The Brecon Reporter and South Wales General Advertiser

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. In the House of Lords, on Thursday, a number of bills were advanced a stage, after comparatively brief discus- <The Dockyards Extension Bill, the Local Government Supplemental (No. 4) Bill, and the Drainage and Improve- ment of Lands (Ireland) Amendment Bill were read a S6Thef Partnership Amendment Bill, the Militia Ballots Suspension Bill, and the Militia Pay Bill passed through C°Thf Mortgage Debentures Bill was referred to a select committee. The House then adjourned. In the House mf Commons, on going into committee on Cai?d^ade'some general observations on the malt duty as it affects the interests of agriculture by offering obstruction to the barley crop, which is the least exhaustive of any crop to the land, and which contributes to the in- crease of live stock, and goes direct to the supply and the price of meat, which had increased, and at the rate of one penny a pound it amounted to ten millions a year. Sir F. Kelly and Mr. Pugh having made some observations on the general policy of a malt-tax, The Chancellor of the Exchequer denied that the Govern- ment were responsible for keeping on the malt-tax; it was the fiscal necessity of the country which required its main- tenance; and it would depend on wise public economy and the extension of the trade and commerce of the country whether this impost should be removed. Further brief discussion ensued. The bill, the object of which is to allow malt to be taxed by weight instead of measure, was taken in committee, and passed through that stage. The Sugar Duties Drawbacks Bill passed through com- mittee. The Chancellor of the Exchequer moved the second read- ing of the Comptroller of the Exchequer and Public Audit Bill.. Lord R. Montagu objected to bringing forward a measure of so much importance at this time of the session and of the Parliament, and moved the rejection of the bill. Sir G. Bowyer seconded the amendment. After a debate, in which doubts were expressed whether a final measure on this matter should be carried by Sir • Baring, Sir S. Northcote, and Mr. Henley, the bill was read a second time. „„„ The Inland Revenue Bill having passed through com- mThe'House next resolved itself into committee on the Law of Evidence Bill, the object of which is to extend the principle of parties to suits being competent witnesses in cases to which that principle does not now apply; such as divorce, seduction, and breach of promise of marriage. On the first two clauses having been negatived, Sir F. Kelly, who had charge of the bill, withdrew it. The Constabulary Force (Ireland) Act Amendment Bill was read a third time and passed. The adjourned debate on the motion tor lesive to bring* in a bill to continue the Peace Preservation (Ireland) Act was resumed by Mr. Blake, who opposed its introduction. He was followed by several Irish members in a like sense; and by Sir R. Peel in defence of the bill. On a division, the motion was carried by 135 to 43, and leave given. i The Roman Catholic Oath Bill was read a third time and passed. The House then adjourned.

In the House of Lords, on Friday, Lord Westmeath brought before the House the details of certain infractions of the authorised worship of the Church of England prac- tised in the Church of St. Alban, Holborn, and in other churches; also the pastoral address issued by the Rev. J. Going respecting confession. The Bishop of London deplored that such practices as those Lord Westmeath had described should exist, but the law on the subject was in a very unsatisfactory state, and there were many difficulties in applying it. He would willingly support an alteration of the law if proposed to Parliament on the authority of the Government. The patrons of livings might do much to check these practices, and so might the inhabitants of the district churches in which they generally occurred. On the order for going into committee on the Union; Changeability Bill, Lord Bath and Lord Kingsdown objected to the bill. Lord Lyveden believed the parochial system had been a great misfortune for the labouring poor of England. He hoped this bill would be carried further, and that the poor would be released from the last fetters of the old parochial ^After some remarks from the Duke cf Cleveland the bill passed through committee. The reasons