Star.
London, England, 1830-03-04 00:00:00

FRANCE AND THE BOURBONS IN 1830.

From Le Globe.
(Continued from the STAR of Saturday).

What would have been the fate of France and of liberty under
.Buonaparte and his dynasty ? Uneasy, and perhaps little dignified;
st Inuit, so we think: and even at the price of the humiliation of a.
second lavasion,--even at the price of so much treasure and glory
lost,—even at the price of so many and such fierce years of contest,
our education as a free people does not seem now to have coat Wei
.:melt. But in priportion to the price it bas cost, and continues So
eon every day, so the dangers of those Princes who do not accom.
• modate themselves to it, increase.

We have just Seen how the Bourbons were banished by the people
and by the army, because they offended the people and the army.
• In vain had.s faint Aurora of political liberty shone upon them, in
the midst of a feeble and ignorant legislation : habituated to the
Imperial .yoke, counter-revolutionary sophism had obscured it, and
though tome patriotic minds, some young spirits awakened by
hope, for a moment rallied round them, the same hope drew them
to Buonaparte, imploring liberty in the Champ de Mai, perhaps as
an actor, but as an actor whose part carried him farther than be
wished. Too long has been forgotten the influence which those
three months had in our political regeneration, when popular and
military scenes were acted—when the renewal of federations was seen
—when club and tribune agitation resounded through the land—
when appeals were made to the recollection of the campaigns of
1792 and 1793, and when the sacred songs of old victories
were heard. Ah ! which of us, then young, amidst the agitation
caused by so many unknown emotions, ',obi& the books of our
intik/icy had been unable to excite,—whlch of us in the midst of
this clangour of arms and these cries of liberty, though but a cold
imitation of what had been before, did not fancy himself carded
back to the great days of our fathers ? Which of us did not, with
tears in his eyes, and his arm trembling with enthusiasm and indig.
nation, and fired with fidelity and bravery,--which of us did not
brandish his sword and believe himself as great a hero as any of the
heroes among the Marcelloise, ready to conquer or die under the
standard of reviving liberty ? Who, too, among the children of the
old emigrants or Vendeans, still recollecting the hymns to the
martyrs of Royalty chaunted in 1814, did not also dream of fortune,
and endeavour to seek it in some obscure part of the country, where
they thought themselves powerful and likely to be seconded ? Pardon
us this return to 1815. It was not for the purpose of diverging
from our object: for, after the victory of the Bth of July, after the
restoration, this time certainly forad on us by foreign bayonets, the
counter-revolutionary party, which returned with the Bourbons, was
obliged to follow the same path which Bonaparte and the friends of
the revolution had just followed. It also made an appeal to liberty,
and by means of speeches, laws, and votes, it undertook to destroy
what had been consolidated for 25 years.
The Chamber ',arousals raised the hatchet against every popular
institution while pretending to popularity, as the adherents- of the
south murdered the Protestants while pretending to compassionate
them. Confounded, broken spirited, and divided, the nation seemed
to submit. No well-connected opposition was organised r there was
no longer any military Buonapanism, or civil discipline, as on the
loth of March. There was no longer any intelligent, liberal, strong,
tkr united opinion. Still here and there attempts at conspiracy and
revolt were made, and it wss always the son of Buonaparte that was
opposed to the Bourbons, but still without sincerity and without
sympathy in the muses of the people; or rather, the muses did not
dare to trust themselves, though in their hearts they were very much
inclined to seek any Prince rather than him in whose name a legal
counter-revolution was operating and boldly advancing. Had the
power of this Chamber, conducted by the La Bourdonnayes, the
Corbidres, the Villelea, the Castelbajacs, the tribunes of aristocracy
and Catholicism, continued much longer, a civil war would have
broken out. The foreign Kings perceived this, and Louts XVIII.
before all of them. With his sagacity, his great personal tact, and
also his honesty and pride u author of the Charter, he perceived the
coming danger; and in spite of the opposition of his Court, he
stretched forth his hand. The Chamber was dissolved and tran-
quillity restored.
Here commenced an epoch of confidence and hope for the
nation. The king presented himself to its eyes in the character of
