The Sun.
London, England, 1842-04-12 00:00:00

LONGFORD.

The Committee met at ten o'clock yesterday morning, and
Mr. A U ST EN commenced his argument against opening the re-
gistry. He began by giving an elaborate and minute descr:ption of
the law of registration in Ireland, and noting the points in which
it differed from that of England. He pointed out to the Com-
mittee that the registration in Ireland is not annual as in Eng-
land, but that a vote once put on the registry remained on it
for eight years. The claimant to vote was compelled to send in
a notice to be put on the register, instead of his name
being placed there by the act of the overseer.
The decision on all cases arising from the registration was
given by the Assistant Barrister of the county, an independent
officer, and the Chief Civil and Criminal Judge of the county.
The mode of examination was much more stringent, and he
contended that the investigations by the law of England and
Scotland were not near so perfect and complete as that exaeted
by the law of Ireland.

The Learned Counsel then proceeded to explain at great
length the process of registration. The voter is 'required to
swear to an affidavit, which is kept among the records of the
county, thus affording a constant means of detection and
conviction of perjury if the voter has obtained his franchise on
an improper qualification. He stated that there was no registry
in Ireland at all. When they said the registry they
used the word to describe what was analogous to it. The re-
gistry in Ireland was only first the certificates (in the possession
of the voters themselves), next the bundle of affidavits ; there
was a book of the names of the voters, but it was only drawn up
for the convenience of the polling, aad could not be produced
as legal evidence. In the English sense of the word, there
was nothing like a registry in Ireland. The right of vote
depended entirely on the certificate, and if a person
loses his certificate, he loses also his right to vote;
for this reason the affidavits are considered by the
law as the check, and answer the purpose of a public re-
cord. His whole argument was directed to showing that the
whole Irish system of registration, as far as the power of inve-s-
-tigation goes, is more searching and extensive than that of Eng-
land, and he strongly contended that, in law, the decision of
the Assistant Barrister must be considered final and conclu-
sive, and not to be altered by the CoMmittee. In conclusion,
he 1 ointed out to the Committee the extreme inconvenience
that would arise from opening the registry; there were al-
ready 283 votes objected to, and should an equal number be
objected to on the other side, the Committee would have to in-
vestigate the qualifications of between five and six hundred
Voters, a large portion of the whole constituency of the county.
Sergeant WRANCHAM, in reply, on the part of the peti-
tioner, after some introductorT observations on the line of ar-
gument used by his Learned }fiend, urged against those argu-
ments the decision in the case of the election for the
city of Cork, in 1835. In that case the sitting Mem-
bers were returned by a majority of more than six hundred,
but that majority was composed of the votes of non-resident
freemen, and it was decided that these votes were invalid. He
met the argument of inconvenience, by stating that the greater
number ofthe votes would be disposed of by the decision of the
Committee, on the principles on which the cases turned. The
principle of the vote being annulled by an insufficient qualifica-
tion, once asserted and laid down, the fargreater number of the
cases would be disposed of by that decision, without the necessity
for a detailed inquiry into each case. The argument of his Learned
Friend would go to give finality to the decisions of a Court that
had not even the power of send'ng for, or compelling the atten-
dance of, witnesses. Neither in Ireland nor England had the
barristers the power of sending for witnesses. The Learned
Counsel then described the operation of the Scotch registration,
showing that the decision of the Sheriff was never considered
final, as there was an appeal from him to the Sheriffs
of the three neighbouring counties ; nor could the
decision of these latter be considered final. Their
kcisior. could be revised by the Court of Review, and the
House of Commons possessed a power, as a final tribunal, over
the decision of that Court. In fact, in every case the Legis-
lature had reserved to itself the right of reviewing the decision
of the registering officer, whether he be Barrister or Sheriff,
both in Ireland and Scotland.

The argument was interrupted by the announcement that the
Speaker was at prayers. It will be resumed to-day.

SUDBURY.

The Committee met at 11 o'clock. The Counsel for the
petitioners were engaged throughout the day in examining
witnesses in support of their case, but no material facts were
elicited. The chief object appeared to be to connect several
gentlemen with the transactions which are made the grounds
of the petition.

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.

FROM THE EVENING PAPERS OF THIS DAY.

