The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-01-14 00:00:00

TO THE EDITOR OF THE SCOTSMAN.

Sin,—Bishop Gillis has declared that he will write no
more in this controversy with me. I will not ungenerously
avail myself of the opportunity of multiplying " last words"
against him; but simply request our readers to look again at
my first letter.
The bishop has, however, thrown out as his shield " the
Catholic bishops of Great Britain" who signed the celebrated
Declaration of 1826; and therefore it will be quite in place
that I should make a few remarks upon such a declaration,
coming from such a quarter.

The prelates who signed it were all sworn.men. They had
all bound themselves on oath to the creed of Pope Pius IV.
This is not denied and cannot be denied. Dr. Gillis may af-

feet to treat the creed of Pius IV. and the decrees of general
councils lightly, as if they were obsolete documents, but lie
is sworn to them, as truly and undeniably as any graduate of
Oxford or Cambridge is sworn to the thirty-nine articles of
the church of England. The creed of Pius IV. is the accre-
dited digest of Itomish doctrine Put forward by themselves,
by Dr. Milner, in his " End of Controversy," and by Doc-
tors Doyle and Murray, in their evidence before a committee
of the House of Lords. '

This creed contains the following clause " I do, without
doubt, receive and profess all things which have been de-

livered, defined, and declared by the sacred canons and ?ecu-
menical councils, especially by the holy council of Trent."
To this the bishops were sworn. Men who have pledged
themselves to all this upon oath, should be very careful what
else they swear or say, lest, peradventure, they contradict
some portion of this monstrous pledge.
This pledge includes the following statement, which I se-
lect for the sake of brevity, and because it is already before
the public frequently, and again in this cc.:•responclence, and
uncontradicted. Indeed, it cannot be contradicted, for

tern scripta 'nand. The statement is, that simulation is
useful, and sometimes lawful. (Simulatio utilis eat, et in

,empore anumenda.

The declaration of the bishops, as. quoted b; Dr. Gillis,
disclaims any such doctrine, and says that "he who takes an
oath is bound to observe it, in the obvious meaning of the
words, or in the known meaning of the person to whom it
is sworn." That ii, thebishops declare solemnly that, simu-
lation is not lawful—the same bishops who had given their
assent on oath to the canon which says that simulation is
lawful.

The date of the declaration was 1826, when the subjects of
the court of Rome were seeking by all means to obtain poli-
tical power in Great Britain. One of the most notable modes
adopted was the solemn denial of principles known to be ob-
noxious to protestants, although they were the principles
adopted upon oath by the persons then denying them. They
had fallen upon one of those seasons when simulation was
lawful (in tempore astumenda). Their bishops led the way.
To be true to Rome they had sworn that simulation is at
times lawful ; to deceive England they declared that simula-
tion is not lawful at any time !
I might multiply instances by contrasting sacred canons
and decrees of councils with the various clauses in the decla-
ration, and I may, possibly, take some convenient opportu-
nity of doing so ; but it would be quite too much for a letter,
and I must content myself with a true specimen. Ex uno
disce onuses.
If the bishops swore honestly to the creed of Pius IV.,
without mental'reservation, then their declaration for a pur-
pose in England, is dishonest. If their declaration be honest
and true, then their oath to their creed is violated. Utrum
horum mavis accipe. I can see an escape from this dilemma
by the crooked path of another sacred decree, which says
that " oaths against the interests of the church are not to be
accounted oaths, but perjuries."
So much for the men whom Dr. Gillis calls " the catholic
bishops of Great Britain," although they sign themselves as
bishops of some foreign districts, as Halia, Thespice, Bolina,
Canabytopolis, &c. &c., and vicars apostolic, or coadjutoi-s
(which should, more properly, be officious intruders) in
Great Britain.

Dr. Gillis has not attempted to defend the papal prelates

in Ireland from the charge of deliberate deception on oath

I offered him proof, with names and dates, if he disputed my
assertion ; but he shrinks from the subject. The reason is
obvious. Thanks be to God, England is fast awaking to this
momentous discussion, and I trust Scotland also.
Rome would, doubtless, be glad, for the convenience of
this discussion, to get rid of many of her decrees and canons.
But this may not be, for two reasons. First, infallibility
must moult no feather. That fatal assumption has bound
around her the millstone of all the councils. And, secondly,
these canons, although inconvenient just now, while decep-
tion is the policy of the church, owing to the strength of the
heretics ; would be very convenient afterwards should " that
woman Jezebel," ever again to acquire the power "of writ-
ing letters in the king's name, and sealing them with his
seal." The canons would then come into play, as the old
catholic unrescinded instruments of righteous execution
against any presumptuous Naboth who refused to be either
bribed or frightened out of the scriptural " inheritance of his
fathers."

