1845

conclude withoat saying that he was lost in surprise at the
manner in which the question had been dealt with
by the Government, particularly when he recollected
the petitions *at had been presented to them, praying only for
an inquiry. lie had intended to move for a Committee in the
early part of the session upon the subject, but having been pre_
.vented iu that, he had now nothing to do but to pray her Ma-
iestY follpolnale in inquiry, with a view to having the party who
as redl
wy guilty brought to punishment, for he did not seek
to shield even the Raja if he were guilty. He (Mr. Hume)
did not mean to attribute motives to any party, but he did
think the Government were in error, and should have pursued
a different sours°. Now he would wish to know what the Go-
vernment intended to do in this ease ? Surely it was one
which demanded being as sternly dank with as Captain Boldero,
who he believes' to be as honest a man as any in that House.
If, then, the Government did not mean to allow this to be
cloaked up, he hoped the Government would direct an in-
quiry to be made into the conduct of Colonel Ovans and
the Raja. The Hon. Member concluded by moving the
adoption of the motion of which he had given notice.
Dr. BOWRING seconded the motion, and, in doing so,
said he could not but express his concurrence in many of the
observations of his Hon. Friend, but he should not enter into
any details, as the present state of the House did not afford
afford him much encouragement for doing so ; yet, let him
ask, should this unfortunate man make an appeal in vain to
that House ? He hoped not.
Mr. E. TENNENT said that the charges against the Reje
of Sattara had been fully investigateal by a oomr
tent tribunal, and the decision of that tril-
had been confirmed by the Governor of Bombe 'in."'
by the Court of Directors, and approved by t' and
cessive Governor-Generals. and by three succr dree sue-
ofControul. It must be recollected that in ti• 4ive Boards
. .e deposition of
the Raja of Sattara no dynasty had been r
.
throne of Sattara had been established verthrown, as the
tish Government. The Raja of Sato. •Iginally by the Bri-
.ra
to the British Crown, and having broke his allegiance
against the British authority in ID? entered into a conspiracy
la, he was deposed and con-
fined. The Hon. Member ft- "
,
copies of the evidence were c Montrose had said that no
not so. supplied to the Raja. That was

Mr. HUM—When
Mr. E. TENNV is the evidence ?
ATCopies were not supplied in every
instance, but the substance if the evidence was supplied, and
the reason that
NT, the., the
mate of the names of the witnesses were with-
held
persons whose names were so withheld were
the iniut,cts of the Raja, and, of course, would have been
undee pis controul.
WILLIAMS said, that notwithstanding the great
41',,lity with which he had advocated the conduct of the Govern-
ment, he had totally failed in defending them. He had totally
failed in his facts. He hoped that Colonel Ovens was a high-
minded man, but as no inquiry had been made into the charge
of conspiracy against the Raja of Sattara, he thought
that the Honotrable Gentleman, even had he possessed more
eloquence than he did, would fail to clear the Government of
blame. The Raja presented a petition to the House, stating
that he was the victim of fraud aed malevolence, and praying
-the House to institute an inquiry upon the subject. He hoped,
therefore, they would rekuest her Majesty to institute this in-
quiry, and thus he in a better position to come to a proper con-
clusion on the merits of the ease.
Mr. HOGG said that when such charges were made against
a high-minded and ar qon. Gentleman, bethought that he was
in duty bound, is justice to that individual, to make a few ob-
servations, and if the House would allow him ten minutes, he
would not tax their indulgenoe farther.—(Hear.) The Raja
was a moat suspicions man he had been born in captivity, and
so had his father and granifathers. There was every differere.„
between interference with independent Princes and thAilja
of Sahara, with whom they had a distinct right to in'.
moment he broke the covenant. The Raja was tr .rk-e the
rig to with-
draw from the allegiaece of the British '.l.tevernment the
sepoys. That was no light offence,) but it was
terther certain that he was ir4er,jasing__
the array
witbia his dominions, and a commission was
out to inquire into the truth of thelee cites. The commis-
sion went to ' Sahara, examine:l' witeessee, and came to the
eonclusion that the Ilajahad P-ttemeeted to corrupt the sepoys,
:led withdraw them from their 61egienee. Sir Robert Grant
cid not like to do anything beeesh—the Governor-General re-
garded the Raja with great apprehension, and at length
II came to the op'.r.seen that the Raja could not he
lutther trusted. It ewe quite clear that be was connected
with other ex-Rajas. for disloyal purposes. The evidence be-
fore the commissio4 consisted of the examination of forty indi-
viduals, and weret to show that an attack on the treasury was
meditated. tehundant documentary evidence was exhibited to
prove the', the Raja was guilty. The Raja had no right to hold
covntneetication with the Portuguese Governor by the compact,
but 'yet he did so. The letters which this Raja addressed to other
Reles were produced, and he would give no other answer
enan that anybody might write letters in his name, and
'ealled far his answers to these letters. What course could
be painted, the Raja's guilt having been established? No
other than that which the Indian Government had pursued--
to remove the Raja from his Government. There was every ,
dispoeition to treat the Raja kindly, and the Court of Directors
gave directions to Sir James Carnac to do so. Sir Jedies
Carnac came to a conclusion, upon examining the facts in India,
that the Raja was guilty, but determined upon waitieic upon
the Raja, personally, and entering into a communication with
l'im. The correspondence on this head, on '!,e part of Sir
James Carna,e, recited that circumstances h.ad come to the
knowledge of the British Government tis":s the Raje had en-
tered into communication with persons hostile to the British
Goverement, and these funs been proved, the British
Government required him to e-e...rer into a renewal of the treaty
by which he held leis 12'.ej. The Raja refused to sign this
'treaty, though S'ir James Cernac did all in his power to induce
him to sign His bad advisers still guided him, although
'he avowed repeatedly that his ruin was impending. Had he
signed ''.tat document he would be now in possession of his
lisj -end of his power. Reference to the papers would
the .4 that of all curses that could be inflicted on India,
This greatest was that of Europeans, and others,
-worming themselves into the confidence of these
iPrinces, and then advising them to their own destruction.
'The Raja, he repeated, was treated in the kindest manner,
and everything was done that could be done to elicit the
truth. The Baja reftv.ed to take any part in the investiga-
tion, saying it was incoissisteut with his high position to be
confronted with witnesses. lint it was not true that he bad '
taken no part in the examination. He suggested several ques-
tions, and wished to bring in a member of the Supreme Court i
tio defend him, which request w. 3, of course, refused. This
petition had never been out t,f Colonel Oven's possession.
There was a detneesteettee proof that he wrote it fur the pine
pose of setting his sun at liberty. Now what was the state-
meat of the Hex!. Gentleman ? That he was confined in a
dungeon at Doonah. Why what cid Mr. Hutt say? Why
that he had hired a hone foe the use of the pri-
+-toiler. The man who wrote the petition hail stated
'that he was to receive 1,230 rupees for writing it.
'This was the secret of the attack. He had written
is first, a secotad, aril a third petition, till at last the Govern-
ment got tired of this pratteeding, and at last resolved that they
would receive no more petition• from this m tn. He then tried
another movement, and getting the papers into his hands,
eeent oa to sue the Raja for the money. • This man had
-afterwards confessed that the whole was a lie from beg,inningte
end, and the proper ceuree, if this were true, was to prosecute
Colonel Ovens. But the feet was, that every body connected
with these affairs had been traduced, from Sir Robert Grant
and Mount Stnert Elphin.toae, down to Colonel Ovens. They
were all in the same boat. The Governors of Bombay, the
three last Presidents of the Board of Controul, and nearly all
the Directors were in cempany with Ovans. The Directors
were careful in employing their servants, paid them well, and
reproved them severely if any defalcation of duty were proved.
nut in this instant 0 the Court had not thought it necessary to
etibjeet so useful a servant as Colonel Ovens to any inquiry,
but be would read a letter received before the last Board from
t'tal offlaor is which he expressed his readiness to meet the
eh srge, and he was ouly seriwise I that-such a motion should
ever he beenght before the British House of Commons. With
ta,s. obeervations he would leave the case, with the utmost
vonfidenee, to the House.

Sit. COL EBfeOOKE said that this was ho er parte state-
m, A, and it was in evidence that the whole inquiry was con-
(footed oil ft‘e same principle, and altogether a violation of
natural justice. He read a minute of Lord Auckland to show
`tat this evidence oti which the condemnation of the Raja had
been arrived at. The object of the minute was to show that
against a eelpless neighbour every care should be taken that no
irjustioe should ho committed. Would the Government say
that Sir James Carnac did not call on the Raja for a confession
of his guilt?—( Hear, hear.) Ho called the Raja before him,
and mode a great parade as to fr:o kindness which he had shown
to him on various occasions, and endea►oured to induce him to
sign the treaty containing a confession of his guilt, which, how-
ever, he refused to do. The Raja had other reasons than a
confession of his guilt to induce him not to sign the treaty.
He would net acknowledge that he had done injury to the Bri-
tish Government, or that he had been guilty of impropriety—
for the simplest of all reasons, that he was innocent of both.
He was then deposed, because he would net comply with so
odious a request. He should, howaver, leave the question to
the House to decide whether the conduct which had been
pursued towards tt.e Raja was in accordance with fairness or
justice.
Mr. WAKLEY considered that the Hon. Member would
gain nothing by leaving the question to the decision of the
House, for he was sure on a division that he would be placed in
a minority, as was too frequently the case in that House with
respect to measures which deserved a better fate. It would be
better to leave it in the hands of the Government. He consi-
dered the Raja of Sattara a most injured individual, and it
would be a blot on the character of that House if they refused
to inquire into the circumstances of the case. The Right Hon.
Gentleman at the head of the Board of Control had stated that
the witnesses examined with respect to the subject were
unwitrthy of belief. If this were true, he could not under-
stand why the Raja was dethroned upon such testimony. He
asked those who would not blindly follow the Government, if
they considered, Niter what they had heard that night, that the
Raja of Sattara was any thing else than an innocent and an in-
jured man? Sir James Carnac went out to India with a
favourable impression on his mind towards the Raja, and every
.thing that had occurred went to show that be considered the
Raja an innocent man, and ►hat he was not acting with a man
who had shown himself a traitor.