GLOBE.—Sir Robert Peel succeeds very well
in argument while he can argue ad horninenz; and only
fails when he must address himself directly to great
national interests. He demonstrates very triumphantly
that his opponents have, at one period, declared that
beginning the year with a deficit must' lead to an in-
come tax, and at another, that extension of probate and
legacy duty to land would be inexpedient. All that is
very fair by way of retort upon taunts of inconsistency ;
and heads of parties will always find missiles enough of
that kind in Hansard. Whether Sir Robert Peel
or Lord John Russell is More liable to citations ad-
verse to their present position on the income tax—
we neither know nor care. Whether the former has
been more uncivil to the clay soils, and clod pates,
of country gentlemen, or the latter more ill-tem-
pered towards his opponents in general—is
wholly indifferent to us. We ask only, which of
these statesmen now represents the most national
policy. It is singular nobody seems to have a word to
say for Sir R.Peel but himself—for we can hardly deem
his Chancellor of the Exchequer, poor man !—whose
fate is to play Bertrand to his Roberti Macaire—any
exception. The utmost any " independent " Member
can bring himself to say for his policy is, that "he
votes against his own conscientious conviction " for
Sir Robert, for fear of worse. So much for his Corn
Bill and Tariff, and for the sentiments of that power-
ful party who brought him in expressly to prevellk
Corn-law and Tariff reform. And then, as regards
the income tax, is there a soul who, in speech or
writing, will say a word in favour of that tax, in or
out of doors ?

STANDARD.—We are not for ourselVes ashamed
to confess that our care for the success of Sir
Robert Peel's financial plan is in no small degree
connected with anxiety for the success of the prin-
ciple of Sir Robert Inglis's motion. Let the finan-
ces of the country be placed in a healthy condi-
tion—let a rational financial system be adopted
to retain the finances in that healthy condi-
tion—and we trust to the right spirit of the
country to force upon its legislators the discovery
that nations have duties beyond . making war and
" devising trade " duties, to
.the discharge of which
the British empire is emphatically summoned by
Him whose summons we may not disobey. It
mey be said that these considerations are not
very intimately connected with a proposition for
making 1501. a-year the unit upon the income tax
scale. We reply, that every proposed amendment
in such a case is a fault found--a fault found not
only in detail, but the principle of the measure
and this being so, we hold it to be the duty of a manly
discretion to overlook the fault, for the sake' of the

final and general good, which the multiplication
of faults alleged must have the effect of defeating.
Mr. Shell " aired his common places" with con-
siderable liveliness and pretension at the close of
his speech;. he affected to . apprehend a great
increase of perjury from an income.: tax, and
-contrasted the zeal which had been shown
to suppress Irish perjury by Lord Stanley's Bill
with .the indifference to perjury seemingly mani-
fested in the introduction of an income tax. Now,
without meaning to suggest any offensive recollec-
tions, we would remind that the oaths to be adminis-
tered by income tax Commissioners—if any are to be
administered, which is yet doubtful—are to be admi-
nistered to a very different class of persons from the
oaths administered under the present Irish registration
laws. No one can be sworn (if any are to be sworn)
in England whose income is not estimated at more than
150/. a-year, and these are to be sworn only in the rare
case of a disputed surcharge ; but the complaint
against the Irish perjuries is, that they are committed
by persons whose real income is less than 101. a-year
—and we have the evidence of Roman Catholic
Bishops, Roman Catholic Peers, Roman Catholic
Members of the House of Commons, Roman Catholic
barristers, and Roman Catholic solicitors, for the fact,
that the class of persons possessing less than 101.
a-year in Ireland are frightfully (Bishop Magaurin's
word) prone to slight the obligation of an oath. Now,
this cannot be said of the classes of persons of 1501.
a-year income, or, thanks to Providence, of any other
class in this country.

MURDER AT PUTNEY.
Very important information was conveyed to the
station-house in Regent's-park, about nine o'clock this
morning, from which there can be little or no doubt,
notwithstanding all the statements that have appeared,
that Good, the supposed murderer, if not already in
custody, is at St. Allan's or Hertford. The party
who brought the intelligence is a farmer, residing
at Whetstone, of the name of Elliot ; he states
that between ten and eleven o'clock yesterday fore-
noon he was at the Torrington Arms on Finchley
Common, when a man was drinking at the bar.
Elliot at first took no notice of him, but subsequently
was struck by his appearance, which strongly resembled
the description of Good in the bills circulated in and
about the metropolis. Elliot mentioned his suspicions to
the landlord, who was also of the same opinion. During
this conversation the man was standing outside the
door, on the steps of the inn ; he betrayed a very un-
settled state of mind, and was very dejected in his coun-
tenance; he had a large walking-stick and a bundle. Mr.
Elliot and the landlord were actually convinced, at
length, that the man was Good, and were consulting as to
the best method of acting in order that he should be
prehended, when he ran off the steps of the house into
the road, at the same time hailing a St. Alban's coach
passing at the time, on which he mounted, and before
Elliot or the landlord of the Torrington Arms Inn
could recover themselves lin order to detain the
coach, it was some distance on the road towards Bar-
net. Mr. Elliot, in giving the information, says he
has no doubt the man is Good, but there is one cir.-
cumstance which makes this suspicion almost a cer-
tainty ; whilst the man was at the inn, he went back-
wards, and after he had left, a coloured cotton hand-
kerchief was found by the pot-boy in the privy, which
was in a very filthy state, from the stains of hard clotted
blood ; no person at the inn ever possessed the handker-
chief, and there can be no doubt it was dropped by the
7 uspected party.
Mr. Inspector Aggs, and two policemen of the S divi-
sion, immediately on receiving the above information,
proceeded in a post-chaise to St. Alban's, and it is to be
hoped that they will be fortunate in tracing the man.
The handkerchief is in possession of the landlord of the
Torrington Arms. It has not yet been ascertained
whether there arc any initials on it, as it remains in
the state it was found.

