May 11.] 



THE NEWSPAPER. 



At the pre- 



ent some few particulars of the life of the 



ted successor ot Lord Ellenborough in the 



nTthe late Rev. Henry Hardinge, rector of Stanhope, 

 L~ .n.l was born in 1785. At an early age he 



ViSlt on would pay ; but there .s some doubt 

 £.ffment will favour the project, as the l.ne would 



I^IioX ■ competing 0De -, A " the , S ? areS m the 

 jJStoind Portadow n speculat.onj. re taken. 



jWtscciianeous. 



The Xeic Governor-General of India 



ieat moo 



G^!^t7f indi^ill probably be acceptable to our 

 mders- The Right Hon. Sir Henry Hardinge is the 



•on wag 



S^Ta "trorTg disposition for a military life, which his 

 narenU thought fit to encourage, and he was therefore 

 idnctted with much care for the profession in which he 

 to soon and so greatly distinguished himself. His ser- 

 Ticei in Spain and Portugal are repeatedly the subject of 

 W1 rm commendation in the despatches of his illustrious 

 commander ; and at that momentous crisis in European 

 affairs, when the Prince of Orange proposed levying a 

 large body of troops, it was to Captain Hardinge that 

 Lord Wellington recommended his Royal Highness 

 to apply for counsel and assistance. Sir Henry was 

 present in person at the following actions or battles, in 

 each of which he more or less distinguished himself, 

 receiving several severe wounds :— Busaco, Albuera, 

 Badajoz, Salamanca, Vittoria, the Pyrenees, Nivelle, 

 Kite, and Orthes ; he was also at Waterloo, and at the 

 engagement at Ligny he lost his left arm, for which he 

 receives a pension of 300Z. For his services in the Pen- 

 insula he was rewarded with a cross and five clasps, and 

 from 1809 to 1813 he was Deputy-Quartermaster-General 

 of the Portuguese army. He has likewise received several 

 foreign Orders. In 1827 he married the sixth daughter 

 of the first Marquis of Londonderry, relict of John 

 James, Esq., and mother of the present Sir W. Jame 

 Bart., M.P. In 1823 he was appointed Clerk of the 

 Ordnance, which office he continued to fill until 1828, 

 when he was made Secretary-at-War. In 1830 he was 

 appointed Secretary for Ireland, which he resigned at the 

 dissolution of the Duke of Wellington's Administration, 

 asd in 1834, during the brief Administration of Sir 

 Robert Peel, he was again selected to fill that office. On 

 the accession of the Conservatives to power, in 1841, he 

 was re-appointed Secretary-at-War. 



Wool-Mosaic Cloth. — A new invention has recently 



been introduced into this country from Berlin, in which 



the brilliancy and variety of colours of Berlin wool are 



blended together in devices of surpassing elegance and 



richness. The manufacture has all the appearance of 



painted velvet, with the texture and lasting qualities of a 



woven fabric In the process of manufacture the figures, 



with their various hues, are woven in a thick pile several 



inches long, and the fabric is then divided into laminae 



7 fi "d on to flexible India-rubber ground-work, each 



■nee of the pile producing a separate picture in wool. 



-ome of the groups of flowers produced by this process 



are exquisitely beautiful, and are admirably adapted for 



he decoration of palatial drawing rooms. The attempts 



io copy paintings and to take likenesses are comparative 



•Miures, but for ornamental designs the mosaic cloth is 



Mmost unrivalled in beauty. 



[1844. 



' lato. 