Mr. B. BARING said the offence imputed to the Raja of
Sattara was, that he had committed an infraction of a treaty
that he had committed murder and other serious offences:
rendering him amenable to the laws of the country. They had
the authority of many persons who had filled high offices
in India, for saying that at the time when the
circumstances before the House occurred, that
tart of India was in a more serious ferment than
it had been for many years before. Sir James Carnac was
sent out to endeavour to conciliate the country, but he was
directed not to effect this at the sacrifice of the honour of this
country, or of its interests in that part of the world. He would
refer the House to the minutes of the Indian Board, in which
they approved of the deposition of the Raja. But they had
stronger evidence than that, namely, the evidence of the Raja
of Sattara himself. He thought if these proofs did not
satisfy the Hon. Member for Montrose that the Raja was
punished, not for refusing to sign this document, but for re-
fusing to acknowledge the articles of the treaty entered into
by himself, nothing would do so.
Mr. HUME replied. He acknowledged that he had never
heard art!
so extraordinary an answer as he had heard that night.
Hon. Member had characterised the witnesses in India as
reckless in the extreme declared honestly that, in his
opinion, that the assestions. n
oef Members in that House
were equally reekless.--(Laught
the
r..) The Hon. Member for
Beverley had allowed that inquiry was conducted
in private, and that not a friend of his was allowed
to appear before that tribunal, and when the inquiry was ended
the Raja was called in and informed
rtehfautsethde.eidence would be
read to him. The Raja indignantly The Rajaadthionutgelri_t
himself the injured party b.eause the Company
fPred with him. He did not think that the Right Honourable
l'
Bermet would lend himself as an instru.nent of
Pgainst an innocent man. In the history of injustice no act
oppression
v oit!d appear of a darker dye than the conduct of the Indian
,vernment to the unfortunate and innocent Raja of Sattara.
11A, wa. quite surprised at the two letters that had been read.
The letters of Colonel Ovens showed great sensibility as to the
e'iarges made ilpinst him. Why did he not adopt the modes
f prosecution 'Which were open to him? He need not go
to India for the purpose. The simple facts were these, that
the Raja of &Hera was accused of crimes of which he was
not guilty. He was called upon by Sir J. Carnac to acknow-
ledge himself guilty. He refused to do so, and he preferred,
like an honourable man, to give up his possessions rather than
declare that he was culpable when he was innocent. In this
case, he (Mr. Hume) was doing his duty. If the Raja was
proved to be guilty. let him endure the suffering to which he
was ;condemned, He had no desire to lessen our power in

India. On the contrary, let it be known, in 'lndia that there
was a place to appeal to for justice. On +tliese grounds, he
would not press for a division.—(Hear, he ar, and a.‘)
Gentlemen opposite would do him the justie e to •_clr-,„1e,1
that he had never interrupted the course 4)( th.
Goavert menet
and the Court of Directors.—( Hear, h rry " ) When he first
read the statements against the Raja, he
thOtt; t the Prince
gra s guilty. But when he read all the dry,;
his mind.—(Laughter.) urnent • he changed
After a few words from Mr. HOGe
The question was put and negative('
DANISH CU without a division.
Mr. HAWES said, that in co' JIMS•
of the session, and representatir Asequence of the late period
,
of the House, he would put as made to him by Members
Danish claims to the early - off his motion respecting the
ADJOtI part of next session.
Lord J. RUSSELL aNED DEBATE.
the adjourned debate said, that as it was not likely that
night, he wished tr upon New Zealand would come on this
Sir R. PEEL J ask if it might be brought on to-morrow ?

was understood to say, that although it would
jovernment business, he would not stand in the
assumption of the debate to-morrow.
BUTTER AND CHEINE.
corlldifrr.
...WART *en rose to bring forward his motion an-
che ig to notice, for a reduction of the duties upon butter and
.• _.ese. The Hon. Gentleman commenced by observing that
..nere was a quantity of butter destroyed every year, which
would otherwise be used for the benefit of the poor. It was
well known that last year twenty thousand hundred weights of
butter was destroyed. He had moved for a return of the ex-
tent to which this destructive process had been carried. The
provision trade of this country was one of enormous importance,
because it would increase our trade with America. He
was well aware that even the simple motion, of which he had
given notice, had attracted attention in America. He would
refer the:Government to the circular of those eminent brokers,
Messrs. Keeling and Hunt, of the city of London, which had
shown *kat by a reduction in duty there would be an immense
amount of increase of revenue ; that as the duty was now levied,
it was a tax of twenty per cent. upon cheese for the poor, and
fifty per cent. for butter; and in that valuable and comprehen-
sive circular of those eminent gentlemen they had so clearly
shown the benefits which would arise to the poor, that he would
not trouble them further on the matter than referring them to
the circular which was well known and understood by the
Board of Trade. He simply proposed that these duties
be repealed. If they went into committee, he would
be happy to hear the arguments of the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, as he well knew that they would be well an-
swered by those Gentlemen who took ails side of the question.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that he
certainly proposed resisting to
go it, to Committee. He would
confine himself merely to finanr'ial reasons for not acceding
to the proposition of the Hon. Gentleman. Under the cir-
cumstances he held it his duty
not to allow a further reduction
as it could not be done at tb'
is season of the year without in-
volving the country
ildered that in one yea,.
in "r siderable difficulty. When he con-
the duty amounted to 347,3001. he
could. not accede to t',e
The commercial he, proposition of the Hon. Gentleman.
erests of the country would be materially
affected. It wooli
--
have no other effect than deranging the
progress of trade ),y suppressing the duty just now. He would
reserve his opie,*ton till the finances of the year were stated, and
then he wood state the course which he would advise them to
adopt' F_ se confined himself to the position that it would be
most
-attntive to the revenue to alter this duty at this period
of tFee year.
Mr. M. GIBSON said that the only reason which induced
0 him to oppose the present proposition was that the duty in-
creased the revenue by 347,000/. So that if they could show
that it imposed a greater tax upon the people than it produced
a revenue to the State, that argument would be defeated. It
was quite requisite that the duty should be taken eff, as it
pressed most heavily upon the manufacturing and agricultural
population. He himself knew that in the county of Suffolk the
people were in the habit of consuming an immense quantity of
foreign cheese, as that which was home-made there was quite
unfit for human beings, and he considered that they were
grievously injured by the destruction which had been stated by
the Hon. Gentleman who had already addressed the House.
He would rather discuss it as a question of simple taxation
than on fiscal grounds, as it was invariably argued by the
Government. The later was a fallacious principle, and he
loped it would so be regarded by the House.
Mr. HUME considered the course adopted by the Govern-
ment perfectly consistent, and even honourable, so far as re-
garded the defence of their original principles, inasmuch as
they were right in not holding eut hopes to the labourer which
could never be realised.
Mr. P. HOWARD considered that at that late period of
the session the House ought nut to entertain a measure of such
importance, and involving interests so intimately connected
with the welfare of the country. He could not see why butter
and cheese should not be treated as favourably as silk.
311 r. NEWDEGATE trusted the House and the Govern-
ment would protect the agriculturist and reject the measure.
Mr. F. EGERTON said the Hon. Gentleman opposite
said that the landlords were picking the pockets of the rest of
the community. Why they might just as well say that the
manufacturers of Lancashire were picking the pockets of the
rest of the community.
Dr. BOWRING said there might be some analogy between 1
the two cases, if the manufacturers of Lancashire called upon the
people to pay a higher price for their articles than they
could, get them elsewhere. The manufacturers required no
protection for themselves. They wished everything to be
open to fair competition.
Sir R. PEEL said he had been rather curious to know what
the motion of the Hon. Gentleman would be, provided they
get into Committee. The Hon. Gentleman had been exceed-
ingly tender on that point. He had said that his own opinion
was decidedly in favour of an absolute repeal of the duty.
That was to be implied from all the doctrines which he had
ever expressed. In his notice at an early period of the ses-
sion, the Hon. Gentleman intimated that he intended to move
for the absolute and total repeal of the duty. That was accord-
ing to the free-trade principles which were held by the lion.
Gentleman. But when his ( Sir R. Peel's) Right Honourable
Freed said that this was a question of duty, amounting to
350,0001., the Honourable Gentleman then said that he meant
only to prope4e a reduction of the duty.
Mr. EWA RT intimated dissent.