• saviour. if, on the one hand, date Buonapartism still here
and there gave signs of existence, anon the other, the extravagant
and disconcerted counter-revolutionists expressed their discontent,
the miss of the people remained tranquil, and produced as the organ
of their wishes and wants a third party, composed of the friends of
monarchy become prudent like the king, and of the friends of
berty tempered by hope. Three years passed in a satisfactory
manner. A law of elections—a happy and bold development of the
democratic elements—a law of recruiting, which guaranteed equality
—the abolition of the censorship over the journals, a first step to-
wards the liberty of the press--a direction of vigorous studies fin-
printed on the superior branch of education—popular instruction en-
couraged—financial improvements—finally, the liberation of our
territory, and the removal of foreign flags..-.all these things an-
nounced fair intentions on the part of the government, and these in.
tertions were answered in a corresponding manner by the people.
The hateful principle of secret emnity was supplanted by an avowed
and sincere democratic opposition. Every thing was done openly,
and, as one may say, in the broad day.
At Paris the society of the press, composed of the principal cid.
:ens, animated and directed the public feeling ; but without any
after-thought, without any other object than prevailing by prose.
lytism, by the union and concentration of efforts. The spirit of the
charter extended itself. It gradually spread through the provinces,
which were still paralysed by, or trembling at, the violence of 1816.
It triumphed in the elections. Suddenly this power was stopped.
The day succeeding the ordinance of the sth of September a league
was formed which boasted of having the support of the heir to the
throne, and opposed his name to the name of the king. This
league, half religious and half political, directed by prelates and
statesmen, amongst whom was remarked a great genius who advo-
cated liberty sincerely in the midst of hypocrites who wished to
stifle it, published journals, thundered in the pulpits, and organised
bands of- supporters. The clergy, hitherto but secondary agents,
now appeared in the first ranks. The spirit of combination, of
hierarchy, and Jesuitical associations, which distinguished this
league, was transferred to the royalist party, which resumed its ha.
bits of conspiracy and its corresponding societies, as in the time of
the emigration. Secret societies, under a thousand different titles,
but all approaching the same centre, which was audaciously called
the Pavillon, Marsan, the Bentsen*, La France Reyetter(e, &c.
were spread over France like network. In some places these
societies ruled by terror; in others, they excited irritation by
malicious provocations. They conspired for the object whicti
they had in view, or they caused their imprudent adversaries
to conspire. The bowaosreas fatal of Lyons—the revelations
of Liguevel and Legall, organisers of the Chouans in Brit.
zany—die trial of Canuel—the Brest missions--all revealed the
double intention of destroying liberty by the faults of he friends,
or of stifling It by violence. Finally, parricidal rotes invited fo.
retinas to enter France fors military occupation, which was nets-
easy to the accomplishment of their project, and the name of the
Prince was constantly put forth sas a support and sanction for their
conduct. Then the national party beet to bestir itself. Its tepee-
sentatives In the Chamber, alarmed at dm secret 112011111ent which
made ell tremble around them, with grief and anger demanded the
development of those institutions which alone could protect liberty.
This demand added to the terror and embarrassment if the (io-
vernment, and carried the royalist intrigues to their height. Thus
re-action commenced. A blow from the poniard of a fanatic, who
wished to stop it, precipitated it. The only Minister who still op.
posed the league, the beloved favourite of the King, was driven
from the palace amongst the cries of a furious party, who took a
bloody robe for their standard. The liberty of the pre,' was de-
stroyed, rind next individual liberty. Then the law of elections was
attacked—the law of elections, which was the last rampart of legal
resistance. What, under these circunistances, could or ought the
national party to do? It uttered complaints, prayers, fatal pro-,
lobecies. The ardent, honourable, and enthusiastic youth of the
tuition heard and adopted its sentiments. They assembled around
the palace where their destinies wets under discussion, Ind uttered
applications and murmurs. They were dispersed by force, and
blood was shed.