The canons must be kept therefore, but for the present
they must be masked. Hence all the denials, and declara-
tions, and protestations of charity, and complaints of misre-
presentation, and compellations of " beloved Christian bre-
thren," addressed to heretics : behind whose softened front
and amiable sound, the masked battery of the great " UN-
CHANGED and UNCHANGEABLE" is so cleverly con-
cealed. Hence too, the hostility against all those who boldly
stretch out a hand to pull away the screen.
I am, sir, &c.
HUGH M'NEILE.

Liverpool, Jan. 10, ISIO.

IMPORTANT TO COUNTY VOTERS. -- Conservatives who
intend to qualify themselves to be registered as County or
Riding voters, at the next registration, as freeholders, copy-
holders, and customary tenants, or tenants in ancient de-
mesne, should be reminded that they must be in actual pos-
session
of the premises, or in receipt of the rents and profits
thereof to their own use, before the 31st January, or they
will not be entitled to be registered during the present year.
CAUTION TO TRAVELLERS.—On the evening of Tuesday
week, a gentleman who had engaged a berth in one of the
steamers trading between this and Glasgow, went on board
a short time before she sailed, for the purpose of securing
his berth, and after being shown it, placed therein a carpet-
bag, and a Mackintosh cloak. He then took a seat in the
cabin. Soon after, a well-dressed individual went into the
apartment, but as there were two beds in the room, he con-
ceived that the stranger had taken the other one ; the cir-
cumstance therefore gave him no uneasiness. The thief,
for such he was, again made his appearance, dressed with a
Mackintosh ; but even this did not excite suspicion. The
gentleman, a few minutes afterwards, went to put on his
cloak, when he found that it had disappeared—with the
additional aggravation that the thief had coolly* walked off
while he was unsuspectingly looking at him. Of
course the
gentleman went immediately on deck, but as the vessel was,
leaving the dock, he had no opportunity of finding the vaga-
bond. Losses of this description are of frequent occurrence,
although this is rather a daring experiment of the light-fin-
gered gentry who infest our harbour, and we hope it will be
a warning for passengers to keep a strict watch over their
property, as the proprietors of steam_packets are not respon-
sible for any luggage which may be put on hoard their vessels,
unless booked and paid for.

LIVERPOOL EPIPHANY SESSIONS.