interfere with r
we), of the r'

Sir R. PEEL—WeII, then, the Hon. Gentleman now left

the matter in a state of uncertainty. An absolute repeal of
the duty would involve a loss of revenue of 3Ei0,000/. Now,
could the lion. Gentle.nan expect her Majesty's Government
could possibly accede to such a proposal ? Ihe Government
had carefully considered, at an early period of the year, all the
reductions they could wake. They had found themselves in
possession of a large surplus, the result of the income-tax, and
they .-e..iitted nut less than 3,400,0001. of permanent taxes.
He reduced the sugar duties to the extent of 1,2.)0,0001., and

he had been told that the quantity cosucued would not coun-
terbalance that reduction. Hs proposed the at,elute reduction
of the duty on g!ass. A duty to Ore extent of 909,000/.
also repealed on various articles which erd-ivituted the founda-

Lion of many manufactures at the present moment. He
thought the removal of these impediments would be attended
with many advantag's to general trade, and his anticipations
had not been disappcinted. The Government had remitted duties
to the extent of 3,490,000/ , and it was met with the entire ap-
proval of the House ; and then in the month of July, at nearly
the termination of the session, a proposition was brought for-
ward to compel a further reduc•ion of 350,0001. With so
small a surplus of revenue it would not be advisable to make
such a remission. In addition to the motion of the Hon.
Gentleman, another Hon. Gentleman had given notice of a
remission of duty on no le-s than eighty different articles of im-
portation. It was not a very large amount, it was true,
but it would not be whe policy to diminish in any
degree, however small, the surplus revenue that
existed. He was determiced to consider this question entirely
on financial grounds, and if Hon. Gentlemen were dissatisfied
they ought to propose a vote of want of confidence in her Ma-
jesty's Ministers.—( Laughter.) He, upon general principles,
declined expressing any more definite opinion on the subject.
Colonel SIBTIPORY said if a motion of a vote of want of
confidence in her Majesty's Ministers were made, the Right
Hon- Gentleman: would, doubtless _have _recourse to assistance
from the other side.
Sir ROBERT PEEL observed that apparently he lost their
confidence every evening, ( Laughter. )
Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL recommended his Hon. Friend
:o withdraw his motion.
Mr. EWA RT said he should press it to a division.
The House then divided, when there appeared :
For the motion
Against it
Majority

On our reladtrliasion to the gallery, we found
Mr. FORSTER moving the repeal of the duty on
eighty-four articles of which he had given noti.T
for this evening. He expected the Right Honourable
Baronet would tell the House on what ground the duty on these
articles were retained. The whole of the duty on these com-
modities only amounted to 38,233/. annually.
Sir R. PEEL said that her Majesty's Government bad re-
pealed the duty on 400 commodities during the last two years, and
it was their intention to take the subject into their further con-
sideration, with a view to the great simplification of these du-
ties. He hoped, therefore, the Hon. Member would leave the
matter in the hands of the Government, who had already
shown so great a desire for their reduction.—( Hear. )
Mr, HUME supported the motion. The duty being re-
moved from so many article would relieve the labours of the
Commissioners. He hoped, that during the recess the Right
Hon. Baronet would prepare a Bill to reduce or abolish the
duty from many of those articles that at present were in-
cluded in the tariff.
Sir R. PEEL could not make any promise as to what course
he should take.
After a few words from Mr. Hume, Mr. Forster, and the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, the motion was withdrawn.
OTAHEITE.

Capt. PECHELL wished to ask: the Gallant Admiral a

•
question respecting a circumstance which had happened at
Otaheite, in which a British officer on board the Talbot had re-

fused to recognize the French flag. He wished to know if it
was so, and the circumstances under which it took place. He
would now move for the return of which he had given notice,
of the number of petty officers, able, and ordinary
seamen, and boys, borne on the books of her Ma-
jesty's ships undermentioned at the latest period to
which the same can be made, out; distinguishing
those that have been lent from other ships or from the
service of the dockyards :—Queen, Trafalgar, ^St. Vincent,
Rodney, Superb, Albion, Canopus, and Vanguard.
Sir R. PEEL explained that the officer of the ship in
question had refused to salute the flag of the French
Admiral on acr•ount of the protectorate, and hence the officer
was interdicted from going on shore in the island unless he re-
cognised the flag.
After a brief conversation, in which the CHANCELLOR of
the EXCHEQUER and Mr. Smut. took part, the motion was
agreed to.
The LORD ADVOCATE obtained leave to introduce two
Bills relative to the laws of Scotland, relating to heirs, and
vlith regard to Crown charters and precepts from Chancery
• •

The Documentary Evidence Bill vas read a second time,

The Real Property Bill was read a second time.
The Assignment of Terms Bill was read a second time.
The Granting of Leases Bill was read a second time.
The following Bills were also read a second time :—Customs
Laws Repeal Bill, Customs Management Bill, Customs Duties
Bill, Warehousing of Goods Bills, British Vessels Bill, Ship.
ping and Navigation Bill, Trade of British Possessions Abroad
Bill, Customs Bounties and Allowances Bill, Isle of Man
Trade Bill, Smuggling Prevention Bill, and Customs Regula-
tion Bill.
The Coal Trade (Port of London) Bill was read a third
time.
On the motion that the Fees (Criminal Courts) Bill be read
a seoond time,
Mr. ESCOTT said the subject was much misunderstood.
He wished to abolish those fees which were really unjust.
Thus, when a poor man was convicted in a criminal court, and
the judge deemed a fine of ls. sufficient—was it not most
unfair that fees*. the amount of 21. or 31. should be impo.ed ?
Certainly the law did not give the Justices, at Quarter Ses-
sions, power to adopt any but a legal table of fees. They had
no right to exact any but legal and reasonable fees. No law
was in existence to justify the extortion which was too fre-
quently inflicted on parties, whey were too powerless to resist
them. But if there were abuses in the present system—if
poor men were to be dragged before justices, and, whether
ged or not, called upon. to pay fees—and if there
dwirrehalraws to justify these exorbitant fees, it was their duty
helpless did not suffer f
as legislators to rectify them, and to see that the poor and
true
rtehadem. He therefore earnestly
trusted that the Bill would be second time.
The ATTORNEY_ GENERAL, whilst he deprecated any
hasty legislation on the subject, was 'willing
to admit that abuses
did exist, to the great injury of the poor, and that he was

anxious to do all in his porer to remedy them. By the Act
of Gecrge 111. all persons convicted of misdemeanours
we're free from all fees whatever. By the 53d of
-George 111. it was provided that persons charged with of-
fences, but who were discharged either by the grand jury, or
before the trial, were not liable to pay fees. With regard to
acquittals, no fees ought to be charged. But there were some
cases where the exaction of fees was both salutary and
just ; as, for instance, where parties were admitted
to bail, or where they had traversed for their own convenience.
He repeated that he considered that his Hon. Friend (Mr.
Escott) had been:too hasty. He was willing to aid him to a
reasonable extent, but he was not prepared to go to the length of
abolishing fees altogether. They should apply their legisla-
tion to those cases in which a person had to pay fees ten times
larger than the amount in which he was fined. Let them not,
however, adopt a course which could not fail to entail much
mischief on the country. If his Hon. Friend did not confine
his Bill within proper limits, he should feel it his duty to
oppose it.
Mr. AGLIONBY had had many opportunities of judging of
the want of such a measure as that before the House, and he
could not conceive why the Government should oppose the Bill
on the second reading, when the necessary alterations might be
made in Committee. He hoped the Bill would be read a second
time on that understanding.
Sir J. GRAHAM considered that fees ought to be paid
when a person was admitted to bail, and that there were in-
stances where they ought to be remitted. Believing that the
Bill would do much good, when certain alterations were intro-
duced into it, he should support the second reading.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the second reading ... 4O
Against it
Majority —34
The Bill was then read a second time and ordered to be com-
mitted.

ThP Unions (Ireland) Bill, the Jurors' Books (Ireland) Bill,
the Testamentary Dispositions Bill, the Drainage of Estates
Bill, and the Customs Acts Bill were forwarded a stage.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved for leave to bring
in a Bill to amend the laws relating to real property.
Agreed to.
The Heuse then adjourned at a Quarter to Two o'clock.

HOUSE OF- LORDS, July 22.
Their Lordships assembled at Five o'clock.
Messengers from the Commons brought up several Bills.
On the motion of Lord STANLEY, the Highway Rates
Bill, the Militia Ballot Suspension Bill, and the Railways Sell-
ing or Leasing Bill were read a first time.
WASTE LANDS (AUSTRALIA) BILL.
This Bill pasted through Committee.
ART-UNIONS BILL.
This Bill passed through Committee.
UNLAWFUL OATHS (IRELAND) BILL.
This Bill passed through Committee.
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BILL.
Lord STANLEY moved the second reading of this Bill.
Lord MONTEAGLE suggested the establishment in Dublin
of an Economic Museum of Geology in connexion with the
Dublin Society, or with some other central establishment in
that city. Such an institution would be of great advantage
to those engaged in the tilling of land, and he hoped if the
Government had not given their attention to the subject, that
they would do so at the earliest opportunity.
The Duke of WELLINGTON was understood to say that
the Government had turned their attention to the subject.
STANDING ORDERS.