'The follqwing additional particulars relative to Good have
been obtained by one of our correspondents from a source *spun
which reliance may be placed :—About eight or nine yearn
ago Good filled the situation of coachman with a gentleman
who resided at No. 17, Brenton-place ; and while in that ser-
vice he was suspected of pilfering, and was at length taken
into custody upon a charge of robbing his master of a cloak.
was tried for the offence, and ordered to be transported
for seven years. He was not, however, sent out of the country,
but, after being at the hulks about four years, was set at
liberty. When Good was in this service he was con-
sidered to be a married man, and his wife, or the woman
who represented herself as such, lodged near the Two
Brewers public-house at Clapham, and Good used to go
home to see her two or three times a week. He
had at this time', one child, then quite an infant, which
is supposed to be the same child that was with the prisoner at
the time of the fatal discovery. Good was taken into custody
upon the charge of stealing the cloak at Southampton, by
Sergeant Bonny, and is well known by a great number of
other men belonging to the P division of police; ho was
generally called " Irish Dan" in the neighbourhood of Brixton.
After his term of imprisonment had expired, he again returned
to Clapham, and remained there for some time, when it is be-
lieved he went to Ireland, and upon his returning to this
country he obtained a service with Mr. Nottidge, one
of the Magistrates for Surrey, from which service he
was discharged under the circumstances that have
already been detailed. Good is described by those
who knew him well as being a passionate and brutal fellow ;
and it was known that he was in the habit of ill-using the
horses that were placed in his care, and the neighbours
frequently expressed their surprise that Mr. Shiells should have
kept him to his service. It is the opinion of persons acquainted
with his habits, that he has not left London, but that in all pro-
liabiay he is lying concealed in the " rookeriei' either of St.
Giles's or Westminster.

The criminal records furnish the partienlars of a crime of a
similar character committed about the year 1761 by a French-
man named Theodore Gardelle. Gardelle lodged at the house
of a Mrs. Kiwi in Leicester-square. On February 19, 1761,
it appeared that he went into her room for some purpose, and, as
it afterwards appeace,l in evidence and from the prisoner's eon •
fession, some altercation took place between them ; he pushed
her, and her foot catching in the carpet, she fell ; her head
struck the bef-po t with great violence, and the blood gushed
from her mouth. He then, it appeared, struck her on the
throat with a comb, until she was quite quiet ; he then laid
her on the bed; went out of the room and locked the door.
Gardelle, in order to hide the evidence of the crime
he had committed, resolved upon destroying the body ;
he accordingly removed the intestines, which he threw
into a water-closet, then cut off the limbs, cut the
body into pieces, and scattered these over the floor of
a loft that was not generally made use of, in the hope, as he
said, that the pieces of flesh would dry and perish with-
out putrefaction. He also burnt during the night some of the
bones of the wretched woman. It is a strange circumstance
that although there were other persons in the house for several
days, no suspicion of anything wrong was entertained, and
while Gardelle was burning part of the body, upon a person
observing that there was an unpleasant smell in the house; he
replied, "that some one must have thrown a bone upon the
the fire." The absence of the woman King at length
caused suspicion, and Gardelle was questioned about her ; he
then said that he expected het home at night, and should set
up for her. It appeared that he (lid not ge to bed, but
occupied the night in disposing of the body in the manner
stated. Gardelle was at length taker, into custody, and upon
a search being made, the remains of the body were found in
the loft. The prisoner subsequently made a confession :of all
the circumstances above detailed. He was tried at the Old
Bailey Sessions in April 1761, was found guilty, and executed
in the Haymarket, opposite Penton-street. He uas taken from
gaol in a cart* and was carried past the house in which his vic-
tim had resided. When the vehicle arrived opposite to it,
it made a stop, and Gardelle turned round and was observed to
gaze attentively at the scene of his crime. After his execution,
the body was hung in chains upon Hou nslow Heath.