The Liverpool Epiphany Sessions commenced on Monday
morning at ten o'clock, before James Clarke, Esq., Recorder.
The calendar contains the names of 108 persor.s, to be tried
for felony, and nine for misdemeanours and assaults.
EXTRAORDINARY CONSPIRACY.
A case which excited considerable interest, and which, by
appointment, came on on Friday afternoon, was the trial of
Peter Hughes, 41, charged with a conspiracy to defraud.
The defendant had been in custody since the 24th of October,
when he was committed by bench warrant, having been
unable to obtain bail. When he had been placed at the bar,
Mr. Murphy, his counsel, stated that the defendant was un-
well; he was therefore, accommodated with a seat.
Mr. Venables and Mr. Perry conducted the prosecution;
Mr. Murphy appeared for the prisoner.
Mr. PERRY opened the case. He said that the defend-
ant, Peter Hughes, was indicted for a conspiracy to defraud.
In the first count of the indictment, he was charged with a
conspiracy, in conjunction with persons unknown, to de-
fraud one William Frederick Constant, of the sum of £l5O.
The second count charged that they, being persons in low
and indigent circumstances, conspired to hold themselves out
as a firm trading under the name of James Vincent Hughes
and Co., as a firm of great respectability, and having connec-
tions in the United States of America, and as willing to give
large emoluments to persons going out as agents, and this
for the purpose of fraudulently obtaining their money. And
the third count charged the defendant with endeavouring to
obtain various large sums of money by false pretences.
Mr. VENABLES stated the case. He said that he need
not ask the patient attention of the jury to the evidence he
was about to bring forward, and the statement he was going to
make. This was a case of considerable importance to the
public at large, and it was also a case of considerable im-
portance as it affected the prisoner at the bar. It would be
in evidence that the prisoner, sonic time ago, carried on
business to a moderate extent in Liverpool, as a dealer in
damaged cotton, and that three or four years ago he became
a bankrupt. Bringing down the narrative of his (Hughes's)
history to a latter period, it appeared that in the course of the
last year he was again a bankrupt ; the fiat was dated on the
22d of April, 1839, and after various meetings and adjourn-
ments, the prisoner's statements were so unsatisfactory that
the case was at last adjourned sine die, leaving him, at his
own leisure and convenience, to make out his accounts to the
satisfaction of his creditors, if he could do so, in order that
he might then pass his examination. He (Mr. Venables)
need hardly inform the jury, that a person who had been
twice a bankrupt was incapacitated from eequiring any pro-
perty, unless he had paid 15s. in the pound. Now, it was a
fact that the prisoner at the bar, when the fiat was issued in
the month of April last, had been a bankrupt before ; that
the adjudication under the second fiat, after several meetings,
at which Hughes had not given satisfaction to the creditors,
was, in the middle of June, adjourned sine die, and that to
all intents and purposes he was, in the month oiJune, with-
out the power of acquiring any property. He (the learned
counsel) mentioned these circumstances to show the utter
incapacity of Hughes to carry on business ; and yet, in that
very month of June, it was that he devised the system of
fraud now charged against him. At that very time, when he
was in fact a pauper, lie devised the scheme in question, and
called into partnership with him his son, James Vincent
Hughes, whom they had not been able to place at the bar to
take his trial, but whose name was mentioned in the indict-
ment. James Vincent Hughes, when taken into partnership
with his father, was a minor, incapable of contracting any
debt for which he could be sued. These were the partners
in the honourable firm of J. V. Hughes. and Co.—a bank-
rupt and a minor—they were the persons who were to carry
on business. It would hardly be believed, if it could not be
incontestibly proved, that these persons actually did set up
some kind of a small business,—that they took an office, No.
18 or 19, Goree, for the purpose of carrying on, not their
trade, but their scheme to plunder people. They assumed
the name of J. V. Hughes and Co. ; they had in their em-
ploy a clerk named Scholfield, and another named Kelly, both
of whom would be called. About this time they caused ad-
vertisements to appear in nearly all the provincial papers
throughout the kingdom, setting forth that they were about
to send out agents to the United States of America, and that
applications were to be made to J. V. Hughes and Co., who
had the disposal of the agencies. The persons undertaking
these agencies were clogged with the condition that they
should deposit, by way of security for moneys received or
consignments made, a sum of £2OO or £3OO. The scheme
was to obtain possession of these several sums of money ; and
so successful was the scheme that the applications were ex-
tremely numerous—they amounted to one hundred at the
least. But, notwithstanding this amazing extent of fraud,
they should confine themselves to three or four instances ;
and those persons who, unfortunately for themselves and their
families, had been deprived of all their means by the hope of
reaping in another country the delusive promises of fortune
which had been held out to them, would be called before the
jury. The agreements were entered into and signed by J.
V. Hughes and Peter llughes, with the persons in question.
These agents were to be allowed a salary of £lOO per annum ;
they were to have a junior clerk at £5O a year ; they had
authority to take offices on their arrival in the United States,
and a form was given to them in which remittances were to
be made. All this was well contrived : and if it had been
founded in good faith, he (Mr. Venables) would not have
been there to complain. But he stated broadly that there
was no business to be carried on ; there was no necessity for
any agents ; no agents, in fact, were wanted ; it was a scheme
to defraud the applicants of their deposit money, and nothing
else. Mr. Peter Hughes had himself said that as soon as he
got a sufficient sum of money, he intended to set up in the
cotton business. When he (the prisoner) was remonstrated
with, and the certainty of detection pointed out, he replied
that fifteen months would have expired before the parties
could come back, and by that time he should have made a
sum of money, and be enabled to return the agents' money,
if they demanded it. That was strong evidence against the
prisoner at the bar, and clearly pointed out the nature of the
scheme. In the minor part of the scheme, the advertise-
ments were a considerable feature; they appeared very ex-
tensively—would amount to a considerable sum. One of the
partners in the firm, lie believed it was Peter Hughes, stated
that he never intended to pay for the advertisements, and the
young man said he could not be made to pay, as he was a
minor. There were twelve agents with whom agreements
were made, and the sum that would be obtained would be
£3,400. The learned gentleman then alluded particularly
to the case of Mr. Constant, which was an extremely hard
one. The sum of £2OO had been obtained from him, and