Lord CAMPBELL said, on Monday next, he would move
the repeal of the standing order passed in 1721, forbidding any
person is publish the life of any deceased Lord—(Laughter)—
of that House, whether spiritual or temporal, without the sanc-
tion of the relations or heirs of the deceased—(Continued
laughter)—and that the Lords be summoned.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

The Marquis of CLANRICARDE gave notice that, on
Friday, he would move for a list of Bills introduced into the
House since the Ist of July.
LOAN SOCIETIES BILL.

This Bill was read a third time and passed.
HOLYHEAD ROADS BILL.
This Bill was read a second time and ordered to be committed,
RELIGIOUS TESTS.

The Marquis of BREADALBANE presented several peti-
tions from Scotland, praying for the total abolition of religious
tests. In presenting these petitions, perhaps it would not be
out of place for him to express his extreme regret,
that a measure relating to the abolition of religious tests which
had been brought forward in the other House of Parliament,
after having been assented to in the first instance
by the Government, should be opposed by them on its
sec rnd coasi•ieration.— ( Hear, hear.) He confessed
when he considered the policy they had adopted in regard to
Ireland, he could not help thinking that they had acted with
some degree of inconsistency towards Scotland.
Lord STANLEY denied that the Government had been
guilty deny inconsistency. The policy they had.pursued to-
wards Ireland did nut, certainly, go to the establishment of new
tests ; but it did not disturb those tests already in existence.
Lord CAMPBELL protested that Government had been
guilty of gross inconsistency towards Scotland, and declared
that their late opposition to Mr. Rutherford's Bill would have
the effect of turning out Sir David Brewster.
The matter then dropped.
PRIVILEGE.

Lord BROUGHAM said he wished to call their Lordships'
attention to a question of privilege. It was known to their
Lordships that he was one of those who was always found in
a minority of that House—who entirely disapproved upon prin-
ciple of all unfair and forcible exercise of what were called the
privileges or powers of Parliament. He, however, did not
object to their due and proper exercise, when their use was
intended to remove obstacles to the progress of some of their
proceedings; and after the course which had been taken in
both Houses of Parliament but a few days ago, he should have
deemed it to be his bounden duty, even if he were not the
person concerned in this breach of privilege, to bring
the present case before their Lordships. It would
be necessary for him to allude to a paragraph which
had been published in a newspaper, and which took
notice not only of what passed in their Lordships'
House, but also what passed in Select Committees. They
comment on the speeches made, and write the grossest fabri-
cations on the individuals who are engaged in them. The
present question to which he was about to call their attention
was this :—Some months or weeks ago he was informed, by
the Votes of the House, that a Railway fill had been re-
ported against for inourherable breaches of the standing
orders. A motion was then made by Mr. Fitzstephen French
(a Noble Lord here mentioned the name of another Member)
—then it was not Mr. Fitzstephen French, but another Mem-
ber, who made a motion to rescind the resolution of the
Committee. A small majority having been obtained,
the Bill was allowed ti, proceed. lie (Lord Brougham)
at a subsequent period gave the pasties notice not
to throw away their money, as it was probable that errors
would be also found against the standing orders of the Howie of
Lords. Mr. Fitzstephen French then waited upon him, and
desired to see biro on the subject. He gave the gentleman credit
for perfect sincerity and the must patriotic motives for his con-
duct with respect to the Bill, and if he got the House to rescind
the vote, he was sure that he did so upon the purest and most
high-minded principles. He ceased, however, to entertain the
idea that his conduct was so wholly disinterested. He had
found out, in the course of the evidence, that the Directors
had not only taken twenty shares as their qualification, but had
also taken each of them 500 shares above their qualification,
and had sold them so as still to have a number of shares
to the amount of their qualification. The Gallant
Gentleman who came before them had made from 7001. to 800/.
and other Directors had also sold their shares, and had profited
to a propartionate extent. tie was surprised to see how the
conduct of two persons had been commented on elsewhere,
while others without number had done precisely the same
thing. Now, there was this difference in the conduct of the
two parties—that the former had no shaves in the railway till
after the Parliamentary and other proceedings in connexion
with it were brought to a close; the latter had obtained shares
while the Bills were still pending, and it may be naturally sup-
posed that their votes were not wholly unaffected by their in-
terest. He stepped nut of his way a little to revert to the case
of Mr. Bonham and Captain Boldero, believing, as
he did, that they were the victims of what might
he called a Pharisaical purity. But he would add that if they had
been guilty to the same extent as other Honourable Members,
it might afford some pretext for the unmeasured indignation
which had been poured out against them. Mr. French had
applied to him, and told him that he did so in consequence of
the absence of his Noble Friend behind him (Lord Clanri-
carde) who he (Lord Brougham) was led to believe was the
patron of the Bill. The answer, however, which he gave him
was simply this, "We allow no canvass on private Bills." A
Committee had been appointed to inquire into all the merits of
the case. Mr. Smith, a parliamentary agent against the Bill,
came to him, but he (Lord Brougham) refused to have any
communication with him. He had no communication with Mr.
Croucher, nor did he make any use whatever of the written
communications which he had read. One he laid upon the
table of the House, the other he put in his pocket and had not
read up to this hour. The Noble and Learned Lord then read
from the Times newspaper a report of the speech of Mr. F.
French, which had been delivered in the House of Commons
on the previous evening, in relation to the conduct of Lord
Brougham on the Committee appointed to inquire into the
charges of Mr. Pym, on the Irish Great Western Railway. He
characterised the attack of Mr. French as foul, libellous, and
untrue. He had only done his duty, that which he was bound
to do, and could not consistently with his duty avoid doing.
He was not a shareholder in any railway, and was actuated by no
other motive than that of a faithful and conscientious discharge
of his duty. The only railway ever he had a share in was 20
years ago, when he was politically connected with the town of
Liverpool, and took a few shares by way of patronising the
undertaking, but sold them off as soon as he could get them off
his hands.—(A laugh.) Why the question was perfectly aft-
, polite to the inquiry, and the Committee would not have
been performing their duty had they neglected to put it. The
same reply might be given to the charge that he asked if the
shares were at a discount. To be sure he did ; but the question
was put in a purely inquisitorial capacity, as they were bound
by the orders of that House to put it. The next accusation
vrai that "he suppressed evidence which disproved the case he
wished to establish." That assertion was untrue, but while
untrue, it was impossible; and if the man who made it had not
been in such a fury as to have lost his reason, he must have
seen the absurdity of supposing that a Member could, in his
individual capacity, have practised such a course, had he desired.
But the whole was a precious jumble, and a precious falsifica-
tion. Well, after going on some time and discovering the
practices of the Company, " Oh," said they, w hat has been done
in the Dublin and Galway is what has been always pursued
in other Companies." To prove this, a Mr. Joseph Parkes, an
attorney, well-known about Parliament, was called, bat he
only proved that he had no connexion whatever with the rail-
way. "But," said he, "it is frequently done in the London
and York, the Western, and all other Companies." They
asked him if he had personal knowledge of that fact—had
he ever been present at the time of making allotments,
granting scrips, and making certificates. Well, it appeared,
he had never even appeared before a Committee, bad never
been sworn—and they, finding that he knew nothing, and that
if sworn fifty times he could give no useful evidence,
declined swearing him also.—( Hear.) But, though
Mr. Joseph Parkes could give no evidence in chief opposite to
the case, on cross-examination it was elicited that he knew
that the London and York Company had acted in the same
manner. So they sent for Mr. May, the secretary of
that Company, and examined him ; and he (Lord
Brougham) never knew of anything equal to the contrast be-
tween the proceedings of the two bodies; he never saw, nor
in his imagination could he conceive, anything more widely
different. So far from the York Company following the
course complained of, they never, in one instance, had
adopted it. In the Galway line, 970 applications for shares
had been made, only 111 of which offered any reference
whatever, while the London and York never received a single
application without one or more references attached. But
when they got these 111, what did they do with them?
Mark—the London and York had sent a man round the coun-
try, inquiring, for a month, into the character of every refe-
rence they received ; but out of the 111 sent in to the Galway
Company, just 29 were examined, and of those 29, 14 were
found to be false, fictitious, or paupers' claims; and therefore
they stopped short, fearing, he supposed, that if they went
further they should fare worse. Brit one of the parties
to whom an allotment was made, was a pauper woman called
Margaret Meredyth. She had 248 :shares accorded her, and
the reason Hesseltine gave for considering her a fit person to
invest property to such an amount in railway schemes was,
that she resided at Lower Tooting, Surrey. The woman her-
self, when asked if the signature to the application was her own,
replied she did not know, for she could not read„..