5wu?h movpd ? t0r " General ° n the P art of the Duke ot Marl- 

 frev barriitP t » crim,nal information against Mr. Hum- 



SatJh?lI1i , ( .i 0r .' l " e 5 ed libels uttered by him on the hmt- 

 Mirtat «S len^h " J? Woodstock - The alleged libels were 

 k! n„, e . th « and consisted of several distinct ch 



arges 



^tenant! .$£ for . acts of c ™elty and oppression towards 

 «POn pe? n' ' *hn & K tl i em from their homes - inflicting fines 

 ^wioe his Dos r, ? n f Wa,ked on the * raM ^ Woodstock, 

 P^onwhohadtou a magistrate, to punish and imprison a 



killed by a *ei 7 l a , Up ? rabbit on tne estate afterit had been 

 Doke, and othor t r * f " 8in * to P a X for the coffin of the late 

 Jadsres deliberaL?? ers " After tne addrrss of Counsel the 

 T* 1 * ia an a-mlirf, I * ome time - Lord Den man then said— 

 ^mary jurist. jot ° n ° e Court for the exercise of its extra- 

 aspect to words, u >n issuing a criminal information in 

 "action for the hn > ° f the Duke of Marlborough at the last 

 «w»vey most rrW< °' ^ ood * t «ck. Those words certainly 



^^grJevousch ar p- ,US,mpU,ations ~ thev arc words importing 

 Do Weai)8 Wonde rt 5 e f a £ainstthat noble person, and we can by 



course of proceed.,, 1 1* * ak c. s - the earliest opportunity that any 

 [ n r upon hia oath t» - ?° r i s hlm ' of co »'ing into Court and deny- 

 fcnefite conferre l « If h °' thc,8e charges. This is one of the 

 tunitiea we have of ~ the ,. 5ubjecU of this realm, by the oppor- 

 JJ^inal intormarL?.-"^' and refusing, and considering of 



^formations. Th 



ing of 

 e question is, whether these words 



T^orsuclia nature m * 'luesnon is, whether these words 



£•■«> Now. with M ?! 0U f nt to direct the information to 

 S'^'C'tor-Geierai 5 ?^?. the three last cases that I think 

 2L tt « authorities Jh.I ?i ed beforc us - U is Perfectly clear upon 

 JJVJ* proper subie^ If *' ords beiD & mereIv HK**B, are 

 2l Id be converted hv • acri ™nal information, unless they 



C^ 101 "' that is th P rr.; Q w ircumstances i,lto some other rnisde- 

 S? of the peace ^ de r mea «'°«- of endeavouring to provoke a 



£*> Da l violence or I v y mea,is of a retort ' of '^mediate 

 *«ed between th« ,! t l " eans of a challenge to becommuni- 



pertained some dn,,ht V* S \. The words u ^ on which we havc 

 SS, th€ D «ke ( ,f Mar h" ^^ with reference to the charge 

 JEL* a »1 par ian^ v gh ' ° n S( »me former occasion, cor- 

 ^ent^w a ^ y a ; X ^ e , d the office of a magistrate, in 

 jXfW complete h, il ' ,ndivid »al. The denial of that 

 ^ Cr,,,r nWrferiniTrVv 0,,0tfindthat there is any instance 

 SJS^oo in »ucha case th , e h Dur P^e of granting a criminal 

 saJfftthag said distincViv Vi ,ere Hre manv cases uuor » w »«ich 



SSuJlf &Ctua,, y »t r ,'ne of i UhleSS , W ° rds be SD ° ken of a 

 WtofS'J n ' < '-'terfere a t ' ,ne I ° f Jl ,s Performing his dutj, the 



.ustinctly made against a magistrate of magisterial corruption 

 and improper conduct that this Court will not interfere. And 

 it is not improper to refer to the work of Mr. Starkie, published 

 in the year 1830, where, after adverting to the cases, he makes 

 this observation:— •• The cases might fall under a very dif 

 ferent consideration if the magistrate were to be charged with 

 some specific act of oppression or corruption in his judicial 

 capacity." Now, such specific act of oppression and corrup- 

 tion is charged here. But that doubt is no more than a doubt 

 expressed by Mr. Starkie, and it is certainly founded upon 

 no decision or authority of this Court. I own that I expected 

 the cases which stopped short of interference would have been 

 commented on by the Solicitor-General, and that we should 

 have been referred to some proceeding of this Court, in which 

 that had been laid down by authority. The only reason why 

 that course has not been taken is, that no such opinion and no 

 such dictum has ever fallen from the Court, and it is perfectly 

 clear that we could not grant this rule without creating a pre- 

 cedent. It appears to me that that is a thing in itself highly inex- 

 pedient, and that when the course has been well understood for 

 many years, we ought not by any means to set a new example 

 without being perfectly clear that the law of the land will justify 

 us in so doing. Independentof the grounds to which I have ad- 

 verted of the absence of authorities upon this subject, there is 

 one principle which seems to pervade the opinion of the Court in 

 discussing all these matters, and that is the unwillingness to 

 make mere words, upon any occasion, amount to a crime ; there 

 is so much difficulty about the proof, there are so many oppor- 

 tunities of various explanations being given of words that, 

 perhaps, heard by themselves, may convey a gross imputation ; 