only a small part returned; and, after having neglected to
find him a passage in the Siddons, as had been agreed, Mr.
Constant was left here with his family.
Mr. VENEBLES then proceeded to call evidence.
Sutcliffe Scholfield deposed that he was formerly a clerk in
the service of Hughes, first in 1836 as clerk. Defendant then
carried on business as a cotton broker, and a ship broker; he
also dealt in damaged cotton. Remembered the prisoner
being made bankrupt shortly afterward- Was in the court
during the examination in the second ban :ruptcy in 1839.
Heard him say that the firm of J . V. Hu ,aes and Co. con-
sisted of himself and son. A short L.u,e after that, Peter
Hughes asked him again to go into his service, and he would
give him a guinea a week wages and commissions on the
agencies. It was in the month ofJuly last; at that time de-
fendant was promising passages for emigrants for America ;
he did not during that time make any consignments for Ame-
rica, but he had done so formerly of coals, potatoes, and salt,
to New York, that was in 1836. He could not have made
any without the knowledge of witness. The first witness
heard of the agency business, was on his being desired by the
defendant to draw up an advertisement for different papers.
The witness here produced the advertisement with a letter on
the fly leaf in his own handwriting. The letters were all
written either by witness and prisoner's son. A letter was
read addressed to the Editor of the Galway Free Press re-
specting the insertion of the advertisements, which were also
read. The letters to editors of newspapers of a similar kind
written by witness and prisoner's son amounted to more
than 150, and they received a great number of country news-
papers containing the advertisement. The prisoner informed
witness that he intended to send out four agents. There were
a hundred applications. Witness knew that twelve persons
agreed to go out as agents. When they received letters of
application, prisoner instructed him to reply to them inform-
ing them of the terms. A book was here produced containing
the list of newspapers to which advertisements had been sent,
which were generally in the prisoner's handwriting. He re-
membered a Mr. Lowe making application for one of these
agencies in last July.
Mr. MU RPIIY objected to this course, unless the letters
were produced.
Mr. PERRY said they had given them notice to produce
them, and they were refused.
Mr. MURPHY said, their premises had been broken open,
and all their papers taken away.
The letter, in answer to the application from Joseph Lowe,
which the witness stated was in his hand-writing, was read,
in which he was finally engaged. Witness afterwards, by the
direction of the prisoner, drew up a form of agreement be-
tween the prisoner and Mr. Lowe, with an accompanying
letter, which was also read. Witness saw Mr. Lowe in Li-
verpool two or three times during the negociation. The pri-
soner was in the habit of requiring the sum of £2OO to be
paid by persons agreeing to become agents. Never knew
whether the agreement was signed between Lowe and the
prisoner. He remembered a similar application being made
by a Mr. J. P. Nice, to which he replied at the instance of
the prisoner, and also drew up a similar agreement with the
last-mentioned between Mr. Nice and the prisoner. Wit-
ness heard the prisoner say he had received £BO from Mr,
Nice. He also remembered a Mr. Constant making appli-
cation, between whom and the prisoner he drew up a similar
agreement to the others, and witness heard Hughes say that
he got £2OO from Mr. Constant. He also remembered ano-
ther person named Hawk applying for an agency. On the
whole, eleven or twelve persons accepted these agencies, and
they were brought down to Liverpool to treat for the same.
When any Liverpool person applied, they were informed
that the agencies were filled. He remembered Alderman
Bulley making application for a friend of his, and witness
was requested by the prisoner to write, and say that all the
agencies were filled. Several other negociations were going
on after this. The prisoner always refused securities instead
of money, and when he was applied to for references, he
always informed the parties that the agencies were filled.
During this time the pecuniary circumstances were very bad,
and witness did not get the whole of his wages. He did not
recollect more than one of the advertisements being paid for.
The prisoner informed witness that he was going to pay off
some debts with the money he received for agencies, and then
commence in the cotton trade again. Witness left because
he would not participate in any of the guilt, and also because
lie could not get his money.
The witness was cross-examined at some length by Mr.
MURPHY, who conducted the defence, but nothing impor-
tant was elicited.
John Jones deposed that he held the fiat of bankruptcy,
which bore date the 7th of June last. On the 7th of July
last the prisoner presented his balance sheet, and came to
complete his examination, but it was not satisfactory either
to the court or assignees, and was consequently adjourned
sine die. The prisoner had never completed his examination.
His debts were £943, and his assets were £64 15s. Witness
heard the commissioner say he could not pass his examina-
tion, and give him his certificate.
Thomas Bulley, Esq., remembered making application in
the course of last year for a friend of his. He saw the pri-
soner, and informed him that a friend of his in Wiltshire
would be glad of an agency, and was informed that he was
in treaty with several other young men. He did ultimately
succeed in getting the situation he sought.
Thomas Kelly was formerly in the employ and afterwards
entered the service of the prisoner in May last. He fOrmerly
carried on the damaged cotton business, and that of a pas-
senger broker. It was the prisoner's duty to see the pas-
sengers on board. He was engaged by J. V. Hughes and
Co. in his last engagement, and he left them in July. He
remembered many country papers coming in, and he told
the prisoner that he did not think his business was equiva-
lent, to which the prisoner replied, it was a small sum to
each party, and if they were never paid they would not lose
much by it. He remembered seeing J. V. Hughes enter
these papers in a book as they were received ; when witness
spoke to him about them, he said he was not of age, and
could not be made available for the amount of them. Wit-
ness understood from him that he was in partnership with
Peter Hughes. Witness was told, after he left their service,
by Mr. J. V. Hughes, that he had appointed a Mr. Con-
stant, a Mr. Nice, and he also mentioned a Mr. Hawk, and
added, that if they succeeded and did his business well,
lie would send out others. He also said he would commence
business again as a cotton broker, by which he would make.
such profits as would enable him to pay these agents
when they .returned the sums which they had deposited.
Witness understood that the prisoner was going to use
the money which he received from them in the cotton
trade. During the time the witness was with them, they
hadno consignment from America whatever. He learned
from the prisoner that Hawk paid to him £5O for a pas-
sage for himself and his wife. He knew that Hawk could
not satisfy the prisoner as to security, and be said he was re-