(Laughter.) And, on cross-examination, this innocent woman
I asserted that neither could she write.—( Loud laughter.) But
among Mr. Hesseltine's certificates for solvency was one from
a man called Pecton, whose actual existence was afterwards
disproved, and another from a man called Baldwin, who had
been for the last fourteen years in the West Indies. Again,
when Mr. Briden was asked how he had ascertained the vali-
dity of the references, or the respectability of the referees—Oh,
he had trusted to Mr. Harrison, and when Mr. Harrison was
asked how he had executed his trust—Oh, he bad committed it
to Hesseltine, and Hesseltine in like manner commissioned
Lew, and that man, it appeared had taken the names home and
searched the character of each reference in so short a space of
time, that it was computed twelve seconds were allowed to each
case. He wished all business could be settled in so short a
time, it would materially expedite the discussions in that
House.—( A laugh.) Such was the difference in the conduct
of the two Companies respecting their mode of transacting
business of this nature, and yet, forsooth, that highly respect-
able body, the Loudon and York, was accused of pursuing the
same disreputable practices as the Dublin and Galway ! As to
the charge of his having suppressed evidence which would have
disproved the case he wished to establish, this was not only
not true, but the very reverse of the truth. Why, May gave
damning evidence against the Company, and the more his
statements could be suppressed the better it would have been
for their ease. With regard to the statement that he had put
the calumniating question to a witness, whether " he had ever
been a candidate for a lucrative employment in a rival company,"
why, where was the calumny in asserting, or where tke dis-
grace in having so solicited employment? But it so happened
that the accusation—if accusation it was—was a fact, and as-
serted in the identical handwriting of the petitioner ? And as
to General Hawkins, he cut a very bad figure in the Commit-
tee, though he left it most perfectly satisfied with their conduct,
both towards himself and the Bill. Those were the facts, and he
only wished to add a few words respecting its publication in the
papers of the day. It was a very singular account, and ren-
dered mere so by the extraordinary accuracy which it affected
in detailing every single particular connected with the case.
Indeed he doubted if the report, as given, was heard at all.
Sone accounts stated that the party spoke in so low a tone as to
be perfectly inaudible in the gallery, yet another professed to
give to a nicety every syllable uttered. One word to those
thus connected with the press—he would warn them that they
had no protection if they outstripped the bounds already con-
ceded them only by courtesy. There was the case of George
Woodfall on record, who was committed to prison for printing
the report of a speech delivered within the walls of Parliament,
and Mr. Percy was also punished for the same offence. He
would venture to give a solitary warning to the newspapers.
It was no defence for any newspaper that printed
a libel against a man, to state that it was spoken
in either House of Parliament.—(Hear, hear.) No, it
was no defence whatever. God forbid that it should be. Now,
the question of what was to be done in this case he should leave
to their Lordships. Their Lordships had lately held the
doctrine that no Select Committee, appointed to inquire into
the Law of Gaming could possibly discharge the duties delegated
to them by the House, unless their witnesses were protected.
Possibly their Lordships might think it was just as necessary
to protect the Members of the Committee. His principle was,
the courts of law before the common press. But one word
more as to whether this paragraph was likely to be true. He
had a great respect for the Commons' House of Parliament.
He held high its privileges when not exceeded. He
held high its power and its just rights, and looked
upon the House as a popular branch of our free Constitution.
He knew, tee, that the Commons held it to be the corner-stone
of their privileges that they were not confined to one House,
but were common to loth ; and if such language as this were
tolerated in the Commons, his veneration and respect for the
present House, as at present composed, would cease, but would
still continue for the ideal abstract House, as it ought to be
composed. His veneration and respect must cease so long as
such ribaldry as he had just read to their Lordships was suffered
to be spoken in that House against a Peer of Parliament acting
en a Select Committee, and not one word be said in return,
either of reprobation or censure. Did the House of Com-
mons approve of such conduct ?—( Hear, hear.) No,
he would not believe that it did, for he believed
that the words were not spoken, but were fabri-
cated, or even if spoken, that they were not heard by the
House, as the other papers say. With these observations, in
which he trusted he had evinced no want of feeling for any
party, or said anything offensive to any party, he should leave
this question for their Lordships' disposal.
The Earl of BESBOROUGH remarked that as he had
acted as Chairman of the Committee to which so much
allusion had been made, perhaps it would not be out of
place for him to say a word or two on the subject. Their
Lordships, no doubt, were aware that no persons were admitted
into the Committee except those who were under examination.
On the first day of meeting the agent of the petitioner put into
his hand the names of certain witnesses whom they wished to
have examined before the Committee, and on the second day
they put a second paper into his hand, containing ebservations
as to the mode in which these witnesses were to be examined.
His Noble and Learned Friend examined the witnesses from
that document. With respect to the main charge of suppres-
sing evidence, his Noble and Learned Friend had stated cor-
rectly how that occurrel. A witness stated to the Committee
a number of facts, and as he said he did not know them of his
own knowledge, but had heard them, the short-hand writer
was ordered to scratch that part of his evidence out of his notes.
Lord BROUGHAM said that the reason why Mr. Fitz-
stephen French was not examined was, because they had no
charge against him. The question was, whether he canvassed
for a lucrative employment in any other railway. which was
negatived, and they thought that answer sufficient. If a
charge was made against him, and satisfactorily answered, why
should they have allowed him to be examined? He asked to
be examined, but they could not examine him without leave
from the House of Commons.
The Earl of WICKLOW was of opinion that there never
was a more gross breach of privilege, and it appeared to him
that their Lordships could not abstain from taking further
notice of it. What that should be, he would leave more im-
portant persons than himself to suggest. After what had been
brought forward by his Noble and Learned Friend, and the
strong manner in which he had succeeded in vindicating
himself from a gross and outrageous attack he thought
it was necessary, that their Lordship% should determine
whether they would take any further course on this subject.
It depended very much upon his Noble and Learned Friend's
own opinion cn the subject. He left it entirely in the hands of
the House to see the necessity of examining the reporters and
printers of the Times at the bar of the House, to know whether
it was or was not a correct report of the proceedings. Some
newspapers stated this gentleman expressed him-elf in so low
a tone of voice that his words could not be taken." It appeared
to him, then, necessary to ascertain whether such was the fare
or not. A gross breach of privilege had been made, and he
thought that their Lordships should investigate further into the
matter.
Lord BROUGHAM begged to move that no further pro-
ceedings be taken about the matter.
The Duke of WELLINGTON thought that the House
should consider what course was to be adopted. The sugges-
tion of his Noble Friend was that the reporters of the news-
papers should be examined at the bar of the House. He thought
that whether the reporter or printer who should be examined
had published what was or what was not said in the other
House of Commons, he was equally guilty of a breach of pri-
vilege.—( Hear, hear.) He would merely suggest that their
Lordships should adjourn the further consideration of the sub-
ject till Thursday, in order that they should see what was the
best course to be adopted in a case which appeared to him to
be very grave.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that they might put the
question to the reporter horn what source he hati received the
inform at.on.
The matter was then adigenrrel till Thursday.
IRISH COLLEGES BILL.

Lord STANLEY moved that the House should go into
Committee on the It ish Collages Bill.
After it was carried,
Lord STANLEY said that he had a trifling amendment to
Move. There was a provision introduced in the 14th clause of
the Bill in the other House of Parliament, which was at vari-
ance with the other provisions of the clause. It was with re-
ference to th power which was to be given to the governing
Jody to make rules with regard to lectures. That was the only
amendment he had to propose. The Noble Marquis opposite
asked a question with respect to their granting university pri-
vileges. The power of granting degrees would a natural
consequence of the measure now before them. That was the

view with which they were ti be supposed to consider the
question. It would be an imperfect measure if it were not
to be accompanied by the power of conferring degrees
It required, however, much more consideration than
they had now an opportunity of bestowing on that matter.
Consolidation of these colleges with Trinity College, Dublin,
was also spoken about. That, he thought, would be a very
satisfactory arrangement, but they would find very many serious
difficulties now in trying to arrive at it. The question arose as
to whether university privileges were to be given to each
college separately, or as he thought more advantageous, whether
they should be affiliated together in one university. Should
the power of an university be held alternately, or at intervals,
in each of these colleges to which privileges would be given by
this Bill ? He mentioned this to show that there were various
matters which deserved consideration. It would be desirable

that after these colleges were constituted they should have an
opportunity of considering what might be the cuurse which
would be likely to meet with general assent.—(Hear, hear.)
Another question was, whether the colleges which may here•
after be instituted may not be affiliated with them. He wished

to state that it was the opinion of her Majesty's Government
this measure would be imperfect without the power of granting
degrees being afforded to these universities ultimately.
Lord LANSDOWNE said that he was perfectly satisfied
with the explanation which had been given by the Noble Lord.
There were several matters for consideration with respect to
this Bill which could not be disposed of during the present ses-
sion. Tho only thing he wished to impress upon them was that
those intentions were not to be lost sight of.
Lord CAMPBELL said that he understood the Noble Lord
on a previous occasion to say that there would be four colleges
to be established.