 but, taken altogether, may be justified or greatly palliated, that 

 the Court is extremely unwilling to act upon anything that 

 passes that must depend upon oral evidence only. For that 

 reason, and for the others to which I have alluded, it seems to 

 me that we ought not to interfere in this case, because we 

 cannot possibly do so without setting an example which is in 

 itself much to be deprecated, and which in its consequences 

 obviously would lead to a length of inquiry in the most incon- 

 venient way, and the least satisfactory to truth and justice 

 which can possibly be conceived. It is upon this ground, and 

 upon this ground only, that I feel it, for one, not proper to grant 

 this rule. — Mr. Justice Patteson — I entirely agree in what has 

 fallen from my Lord, and have nothing to add. — The other 

 Judges concurred, and the rule was refused. 



Court of Chancery.— The Dean and Chapter of Ely v. Bliss. 

 — This appeal from the Master of the Rolls was argued some time 

 ago. The plaintiffs filed their bill for tithes of corn and grain, and 

 tithes of agistment, and the defendants pleaded the late statute of 

 the 3d and 4th of William IV., as a bar to the claim, contending 

 that it repeals the act commonly known as Lord Tenterden's, and 

 that the title to the tithe was gone in consequence of no claim for 

 twenty years. The Master of the Rolls decided in favour of the 

 defendants, holding the statute of William to be a bar to the claim. 

 It was contended for the appellants, that this statute applied to a 

 claim for an estate in tithes, not to a claim made by a tithe owner 

 against an occupier, and that length of non-payment gave no ex- 

 emption. The tithes claimed are those of Laken Heath Fen (part 

 of the 3edford Level), of which the plaintiffs held the rectory; but 

 the question, although of great importance to the parties, is also 

 of extensive public interest, in consequence of its allectinga great 

 number of other claims of a similar description. The Lord Chan- 

 cellor now gave judgment. The question in the appeal was of the 

 greatest importance, and turned almost, if not entirely, on the 

 effect ofthe3dand4th Will. IV. c. 2j. Thatquestion was, whether 

 the limitation in the statute, applied to tithes, had a reference 

 to suits between persons claiming adversely a right to property in 

 tithes, or to suits between tithe owners and occupiers of land 

 which may be subject to tithes. It was argued that, according to 

 the proper construction of the act, its operation must be confined 

 to the first class of cases. The difficulty was in the construction 

 of the second and third sections of the act. By the second it was 

 enacted that no suit or action to recover land, subject to tithe, 

 shall be brought after the expiration of twenty years, from the time 

 when the right accrued. The words of the act were to recover land, 

 and the argument was that land included tithe. It was quite clear 

 that the act applied to the first class of cases, those claiming ad- 

 versely to others a ri^ht to land paying tithes, and the question 

 then was, did it apply to the others? In th* first place, it was quite 

 clear that there could be no such thing as an action to recover 

 tithes. If, therefore, according to the natural construction there 

 could be no such application of the act. was there any good reason 

 for supposing it extended further ? The act of the 2d and 3d Ed- 

 ward VI gave no right of action for tithes, but merely inflicted a 

 penalty ot three times the value for not settingout the tithe. Now 

 why, unless the express language of the act forced them to a con- 

 struction respecting claims for tithes, were they to be compelled 

 under such circumstances to include them ? Another objection 

 was, that the act of Edward applied merely to prsedial tithes of 

 corn and grain, and not to agistment tithes of lamb and wool. If 

 the legislature intended to make a limitation with respect to claims 

 for tithe, was it not an extraordinary thing that it should extend 

 its limitation to any one description of tithe and take no notice of 

 the others ? That showed the impropriety of attempting to put 

 any forced construction on its language. It was said, in answer to 

 this, that although there could be no such thing as an action for 

 tithes, yet that a liberal construction ought to be given to the words 

 of the act, and that although the suit might not be entertained for 

 tithes, yet it might be for the value of the tithes. In the act, how- 

 ever, the words expressly applied to proceedings for the recovery 

 of tithes, and it certainly seemed that it would be too great an 

 extension to include in that the subject of a penal enactment, for 

 the act of Edward merely inflicted a penalty for not setting out 

 tithes. Another difficulty arose out of the wording of the third 

 section, which declared that the right was to accrue from the 

 last time of the receipt of profits. His lordship thought, however, 

 that these words applied to claimants of an estate in tithes between 

 two adverse litigants. The thirl difficulty arose from a refer- 

 ence to the act of* Lord Tenteiden, passed in the session imme- 

 diately preceding that in which the act of William was introduced. 