of the Commons for disagreeing with their lordships' amendments to the Courts of Justice Building Bill were considered, and the House agreed not to insist on those amendments. The other orders were gone through, and their lordships adjourned at five minutes past nine. In the House of Commons, at the morning sitting, Eome time was occupied in the discussion of a motion to refer the South Kensington New Road BiE-a private bill-to the former committee, the motion being ultimately withdrawn. During the remainder of the sitting, the House was in committee upon the clauses of the felmcn Fishery Act (1861) Amendment Bill. In the evening, on the order for going into Committee of Supply, Mr. Seely moved a resolution, "That it is inexpedient to continue the practice of appointing naval officers who are not possessed of a technical knowledge of the business car- ried on in her Majesty's dockyards to the offices of superin- tendents thereof, and the practice of limiting their tenure of office to a period of five years." He entered very minutely into details of figures to establish a charge of mismanage- ment, observing that the Board of Admiralty must be per- fectly aware of this mismanagement, though they would not take the proper mode of remedying it, by putting the right men in the right place. Lord C. Paget in reply to Mr. Seely, admitted that the workmanship in the Royal dockyards was more expensive than in private yards, but the workmanship was superior, and it was acknowledged that it was of great importance that we should have Royal dockyards. With respect to the appointment of naval officers to the office of superintendent, the principal ship-building concerns in this country were practically managed by naval officers. It was so in the United States and in France. He touched lightly upon some of the details contained in Mr. Seely's speech, and expressed a hope that the House would not agree to the motion. Mr. Bright supported the resolution. Upon a division, the question put by the chair, that the words proposed to be left out (namely, that "he do then leave the chair," in order that the House might go into committee) stand part of the question—was carried in the negative by 36 to 34—a majority of 2 against the Govern- ment. Mr. Seely's resolution was then put as a substantive mo- tion, and the debate was renewed, and upon a further divi- sion, the resolution was negatived by 60 to 33—a majority of 27 for the Government. Mr. Hanbury Tracy asked whether it was the intention of her Majesty's Government to recommend to the Crown the amalgamation of the Civil and Military Orders of the Bath, and moved f°r returns. After some observations from Sir W. Fraser, Colonel o/kes, and Mr. Scourfield, and a reply from Lord Palmer- ston, the motion was withdrawn. Mr. Dillwyn called attention to the purchase of the Soulages Collection for the South Kensington Museum; and moved for copies of the correspondence and papers relating to it. complained that a transaction this kind should have taken place without the knowledge and consent of Parliament. This motion was also withdrawn, after a short discussion. Mr. H. Berkeley moved a resolution—"That, as a general election is impending, and as we have no law whieh can put down the intimidation of voters, nor prevent bribery, it is therefore expedient that a trial should be given to the vote by ballot. He supported the motion in a characteristic spcech, citing and commenting upon autho- rities, insisting mamly upon the prevalence of intimidation at elections, in respect to wnien, he said, ao improvement had taken place. He illustrated his argument by examples drawn from both the great partly m the House, and pre- sented it with much breadth of humour Lord Palmerston confessed that these ^^alexhibitions were highly amusing and diverting. He denied that it was personal right He held that it was a tatconferred upon an individual for the benefit was bound to exercise it in the face of his fellows. The object of the ballot was to screen the trustee in the eler- cise of his trust, and was at variance with the principles and practice of the Constitution. ,w,18 Upon a division, the motion was negatived Dy The other orders of the day were then proceeded, with; various bills were forwarded a stage; others were passed; and, after some further business, the House adjourned at a quarter to one o'clock.