cwoolLLiretooghrreddims,hcSiiTAtlewAltioNpulLEY stated that what he said was that after
these colleges were established there would be one college in
each province, of course including Trinity College, Dublin.
Bd considerEn Lo tL b ewl
vbhi
es
ehtttehedre
rt,tooi
nh
sastvueega gdo ensl
ofty
fourwo one.
ee. t ho efTr
There
wes .eaws
onnueordt
be great difficulty in establishing three new colleges at once.
None of them could be of that importance which was desirable,
and which was necessary to enable them to confer upon the
public the benefits which were expected from them.
Lord CLANRICARDE differed from his Noble Friend as
to the advantage of having only one college. He was glad to
hear that these colleges were to be connected, and to have the
powers of an university.
Lord MONTEAGLE thought that the public could
lose nothing by postponing the further consideration of the
measure, while the Bill itself would be materially benefited by
delay. They should try and bring the scheme within scope of
central examination, and connect it either directly or remotely
with Trinity College, Dublin.
The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH concurred in the senti-
ments of the Noble Marquis (Clanricarde), and thought the
greatest difficulty would be to find out proper persons to execute
the office of professor, who would gradually form the minds of
young men, and meuld the middling classes of Ireland into a
more congenial spirit. They could not suddenly, by an Aet of
Parliament, form an Eton, or such a university as an Oxford.
Suites of apartments did not constitute a college, but time alone
could prove the efficacy of the measure.
Lord BROUGHAM explained that he did not mean last
night that colleges for the residence of the pupils should be
founded on the system of excluding religion; he only meant
his observations to apply to such institutions as the External in
France. With reference to Trinity College, Dublin, no one
could entertain a higher opinion of its unbounded talent than
himself, and nothing was more true than that the fame of that
ancient university was unrivalled. The ablest editions o f the
classics, and the deepest researches of modern science were to
be found amid the transcendant productions of her members.
All the cultivators of science, but especially of astronomy, at-
tributed much of the success of late experiments to the re-
searches of one of the Members of the Dublin University. Lord
Bosse (for it was to that Noble Lord he alluded) had, by his
construction of the gigantic telescope on his estate, achieved an
undertaking whose results had not been equalled in any age.
Lord STANLEY said that as to the difficulty of finding pro-
fessors competent to teach, it would be remembered that
in Belfast there was already an institution, whose pro-
fessors could be transferred to the new erection there,
with which it would be incorporated. And, as to the two col-
leges for the south, he had no fears of providing them with
competent professors.
The Bill then went through Committee with amendments. 4
Pr& SCOTTISH MIDLAND RAIL W4Y BILL,
it. Lord PQLWERTII moved tbi insertion 0 a clause into

this Bill, for giving compensation to the proprietcrs of turnpike
trusts.

Lord DEVON opposed it, considering it interrered with the
laws already existing to govern railways, and which rendered
it unnecessary.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE supported its insertion, on the
ground of affording protection to the rights of property.
Lord HADDIN GTON said, that all Railway Bills should
be treated in the same way. It had been said, that a Bill
without this clause had been passed that night, but that was
no reason why it should not be inserted in the present Bill.

Lord CAMPBELL said it was on a fernier ()cession the
almost unanimous opinion of the House that the clause should
be inserted.

Lord CHARLEVILLE, as a Member of the Committee
which had the Bill referred to them, protested against the in-
troduction of a particular clause in the Bill.
Lord WHARNCLIFFE contended that the clause ought
to be introduced, as otherwise a considerable loss might be en-
tailed on those gentlemen who had lent their money to the
trustees of the turnpike road going from Perth to Forfar.
Lord CAMPBELL wished to ask the Noble Lord whether
he held any shares in the Railway Company?
Lord WHARNCLIFFE had no hesitation in saying that
he did hold ehares in it, and many other Noble Lords did the
same, with respect to other railways. He, however, never sold
any of his shares. He regretted that the Ncble Lord should
have allowed himself to put such a question.
Lord CAMOYS would vote for the admission of the clause,
as the introduction of the clause seemed very desirable.
The Marquis of NORTHAMPTON said that it would be
only just that the clause should be inserted, and it would be
an act of injustice if it were withheld. The clause ought to be
introduced, not only in the present Bill, but in every Scotch
Railway Bill.
Lord POLWORTH observed that he moved the adoption
of the clause on public grounds only; and was satisfied it
would fully operate in protecting the interests of all the parties
concerned.

Lord WHARNCLIFFE again insisted on the insertion of
the clause.

The Marquis of BREADALBANE opposed the clause.
Were compensation given to every man that might be inter-
fered with by the making of a railway, there would be no end
to the claims of this kind that would be preferred.
The clause was then put and agreed to without a division.
Several Bills were then advanced a stage, and their Lord-
ships immediately afterwards adjourned till Thursday next.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
HOME ClRCUlT.—Maidstone, July 22.
The commission for the county of Kent was opened on Mon-
day. The business is rather lighter than is usual at the sum-
mer assizes, there being only thirty-one causes entered, and
only two special jury cases. On the Crown side there are
forty-four prisoners for trial. Both Courts proceeded to
business this morning, Lord Chief Justice Tindal presiding on
the Civil side, and Mr. Justice Coleridge in the Crown Court.
CROWN COURT.
_ _

Mr. Justice COLERIDGE, in his charge to the grand jury,
took occasion to allude to the Parliamentary statistics of crime,
in a similar manner that he did at Hertford, and congratulated
the county upon the fact that in Kent there appeared to be a
diminution in th• number of criminals during the last five
years. He then observed that in Kent, as in most other
counties,_ there appeared to be a very great disproportion be-
tween the number of persons committed for trial and those
who were eventually acquitted of the offences imputed to them ;
and he said that without wishing to cast any blame upon the
gentlemen who filled the office of magistrates, yet he did think
that this afforded matter for serious consideration, and that too
much care could not be taken that persons should not be com-
mitted for trial but upon strong evidence.
Fumes Austin, 25, a mariner, was indicted for feloniously
cutting and wounding Edward Cartwright Middleton, with in-
tent to maim and disable his ; and in another count of the in-
dictment his intent was laid to be to prevent his lawful appre-
prehension for the offence of burglary.
Mr. Deeder prosecuted.

It appeared from the evidence, that on the morning of the
30th of May, between one and two o'clock, a person named
Staples, who keeps an oil shop in the High-greet, Chatham,
was alarmed by a noise in the street, and he awoke his shop-
man, tho prosecutor Middleton, and told him to go down and
see what was the matter. He did so, and on opening the
street-door carefully, he observed the prisoner standing outside
the shop of Mr. Hayler, a watchmaker opposite, and apparently
working with some tool at the shutter. Having watched him
long enough to be perfectly satisfied of his object, he went
over and laid hold of the prisoner, who mad* a violent resist•
ante, and finding he could not get away he at length
struck Middleton several severe blows on the head with
a chisel, and wounded him severely in several places. He
however, kept him until a constable came up, and the pri-
soner was then lodged in the station-house. Upon the pre-
mises of Mr. Hayler being afterwards examined, it was found
that a piece of wood had been completely cut out of one of the
shutters, making a hole large enougn to admit a hand, near
that part of the shop-front where a tray of gold watches was
generally kept, and a chisel, which no doubt was the tool that
had been made use of, and with which the prosecutor had also
been wounded, was found lying upon the pavement, close to
the spot.
A surgeon, who examined the prosecutor, described the in-
juries he received as being very severe, and said that he con-
sidered one cut behind the ear, at first, of a dangerous cha-
racter.

The jury found the prisoner guilty of wounding the prose-
cutor, with intent to prevent his lawful apprehension.
An officer was then called, who proved that he had been
before convicted of felony.
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE having commented in app•opriate
terms upon the aggravated character of the offence, sentenced
the prisoner to be transported for fifteen years.

OXFORD cirecurr.—.9lfford, July 21.
The business of these assizes commenced this morning, Lord
Denman presiding at Nisi Priu3, and Mr. Justice Patteson in
the Crown Court.

Andrew Walls, 23, and Alexander Hughes, 27, were
indicted for assaulting Thomas Wade, at Newcastle, s n
the 9th of June, and stealing a watch and chain from his
person.
The prosecutor was walking down the street late in the
evening, when he met the two prisoners, who were soldiers
quartered in the town, and one of them asked him what time
it was? Wade pulled out his watch far the purpose of ascer-
taining and telling them, when the prisoners snatched both
watch and chain out of his hand. They were found Guilty,
and sentenced to be transported for ten years.
Ann Fletcher, 14, was indicted fur setting fire to the dwell.
ing-house of Mary Tildesley, on the 21st June, at Ellenitall,
the said Mary Tiidesley being therein at the time.
The prisoner in this case is the grand daughter of Mrs.
Tildesley, with sshom she lived, and on the day in question
was forbidden to go to Newport fair, which she wanted to do,
her parents having requested the old lady not to allow her.
The girl, who issaid to be somewhat idiotic, in revenge for this
prohibition, set fire to her grandmother's house, and the old
lady, being bed-ridden, was near falling a victim to the pre-
coc►ous malice of the prisoner. A convic•ion under this in-
dictment is still a capital felony, punishable with death, and Mr.
Justice PatteTon directed a verdict of Not Guilty ; but to-mor-
row the prisoner will be tried under the second sectio❑ of the
Act of Parliament, on which the indictment is framed, vis.,
for setting fire to the building only, with the omission of the
graver part of the charge, that of a person being therein at
the time.