This impropriety on the part of the young men belonging to the
schools was the subject of great complaint. The Government pm.
tended to &ma in. this a spirit of concert, a pion of revolt, in-
stead of observing in it merely a melancholy anticipation, a proof
• affection for the liberty about to be lost, and the turbulence natural
to youth. Certainly we need not now conceal that there has been
for ten years a secret and concerted hostility. We may, we ought
to acknowledge it in the face of the country, for now frankness and
information are required. Frankness is lakewhe neeeseary for the
throne Which is now hanging over the same abyss which was opened
is 1820 by, guilty re-. Mon. No: the national party entertained
DO projeen hostile to the existing dynasty ; it sought only a legiti-
mate defence. No ; there was no conspiracy, when conspiracy was
wrapt, and avowed oq the other side. If, subsequently, a plan of
defence been formed--!f designs hostile to the dynasty have
been eatertainexlif in some inns of Ilie country these designs have
Arend 'faun, and suppoet—if dangerous amocia&m have existed,
secretly for a long thie--if infuriation, have berg Mtenquad—all
title didnot occur (we can prove it) until after the Metope set by
the other side, until after the attack and violation of the darter.

We can prove that even under M. de Villele, in consequence-of die. I
cussien finding a legitimate vent by means of the press, of
hostility were repressed; and that only broke forth at alter
period, when, overcome by discussionnd by the progress of pond-
cal morals, this Minister attempted a third violent re-action by eats.
bushing the censorship, destroying the purity of election by fraud,
anti dipping his hands in the blood of citizens. Then, *in, the
question of dynasty was brought forward t but only a few days
pawed over, when the King perceived his danger, and all was for.
gotten. M. de Polignac has again raised the storm. The violence
of this storm will increase daily if he continues in office, or if he be
succeeded by any one, either bold or timid, who may attempt by
force or stratagem to oppose the henceforth irresistible development
of popular liberty.

LAW INTELLIGENCE. •

VICR-CRANCRLLOkB COURT, Mason S.

HOWE V. WILLIAMS AND OTHERS.
The phentilf in this cause is the widow of a person named Howe,
who lived at Hamptead, on very intimate terms with the defendant
Crouch, and died in 1826. Howe had accumulated about 500/.
which he kept by him in a box. Crouch remonstrated with him en
the folly of letting the money lie useless in that wiy, and Howe
then said Buy me a house with it." Crouch accordingly nego.
elated for an unfinished house, and it was arranged that the lease
was to be taken in the name of iCrouch, and that the transaction
should be kept secret from all the world except Howe's wife. The
house was finished, and all the money for that purpose, as well as
the purchase money, except about 261. was advanced by Howe.
The lease continued in the possession of Crouch, who became In.
solvent, and was schemed by the Act in 1318, when the lease came
into the possession of his assignees, against whom Crouch's widow
filed this bill, praying that Crouch might be declared a trustee of the
lessee for Howe, and that the lease might be assigned and delivered
up to the plaintifon paying a small sum due to Crouch's estate on
account of it.

His Honour the Vics.Curatczt.t.on thought he could not re.
fuse his belief to this aceount of the transaction told by Crouch, as
it was confirmed by his charging himself with the monies received
by him from Howe in his books,and by his statement in his sthedule,.
and therefore granted the dean as prayed for.

BRIEN V. j0i1...