 That act was intended to shorten the period of proof, declaring 

 thirty years to be a bar, and it certainly did not seem reason- 

 able or natural that the legislature would, in the very next 

 session, without any obvious reason, cut down that term to 

 twenty years. These w« re points deserving of the mo-; - 

 serious consideration, and the more so, as they did not appear, 

 from what bis lordship could collect, to have been brought under 

 the attention of the Master of the Rolls, so fully as they ought 

 to have been. His lordship could not help tninking that if 

 he pronounced a decision in the cause adverse to that of the 

 Master of the Rolls, the consequence would be that the ma'ter 

 must be carried further, with a great expense to the parties. 

 Considering, therefore, that the quest ion was one of mere law, and 

 that it was one which must have extensive effects; considering, 

 also, that the commissioners of tithe commutation had already 

 taken the narrower view of the construction of theacr,andthata 

 case on the subject was about to he brought for the decision of 

 the Court of Queen's Bench, his lordship thought that the better 

 course, instead of ptonouncing ■ decided opinion on the point. 



lale, 



4 



im Crouch, aged 28, graom, was plac at the bar, charged with 

 the wilful murder of his wife, Frances Elizabeth Crouch. The 

 particulars of this case have been already en in this paper, and 

 it will be unnec to repeat them as given in the evidence of 



the numerous witnesses. It is sufficient to state that the crime 

 was fully proved against the prisoner, and that the defence set up 

 was a plea of insanity. Mr. Baron Alderson sumined up tb5 

 evidence, premising, that when a plea of in tan i *yi& 



defence of a crime, it was necessary to show that rl.e in ;ty wat 

 produced by a form of disease contained involunt a the 



afflicted person, and not produced jf the voluntar act 

 dividual. Jf a person by drinking deprived him* * 



and whilst in that state committed a crime, he could uaf ok 

 insanity of drunkenness in justification, because be* 

 deprived himself of the power over his own 

 manner, if a man were in such a diseased state, or 

 from whatever cause, that a much smaller quantity 

 produce insanity in him. than would be require 

 ordinarily in other men, that man should abstain Vn&ail 



quantity. For, if he were aware that by taking ev* 



quantity of alcohol, he would deprive himself ol s senses, he 

 could not plead insanity so produced in justification ;• actftf 



violence which he might have committed under:;, nflu . 

 the excitement. In the present case, therefore, the / eL .^. 

 consider whether it had been proved that the prisoner committed 

 the act with which he was charged, whilst under the influ- 

 ence of excitement produced by disease of his brain, and not 

 voluntarily from other causes. Although there could he no doubt 

 about tlu fact of the deceased having been killed by the prisoner, 

 yet he thought it necessary, under all the circumstances, to go 

 through the entire of the evidence, to which he would beg the 

 attentive consideration of the jury. His lordship then read over 

 the entire evidence, commenting upon such parts as tended to 

 show an aberration of The prisoner's mind, and observing that 

 then- was no proof of his having drank anything more than apint 

 of beer on the day of the murder. He also remarked that it was 

 proved by the evidence for the prosecution that the prisoner was 

 in a state of stupor both before and immedi.v after the commis- 

 sion of the deed. After a short consul by the jury in the 

 box, Baron Alderson suggested that they had better retire. The 

 jury accordingly retired, and at 9 p. m. tlu y announced that there 



was no chance of their agreeing upon their verdict that night. An 



officer was then sworn to take charge of the jury, aud keep them 

 without meat, drink, or fire (caudle-light excepted) until they had 

 agreed. On Thursday morning the foreman said they were not 

 yet agreed, and the jury were anxious that the portion of 

 the evidence which related to the question of the sanity 

 of the prisoner should be I in read over to them. Mr. 