UlT.—Lincolu. Jul 21.
T
county
was opened on Saturday,
butD
the
lcbusiness
NgrCh ?
this C ? y
is
t.
Frederick Thompson, aged 28, was charged with having
forged a certain receipt for money, with intent to defraud the
trustees of a certain turnpike road.
The prisoner was surveyor of that portion of the Great North
Road which extends from Stamford to Witham, and as such
surveyor was accustomed to employ a number of labourers.
The charge was,-that he in certain weekly accounts had inserted
the name of " Thomas Smith," and received the amount
charged for work stated to have been done, and given receipts,,
whereas nn ouch man had ever been engaged. When the pri-
soner was called before the board and questioned, he denied the
truth of the alleged fraud of attaching the name and signature,
or mark of any man he Lad not employed. lla was, however,
suspended, and that day or the following absconded. This
was in December, 1841, and he was not arrested until last May,
sion, was published.—The jury found him Guilty.
although a handbill, offering a reward of 201. for his apprehen-

NORTHERN CIRCUIT.—York, July 21.
CROWN COURT.—(Before Mr. Justice Clt ESS WELL. )

REGINA V. A. LOCKWOOD.

The prisoner in this case was charged with having committed
a robbery, accompanied with violence, on the prosecutor, at
Bradford, in the West Riding of Yorkshire.
The ease on the part of the prosecution having closed,
Mr. OVEREND proceeded to address the jury on behalf of
the prisoner. He stated that, although he was willing to admit
that an assault had been made on the prosecutor by the pri-
soner, still he thought that he should be able to establish clearly,
to the satisfaction of the jury, that no robbery had been com-
mitted by the prisoner. He had been desired to lay all the cir-
cumstances of the case before the jury, and this be should do by
calling evidence.
Whilst the Counsel was proceeding in his address,
Mr. BOOTHBY said that it might answer all the ends of jus-
tice, since the prisoner admitted the assault, if he did not press
the case any further.
Mr. Justice CRESSIVELL inquired of the Counsel for the pro-
secution whether or not he entertained any doubt of the rob-
bery having been committed?
The Learned Counsel said that he thought it very probable,
looking at the evidence, that none had been committed.

Mr:Justice CRESSWELL then directed the jury to find the
prisoner guilty of the assault only, which they accordingly did.
The prisoner was then sentenced to three months' imprison-
ment.

WESTERN ClRCUlT.—Exeter, July 21.
The commission for holding the assizes for the county of
Devon was opened in this city on Saturday evening. 'the
cause list has 20 cases entered, end the calendar contains the
names of 158 prisoners, among whom are the 10 pirates for the
murder of Midshipman Palmer of her Majesty's ship Wasp.
The Learned Judges yesterday attended Divine service in
the cathedral. This morning the business commenced, Mr.
Baron Platt presiding in the Crown Court, and Mr. Justice
Erie sitting at Nisi Prius.
In charging the grand jury, Mr. Baron PLATT made the
following observations with regard to the case of the pirates:—
There was one matter which they would have to decide
which came before them not as really belonging to their
county, and forming no part of the criminality of the county
over which they presided, but a crime had been committed
out of the jurisdiction of the county. They must be aware
of the case to which he alluded. It seemed that a num-
ber of persons had been brought to this country for the pur-
pose of taking their trial before this Court, as a Court of
Admiralty. They were aware that offences could only, by
the common law of the land, be inquired into where the
offences had taken place within that county. So that if
the offence had been committed in Dorsetshire, they would
have no jurisdiction to try that offence here. With regard to
those offences which were not committed within the boundary
of any county, anciently the Court of Admiralty assumed a
jurisdiction over them, which was recognised by every State in
Europe, and in which Court the rules of the common law were
not observed, but the law was the civil law administered with-
out the intervention of a jury. At last it was thought that
where a man was to lose his life there should be the verdict of
twelve independent jurors to prouounce him guilty, in con-
sequence of which an Aot of Parliament was passed, by which
it was enacted that for the future parties charged with the
commission of offences within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty
should be tried before commissions appointed for that especial
purpose, and sessions were to be held, denominated the
Admiralty Sessions, which were to be held twice a year at
the Old Bailey, in the months of October and March in every
year. So: the law stood before the late Act of Parliament
by which the Central Criminal Court was formed. When
the Central Criminal Court was formed, the whole of
the Admiralty jurisdiction was assigned to that Court; but
that would give no jurisdiction to try a ease of that kind
here ; and therefore, by a recent statute of the 7th and Bth
years of the present reign, jurisdiction was given to the justices
of oycsr and terminer and general gaol delivery, who should
happen to preside in the place where the parties were in gaol,
and the parties to whom he now alluded being in the gaol of
this county, it became by force of this Act of Parliament, their
duty to consider the evidence laid before them, with respect-to
the charges made against these prisoners. It seemed that of
late years the odious traffic of dealing in gives, which had

disgraced the human kind, had, by the interference of this
country, been attempted to bp pet down. Among other nations,
that et Portugal had entered info a treaty for the purpose of
assisting to put down that traffic—he tuderstood that the
parties now charged were subjects
,of that Pete?, By the
treaty between the two countries, all officers having the
command of any Government ships have the power of sein-
ing and taking any vessel engaged in the slave trade. It
would seem in the present instance that a vessel called the
Felicidade had been taken by one of her Majesty's ships.
After that capture had taken place, and some of the officers
had been pet on board, a brigantine called the Echo was
discovered, and was captured and manned by the British,
and some of the men were taken from the Felicidade,
and while the remainder of the men were in the Feli-
cidade the act complained of took place. If they should be of
opinion that it was necessary, for the purpose of securing the
capture, that part of the crew should be taken to another vessel,
that division of the force was incidental to the Cipttfre of the
vessel, and, therefore, as long as those parties remained in the
other vessel they were in legal custody. He need not tell
them that if any man took away the life of one of her ISI4-
jesty's subjects, that party was guilty of murder, except under
particular circumstances. By the law of England the
taking away human life was murder, and it was almost im-
possible to qualify the °fence. Undoubtedly if this
custody was illegal—if a man had been seised from the
shore, and taken on board a vessel for the purpose of
being removed from the place—by the law of nations he would
be justified in committing any act to furtker his escape, but
that was not this case. An enemy, if taken in war, would be
justified in recapturing a vessel which had been taken from
him; but he who was a pirate, thoagh undoubtedly an enemy,
was not an enemy of war. By the law, a pirate had nes jus belli
at all. The definition of an enemy was clearly described. Ille
hostis est qui habet rem puplicam curiam cerarium est. The
governor of any country, and those who acted under him,
might be deemed enemies, but it would be too much to allow
the subject of any particular country to set himself up in any
such manner, and if he did that on the seas he became a pirate,
and therefore he could have no rights of war. If he had the
jus belli he might have done this act. A piratis et latronibus
captus liber permanet. It seemed the question for their con-
sideration was whether, in this case, they thought there was
reasonable ground for inferring that the.parties who committed
this atrocity in the destruction of human life were acting under
the law of nations. If they thought there was ground for in-
vestigation they would return a bill ; because, looking at the
evidence, there was little doubt that the parties charged had
destroyed the lives of several of Her Majesty's subjects.

NORTH WALES ClRCUlT.—Dolgelly, July 19.
The assises for the county of Merioneth commenced in the
Court-house of this town to-day before Mr. Baron Parke.
The Learned Judge arrived last evening, when, after opening
the commission, he attended Divine service.
Jonathan Jones, alias Lewis Woods, an elderly man, of no-
torious character, was indicted for burglariously breaking into
the shop and dwelling-house of Mr. Griffith Davies, a watch-
maker and jeweller, of Dolgelly, on the night of the 3d of
January last, and stealing therefrom 147 watches, 40 gold
rings, 40 gold seals, a large number of gold seals, watch keys,
silver thimbles, pencil-cases, and other articles of jewellery to
a great amount.
Mr. Welsby appeared for the prosecution, and the pri-
soner was undefended. From the evidence adduced, it ap-
peared that on the evening before the robbery the prose-
cutor, on going to bed, saw the whole of his property safe in
the shop, but on getting up the next morning he
.found that
a hole had been cut in his shop door with some sharp instru-
ment, by which means an entrance had beers forced, and on
examining the premises it was discovered that the valuable
articles named in the indictment had been carried away. So
extensive a robbery had not been committed in North Wales
fur a length of time, and notwithstanding the activity of the
Dolgelly police the thieves managed to get clear off. Nothing
was heard of the robbers or property until last month, when,
from information received by Mr. Hill, the high constable of
Chester, he was induced to question a man of the name of
Phillip Dixon, a prisoner confined in Chester gaol, and the re-
suit of his inquiries led him to search a lodging-house in
Chester, where the prisoner resided, and he there found, in a
deal box, four watches, some gold keys, watch-guards, &c.
which were identified as a part of the property stolen from the
prosecutor. The prisoner was apprehended at the time, when
he told Mr. Hill that Phillip Dixon was the man who com-
mitted the robbery.
Mr. Baron PARKE, at the latter portion of the evidence,
asked ➢ir. Hill where Phillip Dixon was, when the latter
stated that he had brought him in custody from Chester, in
the hope of getting him identified on the road, or in Dolgelly,
but he had been unable to accomplish that object, and there-
fore he had no charge against him ; they had, however, a case
against him at Chester, and he would be taken back there.
Several witnesses were called, who spoke to having seen the
prisoner in Dolgelly on the night before the robbery, and on
the road to Chester the morning after, and the prosecutor hav-
ing sworn to the property found in the prisoner's possession,
he was found Guilty, and sentenced to fifteen years' trans-
portation, the Learned Judge stating that if any violence had
been used he should have sent him out of the country for life.
At the conclusion of this case Mr. Price, the High Sheriff,
oat behalf of himself and the rest of the Welsh magistrates of
Merioneth, objected to the payment of Mr. Hill's expenses out
of the county rate.