Mr. KNIGHT, at the sitting of the Court, requested his Honour
would be good enough to allow this cause to be called on, for the
convenience of Sir Edward Antrobus, who was in attendance under
a subpoena ducea team, to produce a mortage.deed. That deed being
in Sir Edward's possession as mortgagee, he objected to produce
it, stating that as a mortgagee, he was not hound to do so.—
Such being the objection taken by Sir Edward, the clients of Mr.
Knight had adopted the present course. It was not the intention of
the learned counsel to argue the point, but merely to submit it to
the consideration of the Court, in the way he had done, with this
observation, that he did not conceive a witness having a deed or
mortgage, could effectually protect himself from its production, by
the course pursued by Sir Edward Antrobus.
The Sercs-Cassiczu.o• apprehended that it was a clearly set.
fled point that no party could call upon a mortgagee to produce his
deed, without paying off the mortgage.
The SoLicuroa.G•wznar. recollected a case similar to the
present, in.which Lord Kenyon said to the mortgagee in possession
of thedeed, "There, my good fellow sit down on the box which
contains our deed, and don't stir from, it till you go out of Court."
The VICE-CHANCELLOR had no power to compel Sir Edward
to produce his deed.
Sir Edward shortly afterwards left the Court, with the deed safe
in his possession.

ROLLS' COURT, Mann S.
LORD DURHAM V. THR MARQUIS OT LONDOWDZRIT.
This was a bill filed to obtain the specific performance of an
agrevnent. The Marquis of Londonderry purced an estate of a
3lr. Dank n, a trustee appointed by the will of Mr. Dawson lamb_
ton, for 21,0001. The Marquis thentsold a great part of the estate
to Led Durham for 16,0001. and received the money, but did not
pay the purchase money to Mr. Dankin, taking an objection to his
conveying a title, Mr. Lanibton's eldest son being a lunatic, for the
disposition of whose property a bill in Chancery was filed, and
therefore it was alleged, that the authority of the Court was neces-
sary to complete the conveyance. It was urged [that the Marquis
had accepted.the title, by the act of reselling the estate; but it was
finally arranged, that that point should be referred to the Muter.
COURT OF KING'S BKNCM, MARC!' 3.

•
DALY V. SLATTED.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff and his partner, who
were bankers, at Paris, as indorses of a bill of exchange for 3151.
16s. 10d. against the drawer. The defence set up was, that due
notice had not been given.
After considerable argument, and the production of several wit
news, it was agreed between the parties to make a special case of
the cause.

WILBRAHAM Y. WATIIELLY.
This was an action on a policy of Insurance. The facts of the
cue were shortly these. The insurance was effected on the cargo of
the ship Comet, bound to Madeira, and the plaintiff, a gun-maker,
had shipped on .board a cargo of fire.arms, upon which the in.
surance was made. On the arrival of the vessel at Madeira, the
cargo was seized upon as " contrabrand at war." It was proved
that the agent of the defendant had given notice to the government
of Madeira that these good. were about to arrive in the island, and
accordingly, on the arrival of the vessel, her cargo was seized, as
contraband at war, and had never been recovered by the plaintiff.
It was therefore contended, on the part of the plaintiff, that had it
not been for this information, which was given by the defendant's
agent, the selsure would not have been, and that having been made.
he was liable to plaintiff for the amount of the policy. For the de.
fence, it was alleged, that according to the treaty of reciprocity be.
tween the blend of Madeira and this country, the goods were to all
intents and purposes contraband ; and that the government were ap.
prehensive of its being a smuggling transaction.
Lord TENTERDIN was of opinion, that the defence could not be
maintained according to the wording of the treaty. The plaintiff
was therefore entitled to recover.
The Jury re•urned, under his Lordship's direction, a verdict for
the plaintiff—Damages 1981.

SOULiT V. TYSON AND ANOTHER.
This was an action brought by the plaintiff, an eminent wine.
merchant in the City of London. to recover from the defendants the
sum of 3651. the amount of alien upon a certain bond given by Mr.
A. Macdougall. It appeared that there had been an action at law,
in which the defendants bad been concerned as monies. The de-
fendants had written a letter to the plaintiff, stating that they would
pay off the lien out of the money recovered on this bond, should
they succeed.; but if they only recovered part, then they under-
took to pay the amount left atter the payment of the costs of the
action. It was proved in evidence that the defendants had received
more than that sum upon the bond ; that Mr. Knight, one of the
defendants, had quitted this country, leaving his affairs in a state
of considerable embarrassment. The plaintiffthetefore thought him.
self entitled to recover the amount of his claim from the partner,
Mr. Fyson.
On the part of the defendant, it was contended that the money had
been paid to Mr. Knight, it having been arranged that that gentle-
' man was to have the conduct of the business, and that therefore the
defendant, Mr. Fyson, was not liable.
There being no evidence produced to prove that the plaintiff had
been a party to such arrangement,
Lord Tgrermanzx held that the defendant, Mrs. Fyson, was
liable.