 Justice Coltman said that the Learned Ju< who tried 



the case was en ed elsewhere, and he had taken his notes 

 with him. A messei r should, however, be sent to request 

 the Learned Judge to come down to the Court. Tin 1 -reman then 

 said that the jury had been four-and-twenty hours without any re- 

 freshment, and h they might be allowed to have some food, 

 as they were nearly exhausted. Mr. Justice Coltman said he had 

 no power to order them any refreshment. In about an hour a 

 message was sent from the jury, complaining that they were in 

 such a state of exhaustion that they mu ink if they were not al- 

 lowed to have some refreshment. The Judge upon this, sent Dr* 

 M'Murdo, the ^urgeon of Newgate, to the jury- room, and on his 

 return, he stated that the jury were so exhausted, that he did not 

 think, they could exercise their mental faculties without refresh- 

 ment, lie did not, however, think their lives were in danger, 

 though their health certainly was. The Judge said the Court could 

 not act unless the lives of the juror* were endangered. Soon after 

 this Baron Alderson arrived, and read over to the jury that por- 

 tion of the evidence which more immediately referred to the pri- 

 soner's state of mind. The jury then retired, and shortly after- 

 wards returned a verdict of Guilty. Baron Alderson then passed 

 sentence of death in the usual manner. 



SPORTING. 



NEWMARKET SECOND SPRING MEETING. 

 Tuesday.— 50/. Plate; for 3-yrs-olds, 6 st 2 lbs; 4 yrs, 8st; 



5 yrs, 8st 7 lbs ; 6 yrs and aged, 8st 121b. T. M. Winner to 

 be sold for 20u/., &c. Duke of Gratton's ^Esop, 4 yrs, beat Lord 

 W. Pouletfs Falconer, 3 yrs, Lord Exeter's Maria Diaz, 4 yrs, 

 and Mr. Batson's Tipoe, 3 yrs, by a length. Winner claimed. — 

 50/. Plate; for 3-yrs old colts, 8 tit /lbs; and fillies, 8st 4lbs. 

 R. M. Duke of Rutland's Wetbeck be»t in a canter Lord 

 Exeter's Pergularia, Lord Chesterfield's Tiddly Winks, aod 

 four others.— Matches. A. F. 500; 100 ft. Mr. Thornhill's Ex- 

 tempore, 4 yrs, 8st 7 lbs, beat Mr. Jaques's Semiseria. 4 yrs, 

 8 st 7 lbs, by a length. D. M. 200, h ft ; Lord Chesterfield's The 

 Miser Scarve received forfeit from Lord Exeter's Plush. A.F., 

 200, h ft, both 3 yrs old; Duke of Bedford's Espoir, 8 st, re- 

 ceived 50 sovs. compromise from Mr. O&baldeston's Sister to 



Martingale. 



Wkdnksdav.— Handicap Plate of 501 , for 3 yr-olds and up- 

 wards A. F. Lord Exeter's f by Gladiator out of Elegance, 

 4 yrs, 8st 6 lbs, beat by half a length Mr. Cmckford's Pine- 

 apple, 4 yrs, Sst 11 lbs, Mr. Berringloa's lather Mathew. 3 yrs, 

 6st I3lbs, and Mr. Newton's Jenny Jumps * yrs, 7st 8 lbs* 

 Suffolk Stakes of 15 sovs. each, 5 ft if declared, with 100 added. 

 Last mile aud half of R. C. 69 subs— 44 declared, and 4 did not 

 name. Mr. Williamson's The Cure, 3 yrs, 6$t4 lbs, beat by three 

 lengths Lord Glenlyon's Ben y Ghlo, 4 yi>, 7st 9 lbs, Duke of 

 Bedford's Minotaur, 4 yrs, fU 7 lbs, and several others.— Jockey 

 Club Plate of 50/. For 4-yr-olds, 7st 2 lbs; 5 yrs, 8st 3lba.> 



6 j rs and aged, 8 st 9 lb ; the property of members of the Jockey 

 Club. B.C. Lord Exeter's Wee Pet, 4 yrs, beat Duke of Rut- 

 land's Hyrcaniun, 4 yrs, easily. Sweepstakes of &0 sovs. each, 

 for 4 yr-olds; colts, 8 st JOlbs; fillies, 8st 5 lbs. Last three 

 miles of B. C. 4 subs. Mr. Thoruhills Elixir, brother to 



Mango, walked over. 