cently married, and he would go out ; upon which the pri-
soner informed him that Nice had refused to go out to Phila-
delphia, and he might go out on his own responsibility.
Witness went with the prisoner to the ship Caspian, and in-
spected the berths ; he saw the prisoner agree with the cap-
tain for a berth for Fawk and his wife for £l2. The £l2
was not to include provisions. When prisoner was spoken
,
to about it by witness, he said he had made it right with Fawk,
and that witness was to go and order a bed and some pro-
visions, which he did, but they would not cost more than £3.
Witness did not know what was to be done with the re-
mainder of the £5O, which would have provided provisions
for a man and his wife with the captain in the cabin.
Cross-examined by Mr. MURPHY.—It was his opinion
that the sum sent from America, from the transmission of
their friends, did not exceed £lO,OOO a-vear. The regular
price for a cabin passage was £25 each. None of the agents
appointed had gone out to see whether they could realise the
amount promised. It was a usual thing for passage brokers
to have agents in America. He had known many persons to
commence business as passage brokers with very little, and
amass considerable amounts ; was not in the service of the
prisoner when he had vessels chartered, but knew that he
had chartered some.
John C. Grocott was applied to by Mr. Fawk to recover
£3B, which he had paid for a passage to America. Witness
went with Lieut. Lowe and Fawk to the office of the prisoner,
in the Goree, where he saw J. V. Hughes. Lieut. Lowe
presented him with an acknowledgment for £5O, and asked
him for the amount. The prisoner said he was very sorry,
but the money should be returned, but it never was returned.
Wm. E. Constant, in consequence of seeing an advertise-
ment in the newspaper, wrote the letter which he held in his
hand, addressed to J. V. Hughes, and to which he received a
reply. He came to Liverpool several times in consequence
of the business. About the 4th of September lie came to
Liverpool, and called at the prisoner's warehouse, where he
saw him and had some conversation, and on the sth of the same
month he signed an agreement. He returned to Margate,
and on the 11th he transmitted £5O, as part of the £2OO
which he was to pay as security. He ultimately arrived in
Liverpool on the 13th of October, and his wife and family
followed him in a few days. The defendant was to find him
a passage. The prisoner, who had at this time received £l5O
from him, informed him that he should procure him a pas-
sage on board the Siddons, but it sailed, and no passage was
taken ; the prisoner said there would be another sailing soon,
the Arethusa, but on inquiry witness found that it was only
a steerage passage, and witness remonstrated with the pri-
soner, and told him he would not then go. The prisoner
promised to return the money at different times, but never
kept his word, and he (witness) lost the whole of the £l5O.
The agreement signed by both parties was then put in and
read, by which it appeared that the witness was to receive a
salary of £l5O per annum, and a salary of £5O a year for a
clerk, and also a per centage of two and a-half on all his
business transactions ; he was to have a passage, but it was
not described in the document whether cabin or not.
J. P. Nice saw an advertisement in the Norwich Gazette
last summer, and he in consequence wrote to J. V. Hughes
and Co. from Branston, where he lived, and received a reply,
and some correspondence which ensued was read, from which
it appeared that the witness was to receive a similar appoint-
ment with the last witness, and also the same amount of
salary, and a cabin passage. He paid the prisoner £BO and
a note for the other portion of £lOO, and signed an agree-
ment to go out to New York. The prisoner paid £4B to a e
captain of the Arethusa, and he went to see the berth, and
afterwards went to the office of the prisoner, where he saw
J. V. Hughes. He heard Mrs. Scholes come in and call the.
prisonerJeter Hughes ; and Mrs. Constant said that tt e
object of the prisoners was to get their money, for that the
prisoner, Peter Hughes, was an uncertificated bankrupt ; he
had frequently applied for the return of his moaey, but had
never been able to get it.
Joseph Lowe deposed than in consequence of an advertise-
ment in the Birmingham Advertiser he wrote to the prisoner,
and the usual correspondence took place. The witness came
over to Liverpool. The prisoner offered him an engagement
on the same terms as the others ; and told him thitt he might
go out in whatever ship he pleased, but if he chose to go out
in the Liverpool, steam-ship, it would cost him nothing, be-
cause he had an interest in that ship. The prisoner men-
tioned several other ships in which he said he had-an interest.
There was no money deposited by the witness ; and, in con-
sequence of something he heard, it fell through.
Inspector Poole apprehended the prisoner on a Bench war-
rant in October last. In conversation the prisoner admitted
that the premises were his property. The prisoner inquired
what he was apprehended for, and the inspector informed
him that it was oh a charge of receiving money under false
pretences. He also enquired what was likely to be the pu-
nishment lie should get, and the inspector said he did not
know, that would rest with the court. The witness had also
a bench warrant against the prisoner's son, but had not been
able to find him.