The Jury consequently found a verdict for the plaintiff—De.
SOL
ma The
comtooa jury causes, most of whish were undefended,
were then tried.
MURRAY T. STRATI', DOLMAN, AND CORNOULD.
This was an issue from the Court of Chancery, directing the
Jury to inquire whether or not an engraver has a right to reserve
for his own use proofs or impressions from plates which he had been
employed to engrave.
The case has already been tried before Mr. Justice Gaines, in
the Court of Common Pleas, when the Jury found a verdict for the
defendant, as to the fact of engravers having a ht to reserve eight
impressions from the plate for their own use. The Jury were about
to add their opinion, on the question of the right of the engraver to
sell the prints so obtained ; but that not being a part of the Issue
they were directed to, the Learned Judge did not receive that
The part of their verdict. The Lord Chancellor not being satisfied with
this decision, directed a new issue to be tried by this Court.
The Attang.fieneral, Mr. Campbell, and Mr. Hill, appeared
for the plaintiff: Mr. Common Sergeant Delman, and Mr. Gurney,
for the defendants.

The facts of the case have already been before the public. Mr.
Heath was employed by Mr.. Murray. to engrave sets of plates, to
illustrate Lord Byron s " Ikon Joon," and " Orabb's Poems,"
*bleb being executed, Mr. Heath " pulled" a number of impres-
sions for his own use. In 1825 Mr. Heath tailed In businesa, and
his stock of engravings, among which were the impressions from Mr.
Murray's plates, were advertised for public sale, at Mr. bouthgate's
rooms, in Fleet-street. An injunction was obtained by !dr. Murray,
and the sale did not take place.
The defendants rested their defence on the ancient usage and cus-
tom of engravers, who, they comMtled, had always been in the
practice of taking front three to twelve impressions from all plates
tbey To prove this case, the following witnesses were
Mr. Edward Goodall stated, that be had been a copper-plate en.
graver for sixteen years. • Has always taken from dupes us twelve
impretistons from all the plates he engraved. In some mess his em-
ployers bad a knowledge-01de taking the impressions.
Mr. .Edward linden—Has been eighteen yews in engraver'
Witness had takes impressions from plates engraved by him. Never
took more than twelve from any one plate.
Mr. George Robins, of Covent-prdm, stated that be field the

' stock of Mr. James Reath, the engraver. The sale lasted tiro days.
There were a number of unlettered prints in the collection. The
sale was well attended, and several book itnd print-sellers were present.
Mr. Wm. Smith, engraver. Always kept from six to twelve ho-
of his engravings. • From the two last plates he took 18
eail
impressions. Six were for the printer, three for the proprietor, and
nine for himself.
Mr. Richard Lane engraved a plate of "Little Red Riding
Hood," for Messrs. Robinson and Co. Mr. Robinson asked hint
if he had taken any impressions. Witness amid that he had. Mr.
Robinson then asked him if he could justify the practice? Wit.
ness replied that he could not, but that it was the custom of the
profession. It was afterwards aimed that he should keep the in.
pressions, but not sell them.
William Tindall, clerk to Mr. Sotheby, Auctioneer, in Wel-
lington.street, stated, his employer had, on several occasions,
_sold
the stock and collection of engravers, consisting of unlettered en-
gravings. The sales were attended by several print-sellers.
Mr. Jones. auctioneer, of Leicester.place, stated that some years
ago he sold a collection of prints for Mr. Smith, the engraver.—
There were a number of "engravers proofs" among them. Mr.
Colnaghi, the printseller, in Cockspur-etreet, to the
amount of 171.
The LORD Cum, Jussicr, in summing up the case to the
Jury, said they had merely to direct their attention to one point,
viz.—whether by law a person employed to engrave, had a right to
retains certain number of impressions of the plate ? It could not,
in his opinion, be lawful, unless established by a practice so lung
known to the rade, that every person connected with it must have
known and consented to it.