Thursday.— Sweepstakes of 25 sovs. each; for two-yrs-old 



colts. Ssr. 7ibs., and fillies, 8*t. 4lbs. T.Y.C. 3 subs. Lord 

 Lonsdale's b c by Emihus, out of Kint, beat Colonel Anson's f 

 by Emilius, d bv Taurus, and Lord Exeter's Petrowna. Sweep- 

 stakes of 10 sovs. each; for three yrs-uld, 7*t. 7lbs.; four, Sst. 

 9lbs.; five, &c. 9>t. T.Y.C. Winner to oe sold lor 200/. 4 

 subs. LordOrford'sc by Clearwell, out of Nininka, beat Co- 

 lonel Peel's c by Slane, out of Jason's dam, Lord Exeter's 

 Mocha, and Mr. Rogers? Clara. 



**>** 



tf/fere; and I take 



•UtrnrS pnncl Pl«tl.atRn. ft ku ]t lhat they do interfere, 



Section of fhe S ? nce ls ^en committed bv the direct 



h:^*^^';:" 1 j " s,ice - t,,Ht is ™ <,ffi "" :e 



' ho *tver, Which a£LS Us '"^Position. There is no 



•fru pl - but 

 ** Court 



fir n*A. o-»trate himaeli as a con- 



[armor« expedient In my opinion that 



ich directly R ; ' Vu M Inn - inere ls no 

 "irecuy says, that where a charge is 



BTRTHS.— On the 30th ult., at Lyons, the Bakonsss dk 

 Mallet, of a son— 2d inst., at Woolwich-common, the lady of 

 II. Williams, Ksq., of Lindfield, Sussex, of a son — 3d inst., at 

 Southampton, theiady of Capt. Yoli.ami, of the Royal Engi- 

 neers, of a daughter— 3d inst., at Dulwich, Mrs. C. L. Brrlks, 

 of a daughter, still-born — 4th inst., Mrs. Hackblock, of Den- 

 mark-hill, of a son— 5th inst., at No. 20, Bioomsbury -square, 

 theiady of W. Kinskv, E><\. 9 of a daughter— 5th inst., at Syden- 

 ham, Mrs. T. N. Fak^uhar, of a son— 5th inst., at Hackney, 

 Mrs. C. LonnicKS, of a daughter— 5th inst., at 53, Hyde-park- 

 square, the lady of Capt. H. R. Biiandkkth, Royal Engineers, 

 of a daughter- 5th inst., the lady of Mr. J. Kisch, 2, 

 Circus-place, Finsbury circus, of a son— 7th inst., at Upton 

 woukl bet o^ direct the case to oe brought before the judges of Court, near Slough, the lady of W. S. Bwwnixo, Esq., of a 

 "■•—**-• " ' - -i .~ daughter— 7th inst., at Gatton, the lady of the Rev. J. C. Wie- 



the Court of Exchequer, when it would probably be argued In 

 the course of next term, and the whole matttr decided tiefore 

 the long vacation. His lordship felt it right, however, to say, at 

 this periodof the case, that he thought, under any circumstances, 

 the plea was a bad one, because it attempted to cover too much. 

 The act was for the recovery of tithes prsedUI, not tithes of 

 agistment, and they could not therefore be included In the 

 limitation. The plea, therefore, was tkiective. but it was un- 

 necessary to say more at the present stage of the cause. Th 

 learned ireuiemaii who drew it up had plainly felt great diffi- 

 culty in bringing it within the statute. 



Central Criminal Court.— The Marylebone Murder.— WiL 



tkk, of a daughter— 8th inst., at Bromptonsquare, Mrs. R. 

 Pi.nWMAv, of a son — Bt\\ insr., at Middle New-treet, Gough- 

 square, Fleet-Street, Mrs. Mkoliiott, of a daughter— 8th inst., 

 at Grove-road, Brixton, Mrs. H. Nksbitt, of a >on. 



MARRIKD.— On the 21st of Nov., 1843. at Parramatta, >*e*r 

 South Wales, H. W. Parkkr, Esq., Private Secretary *> 



his 



Esq., of that place, solicitor, to SOSAm 