Mr. VENABLES said this was the case for the prosecution.
Mr. MußraY then addressed the jury at very great length
for the defence. He descanted on the discrepancies in the
evidence, in very strong and indignant terms, and pointed
out those portions which presented any favourable feature for
the prisoner. He called no witnesses ; and the Recorder
having briefly recapitulated the evidence, the jury, without
hesitation, found the prisoner guilty. The Court senten.el
him to be imprisoned for two years.
After the sentence had been pronounced, the prisoner's fa-
mily, which were in court the whole of the day, gave vent to
the most melancholy burst of feeling, which they continued,
in spite of remonstrance, until they got out of the court.
The Sessions terminated on Saturday.

---- -
DANGERS ON THE CHESHIRE SHORE.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD.

Stx,—The utility of the press is never more eminently
ebserved than when exercised in the cause of humanity;
therefore I beg you will insert the following, in order that it
may attract attention from the proper quarter.
I allude to the unprotected state of those walls between
Egremont and the Magazines, over which people are com-
pelled to pass hours before and after high water, especially
after four o'clock during the winter months, at the risk of
life and limb. I believe upwards of thirty accidents have
occurred here ; in many cases the parties were most seriously,
dangerously hurt, and yet no means adopted to prevent a re-
currence, although the builder of the higher wall resides
within a few yards from the spot. Two accidents have oc-
curred within the last three months to my own knowledge :
the one, a poor man, carrying corks, fell ; was found insensi-
ble under the wall, and, when raised, vomited a quantity of
blood ; he was borne to the Egremont steamer by some men,
and, from his internal injuries, would most probably be pre-
vented from obtaining his livelihood for weeks. The other
was a poor fisherman, about five weeks since ; he was per-
fectly insensible when found, and, had he been left a few mi-
nutes longer, would have been drowned by the rising tide.
. He was conveyed by a baker's cart to the Magazines, where
he resided ; on the following morning he was brought in a
boat across the river to the Seacornbe Slip, and from thence
on a board to the hospital, where he remains, his hip dislo-
cated and thigh broken.
Surely, surely, something ought to be done to prevent a
recurrence. If the lives of rich and poor are thus to be en-
dangered by private parties—if the past accidents are looked
upon by them with so much indifference, I trust the proper
authorities will have the place inspected, and compel a pro-
tection for the public safety.—l am, &c.,

ONT.
P.S.—The whole of the above can be subEGREM
stantiated by al.
most all the individuals residing at Egremont and Magazines
January 13th, 1840.