The Jury, after ashore consultation, returned a verdict for the
plaintiff:
ADMIRALTY COURT.
THE ZETHYRIXA.
- _ _

In this case judgment was this day given.
Sir C. ROBINSON' after stating the facts of the case, said that
the Order in Council which directed that all prises made by tenders
or boats belonging to a ship of war should be considered as if cap-
tured by such ship of war, was not intended to alter the principle of
the prize laws, which had been in force for so lotm a period. The
allegation on the part of the officers and crew of the Sybille must,
therefore, be rejected.
BOARD OF EXCISE.

THE /MG T. T. N. BOWDEN.
This was an information preferred against Thomas Hill Bow.
den by the Excise Board, for having in his possession, for the
purpose of adulteration and colouring, a quantity of salt water and'
treacle, and other ingredients.
There were six counts in the information ; five of them on pens.
ties 0f2501. and the sixth on a penalty of 601.
Excise officers deposed to going to the house of the defendant, •
retail dealer in beer and spirits, in St. John.street„ and there finding
a quantity of colouring stuff in the lower part of the premises. The
salt water and treacle, with other ingredients. were for the purpose of
mixing with the beer and liquors he retailed.
The defendant pleaded Not Guilty, and urged in his defence that
he had not the least intention of doing wrong, either by cheating the
public or defrauding the revenue.
Mr. Mayo, the Solicitor fur the Excise, submitted the ease was'
full proved, and called for the penalties.
The Communaute, after 10111 T consultation, commuted the
full penalties to the mitigated one of SO/.
Lewis Jones, a publican, was charged with a similar offence, for
having in his possession a quart bottle of treacle and colouring matter.
The offence was clearly proved, the bottle and liquid being found
in the bar. The stuff was produced, and sworn to be for the pur-
pose of colouring and mixing with beer.
The defendant declared that he had no guilty or fraudulent in-
tention, bat admitted having the stuff in his possession, which he
used for colouring his rum, not knowing it to be an offence.
The Commissioners, under all the circumstances mitigated the
penalty to 101.
LENT ASSIZES.
NO K 7 H A M PTON.
- - -

In the Nisi Prius Court, in which Mr. Baron GAILIWIV presided,
seven causes, all that were entered were tried ; of which the follow-
ing alone is worthy of notice:

HERBERT tr. AUSTIN AND ANOTHER.
This was an action to recover the amount of a bill furnished by
the plaintiff to the defendants, who were overseen of the parish of
Pottersbury, for surgical attendance and medicines supplied by the
former, as surgeon and apothecary, to a pauper under their care.—
The defendants resisted the action on the ground that the plaintiff,
not having passed Apothecaries' Hall, nor having practised before
1815 as an apothecary, was not entitled to charge in that capacity;
end, secondly, that the defendants had not employed him.
Mr. Baron °arrow In summing up the evidence, reminded the
Jury of the ludicrous pretensions of the water-doctors formerly, aird
related the old anecdote of the substitution of a horse's urine teethes
of a human being, whereby the quackery of one of them was even.
pletety exposed.
The Jury found that the plaintiff had not been in business as an
apothecary before 1818 ; but upon the other part of the cue, the
question of law being reserved for the Court above, they found for
the plaintiff—Damages 501. _

READING.