Mr. Baron P&staz inquired upon what grounds?
The High Sheriff thought that Air. Hill's expenses should be
borne by the city of Chester, u the prisoner might have been
tried at Chester.

Mr. Baron PARKE said that it was quite out of the ques-
tion for for the city of Chester to bear the expense of pro-
secutibg a prisoner for a robbery committed in Merionethshire,
besides he could not have been legally tried in Chester.
The High Sheriff appeared disposed to argue the question
with the Learned Baron, who, however, cut the matter short
by ordering all the expenses incurred by Air. Hill in bringing
the prisoner to justice to be paid by the county of Alerioneth.
Hugh Grzffiths, a man upwards of fifty years old, stood in-
dicted for having, on the 27th of June last, violated the person
of Jane Hughes, a child of twelve years old.
Mr. Jervis and Mr. Townsend were for the prosecution, and
Mr. Welsby for the defence.
The facts disclosed in evidence were of the most revolting
description. The prisoner had been a soldier in the 4th Regi-
ment, and his Waterloo medal, which had been taken posses-
sion of by the gaoler, was handed to the counsel for the prose-
cution for their inspection. He is a pensioner, and had latterly
been emplo)ed as the keeper of the weighing machine at Bala,
in this county. Last month only he buried his wife, and
although labouring under a loathsome disease, he was
under contract to another woman to marry again, the bans
of marriage having been published on Sunday last for the
third time. In the state of health described he committed
the offence, the discovery of which was mainly attributable to
his having communicated the disease to his victim. On being
charged with it, he called upon the child's mother, who to her
disgrace, entered into a compromise, on condition that the
prisoner gave her his deceased's wife's wearing apparel, which
compact would have been carried into effect, had not the cir-
cumstance come to the ears of the magistrates, who compelled
her to prosecute. The poor child, in her examination,
evinced the most deplorable ignorance. She could not speak
English, and through an interpreter said she had never been to
school, had never been taught to read, nor to have a know-
ledge of the Bible.

From a difficulty experienced in getting the prosecutrix
to speak out sufficiently, to prove the principal charge, it was
abandoned, and another bill for the misdemeanour was
found by the direction of the Judge; to this the prisoner
pleaded guilty, and he was sentenced to 18 months' imprison-
ment.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
GUILDHALL.

Yesterday Thomas Ellerd, a labouring man, was brought
before Mr. Alderman Challis, charged with violently assault-
iog William Finn and other city police-constables.
• 3 Finn, policeman 276, stated that be was on duty at the bot-
tom of HolLorn-hill on the preceding evening, and on approach-
ing two men who were standing near the end of •Field-lane; one
of: them, the prisoner, spat a bone -out of his mouth into wit-
ness's face. Witness passed on and took no notice of this, but
.soon afterwards he saw the prisoner go up to Mr. Helme, who
carries on the business at the wine-vault, t3B, Holborn-hill, and
who was standing at his door. The prisoner offered him a
piece of bone, by holding it up in his face. Mr. Helme shook
his head, and the prisoner turned round and made a noise with
his mouth. Almost immediately after this he saw the prisoner
striking at Mr. Helme, who called witness to him. Witness
went up and told the prisoner he was doing wrong, taking hold
of his arm at the same moment. The prisoner ins.antly struck
him in the eye. Witness laid hold of him, and the prisoner
again struck him in the face and kicked his legs. It required
the help of five or six constables to convey the prisoner to the
station, and on the way he caught hold of witness's thigh with
his teeth, and drew blood.

Mr. Helme confirmed the officer's statement. The pri-
soner, after he offered;witness the bone, used some filthy expres-
sions, which excited witness to push him away. The prisoner
then made a regular attack upon him.
Edward Coffee, police-constable No. 246, said he went to
assist Finn, and was instantly struck in the face and kicked on
the lower part of the body by the prisoner. The prisoner
made a violent resistance all the way to the station-house.
William Smith, anet her policeman, complained of a kick
upon the thigh, which the prisoner intended for a more dan-
gerous part.
Sergeant Dunglisson found the prisoner striking at and kick-
ing Finn and Coffee. As soon as the prisoner was overpowered
his legs were strapped together, and he was carried to the sta.
tion. On the way he complained that his arm was being hurt.
The policeman let go his arm and he immediately bit Finn's
thigh. At the station-house he promised to walk quietly into
the cell if his legs were undone. The experiment was tried,
and he made use of his liberty to kick witness's legs several
times, and it was necessary to resort to force to get him into the
cell. The prisoner was not drunk, but he was beat on doing
as much injury to the police as he could.
Mr. Nerapath, the hatter on Holborn-hill, bore testimony to
the excessive violence of the prisoner, and his attempts to inflict
a very painful injury by kicking.
Mr. Alderman CHALLIS asked if this malice was superin-
duced by the conduct of the police towards hien ? Mr. Hera-
path declared it was not. He saw the whole of it, and he never
saw men behave with more forbearance. Their conduct was
exemplary. He had resided on the spot twenty years, and had
witnessed many violent struggles, and he never saw one equal
to this. He saw the prisoner make one unsuccessful effort to
kick a policeman, which must have produced death if it had
taken effect.

Mr. Alderman CHALLIS said as be had not power to punish
with sufficient severity such brutal conduct towards the police,
he should commit the prisoner for trial at the next Old Bailey
sessions, and should direct the City Solicitor to conduct the
prosecution.

The prisoner, who seemed to have counted •n a month's im-
prisonment as the extent of punishment to which he could be
subjected for ill-using a policeman, fell into a fit when he
found he was actually to be committed to Newgate fur the
offence.

The depositions were taken, and he was committed for trial.

BOW-STREET.
Yesterday Mr. Jardine was detained a considerable time be-
yond the usual hours of business in hearing the multifarious
details against a Mr. and Mrs. Caudle, who were brought be-
fore his worship for quarrelling and creating an obstruction in
Brydges-street, Strand, at the unseasonable hour of two o'clock
on Saturday morning last.
The case had been deferred until now, at the request of Mr.
Caudle, who attended on Monday with a certificate from Mrs.
Caudle's medical attendant, alleging that she was suffering
from a sort of mental derangement brought on by excessive irri-
tability. On this occasion Mr. Caudle ventured in his wife's
absence, to inform his worship that his good lady " was not
always an angel ;" and the proceedings of yesterday afforded a
pretty conclusive demonstration of the fact.
Long before the case came on Mrs. Caudle was heard
haranguing her unfortunate partner in the waiting-rodm at-
tached to the court, it having been found impossible to keep her
quiet.
On entering the dock she indignantly ordered the
gaoler not to lay his hands upon her, and, before any witness
had been examined, called upon the magistrate for permission
to address the Court. It was quite amusing to observe the
submissive but useless entreaties of Mr. Caudle to Mrs. Caudle,
during the inquiry, to keep the latter calm.
A constable of the F division stated that he saw Mrs.
Caudle, surrounded by several others, opposite a public-house,
having word's with her husband, and, on interfering, to prevent
an obstruction of the way, she behaved with such violence
towards him that he was compelled, with the assiAance of ,
another policeman, to conduct her to the Bow-street station.
The charge against Mr. Caudle was for interfering on her
behalf.

MARRIED. 13',A
On the 17th inst., at St. Saviour's, Southwark, .""' elm"
Jackson, of High-street, Borough, to Elizabeth,
daughter of Mr. S. B. Gaze, of Spitalfields. ober..rt",
On the 19th inst., at St. John's, Fulham, Jamesi!„,r
Esq., of Blockley, Worcestershire, to Eliza, eldest ""-
of the late D. Shuter, Esq., of Shuter's-terrace,
On the 21st last., at St. James's Church, Cierkfire, iv
Oliver Byrne, Esq., of Wharton-street, PentouvlOotr.
Eleanor, youngest daughter of John Rugg, Esq., °f
place, Maidstone.

. ....---
DIED. hter ofgP
On the 14th inst., Caroline, the youngest daug to
Cubitt, of Clapham-park. Oties '
On G
the 16th inst., Mr. James Flint, of her are'
Customs.
olden'sclu

On the 18th inst., at Lower John-street, - leg
Miss Elizabeth Parker, aged 82. Mr
On the 18th inst., at • Kingsfield, Southampton, o,
Pilgrim, Esq., aged 80. Sea
On the 18th inst., at Maidstone, Mr. Thnnias
fy,
surgeon, aged 29. , o'o
On the 19th inst., at Upper Albany-street, De6,-11 I,
trot°,
H. T. Greening, eldest child of H. Greening, Esq*;,ti ~.-d, 0.
On the 20th inst., at the British and Forne`Dsfor
George •street, Hanover-square, William BeslaY m
Swindon, Wiltshire.

1
yOu
London : and Publishod by ATURDO So. o•
No. 112, Strao,', Printer, at The Sun Oflice'iloalw
Strand. in the Preciiot of the Savor, in the
Bliddlelex, Wedneaday, July 23, 1843.