Charles Morris Ames a youngsna;of most respectable appear-
Knee, was capitally charted with stealing 68 yards of thread lace and
two handkerchiefs, the property of Mr. George Shepherd, his masa
ter, from his dwelling-house.
Mr. Shepherd and Mr. Carrington conducted the prosecution ;
111 r. Talfourd the defence.

Thomas Waters, a polies officer, of Worship-stmt, said—ln
consequence of information received from Mr. Shepherd, I went to
the house of Mr. Jones, of Park-street, Upper Baker-street, Lon-
don, and received from Mrs. Jones a parcel which I now produce,
containing a quantity of lace, two handkerchiefs, some Irish linen,
and a shirt eohn.. Mrs. Jones also gave me a letter. The parcel.
was directed " C. M. Jones, to be left at Mr. Richard Jones's, 37,
Park-street, upper Baker-street, London, per Alert coach. To be
delivered Immediately."
Mrs. Anne Jones said—l received the parcel, which I delivered
to Waters on the 19th of October; it is in the same rate as it was
when I received it.

Mr. William Faulkner said—l keep the Red Lion Inn, at Abing.
don ; in the month of October the Alert coach ran to my house ; the
used often to come there; the prisoner told me he was sent
son to Abingdon, by a house in Wood-street, to take the money
received at Mr. Shepherd's shop, to satisfy a bond they held of Mr.
Shepherd's.
Clarissa Faulkner am the wife of the last whams. On
the 18th October the prisoner booked a parcel, addressed to Mr.
Jones, Upper Baker.street ; that was not the whole direction, but
that is all that I put into the book ; the parcel went by the Alert coach.
Mr. George Shepherd said-1 was a linen draper at Abingdon,
but I have now retired from business. lam also the post-master
and distributor of stamps. On the 30th of September I engaged
the prisoner as a shopman for six months certain, at a salary of two
pounds ten shillings per month. I know his hand.writing. The
letter produced is of his hand-slicing, so is the direction on the
parcel. I know the lace contained in die parcel to be mine. It has
my shop marks on it. i also know the handkerchiefs. I have
compared them with some that were left in my shop, and they were
evidently torn from the same piece. The prisoner was, to my
knowledge, in Abingdon from the 30th of September to the Bth of
November. He could not have gone either to Buckingham,
Southampton, or Worcester. The prisoner was not sent down by
any house in Wood.street, to receive the money taken in my shop
and remit it to them. I never gave any bond to any house in
Woed.street.

The prbooer made no defence, but said he left his ease to his
Coo
Mr. Baron BOLLAND summed up the evidence.
Verdict—Guilty.
As soon as the verdict was returned. Mr. Shepherd, the prose-
cutor, said—" l hope that your Lordship will be pleased to spare
his life."

Mr. Baron Bott.atto intimated that he considered that this was
a case in which he should hardly do his duty unless he allowed the
law to take ha full effect ; but that, in consequence of the humane
recommendation of the prosecutor, he should order the judgment to
he recorded, and recommend the prisoner to his Majesty's mere
but his Lordship added, that he was quite sate that mercy could be
only extended on condition of the prisomr's being transported for
life.

There were several other charges against the iOilt?, both for
embezzling and steeling the property of Mt. Shepherd, while in hi.
service.

DISABILITIES OF TUE JEws.—We perceive with
great satisfaction that Mr. R. Grant has given notice of
his intention to bring to-maid in the House of Commons
a bill for the removal of the civil disabilities under
which the Jews labour on account of 'their religious
opinions ; and we hail this notice with the more satis-
faction, as it was received in such a manner as to
lead to the belief that the measure will not meet with
any opposition of moment. The emancipation of the Jews
should be followed, or rather attended by that of the
rs Quake, it most aitiVe, estimable, and influential body,
now excluded froin Parliament by their conscientious ob-
jection to the taking of an oath. Their affirmatioq is
taken In matters of property and of life and death—why,
then, if a plate mast be required, is it not taken ea a
sufficient guarantee for the honest and Conscientious per-
formance of parliamentary duties ? Lire?. Mercury.