In the House of Lords, on Monday, on the order for the second reading of the Railway Passengers Act, introduced by Lord St. Leonards, some discussion took place on the responsibilities of the railway companies, in which Lord Granville, Lord Clanricarde, Lord Taunton, and the Dukes of Marlborough and Montrose took part; Lord Granville assured the House that the Government would give the subject its anxious consideration. But, as any hasty legislation was likely to create as many difficul- ties as it removed, he could not give any pledge on the question. Lord St. Leonards then consented to withdraw the bill. Several bills were advanced a stage, the remaining orders were gone through without discussion, and their lordships adjourned at ten minutes before seven o'clock. In the House of Commons, on the order fOr going into a committee of supply, Mr. D. Griffith moved a resolution that it'would be con- venient, under present circumstances, that the Secretary of State for War should be a member of the House of Com- mons. In a speech of considerable length, he urged the great disadvantage to the harmonious co-operation of military authority and constitutional Government which arises from the absence of the Secretary of State for War from that House. The motion was opposed by Lord Palmerston, and after a few remarks by Lord Hartington was negatived. Colonel Punne called attention to the state of the ancient records of Ireland; suggesting that measures should be taken for their publication, as in the case of the records of England and Scotland, « v. Further observations were made by Colonel French ail4 Mr. Scully, and Mr. F. Peel stated the measures which had been taken for the preservation and publication of Irish records. Mr. Hubbard called attention to the treaty recently con- tracted with the German Zollverein, and especially to the clause relating to the export of coals, advocating the impo- sition of an export duty thereon. Mr. Milner Gibson said an export duty on coal had been deliberately given up by Parliament. The subject had been fully discussed when the French treaty was under con- sideration. We were not without compensation from the Zollverein in the reduction of duties and other advantages to the commerce of this country. The House went into a committee of supply, when the estimates for the Post-office Packet Service and the Office of Woods and Forests, and the supplementary estimate for Landguard Point works were agreed to after discussion. The supplementary estimate for the enlargement of the National Gallery was agreed to after a discussion o± some The supplementary estimates for the New Courts of Justice and Offices, and for Greenwich Hospital, were agreed to without discussion. On the report of the Greenwich Hospital Bill, 0 Mr. Childers moved certain amendments of clause lo, to obviate objections in the case of Sir Richard Bromley. Sir J. Pakington, after some strong rema-rks upon the course taken by the Government in relation to the clause, called attention to the particulars of the case of Sir Richard Bromley, contending that he had not had the consideration to which his long services entitled him. The amendment made in the clause to some extent repaired the injustice; but as there was now no object in retaining the clause, he moved tkat it be omitted. After a considerable discussion, the House divided on the question that the clause should stand part of the bill—ayes, 124; noes, 67. The clause was thus agreed to. The second reading of the Peace Preservation Ireland Act (1856) Amendment Bill having been proposed by Sir R. Peel, Mr. Maguire moved an amendment to have it read the second time on that day two months. A division took place —for the amendment, 29; against it, 76. The bill was then read a second time. The other business on the paper was disposed of, and the House adjourned at a quarter past two o'clock.

In the House of Lords, on Tuesday, the Railway IDeben- tures Registration Bill passed through committee. On the report of amendments to the Public-house Closing Act Amendment Bill, Lord Clanricarde condemned the bill as an arbitrary measure, giving to the police a judicial power never intended when that force was established. He moved that clause 5 be reinserted, that the power of granting licences in special cases be confined to the magistrates in petty sessions. The clause was reinserted, on an understanding it should be accompanied by another, embodying a suggestion made by Lord Granvillo, that a licensing power in London should be allowed to the police, but in the country it should be limited to the local magistrates. The report was then received. The Prisons Bill, after some observations by Lord Car- narvon, was read a second time. Lord Cork moved that the Land Debentures (Ireland) Bill be committed to a committee of the whole House. Lord St. Leonards criticised the provisions of the bill, to which he strongly objected. Their lordships divided on the question that the bill be committed, and it was carried in the affirmative, the num- bexs being-Contents, 51; non-contents, 14; majority, 37. The bill then passed through committee. The Union Chargeability Bill was read a third time, after a %rief discussion. Their lordships adjourned at half-past seven. In the House of Commons, at the morning sitting, after the report of the committee of supply had been brought up, nine bills were read the third time and passed without any discussion, and the remainder of the sitting was devoted.to committees, no fewer than twenty orders of the day being disposed of. In the evening the O'Donoghue moved an address to her Majesty, representing to her Majesty that conscientious objections to the present system of university education in Ireland prevent a large number of her Majesty's subjects from enjoying the advantages of university education, and praying that such steps may be taken as will remove this grievance. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bagwell. Sir G. Grey observed that, since the establishment of the Queen's Colleges in Ireland and their erection into a Uni- versity, degrees might be obtained by Roman Catholics who had studied either at Trinity College, Dublin, or at one or other of the Queen's Colleges; so that, in the existing state of the law, it was a question whether it could be said that any Roman Catholic in Ireland was debarred from obtaining a degree. Mr. Whiteside, in a speech of considerable length, op- posed the motion, arguing that the effect of establishing a Roman Catholic University would be to overthrow the policy upon which the Qtzeen's Colleges were founded; that its object was to separate the youth of the country into two classes, and to put an end to mixed education in Ireland. Mr. Monsell, Mr. Hennessy, Lord Dunkellin, Mr. O'Reilly, and Mr. Newdegate having spoken- The Chancellor of the Exchequer said he disclaimed, on the part of the Government, the intention imputed to them of founding a Roman Catholic University. Their intention was merely to remove certain civil disabilities under which the Catholics laboured in the matter of university educa- tion. It would, he said, be repugnant to the wish and,de- sign of the Government if it were supposed that, by acceding to the motion, they expressed any change of policy as to the Queen's Colleges. After some observations from Mr. C. Moore, Mr. Henley, Mr. Brady, Captain Stacpoole, Sir G. Bowyer, and Mr. Lefroy, The O'Donoghue, acknowledging that the proposal of the Government was well worthy of consideration, withdrew his motion. Mr. D. Griffith moved for a return of the sums which have been paid out of the secret service money by the Treasury, to each of the Secretaries of State on his declara- tion in each year, during the last ten years. Mr. F. Peel gave reasons for objecting to the return, an-d upon a division the motion was negatived by 45 to 18. Leave was given to Mr. Blackburn to introduce a bill to amend the law relating to the issue of bank notes in Scot- land and to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for a bill to permit the warehousing of compound spirits. The orders of the day were then proceeded with, and the House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past twelve o'clock.

In the House of Commons, on Wednesday, Mr. Blake moved the second reading of the Municipal Corporations (Ireland) Act Amendment Bill, the object of which is to change the oath taken by Roman Catholic members of cor- porations into a simple declaration, and to give the same power with regard to the choice of sheriffs to Irish as is possessed by English corporations. Sir R. Peel opposed the bill. The bill was withdrawn. Sir C. O'Loghlen moved the second reading of the Bank Notes (Ireland) Bill, which after a brief discussion was withdrawn.. Mr. Lygon moved the second reading of the Educational and Charitable Institutions Bill, the object of which is to provide places ot worship for public schools within them- selves, and to apply the same system to charitable institu- tions and alms-houses, instead of having them, as now, under the spiritual jurisdiction of the incumbents of parishes, and forming part of the congregations of the parish churches, the officiating chaplains being responsible to the bishop of the diocese only. Mr. R. Mills moved the rejection of the bill, objecting to its principle, which was to bring all the masters of public schools under the control of the bishops, thus neutralising the power of the trustees, while it would operate to compel Nonconformist students to attend services of the Established Church; besides which many, if not most of the schools to which it would apply were insufficient to make adequate congregations. Mr. Walter said that the bill applied only to Church of England schools, and the intention was to enable provision to be made forjDivine service in such schools independently of the interference of the incumbents of parishes. Mr. Hadfield having spoken against, and Mr. W. E. Foster in favour of the principle, Sir G Grey said that if the .grievance whieh had been stated existed, the principle was one which he should be willing to accept, but he had never heard of any undue in- terference by incumbents with services in the chapels of SCOn°iSdivision the second reading was carried by 49 to 35; and it was, on the motion of Mr. Lygon, ordered to be com- raitted that day three months On going into committee on the Railway Clauses Bill, Mr. Bass moved its rejection, complaining that clauses which had given protection to persons in the metropolis whose property was to be taken by railway companies had been struck out. An animated debate ensued, which ran chiefly against the. bl}*» aQd Mr. Gibson eventually withdrew it. -the Parsonages Bill was read a third time and passed, as were the National Gallery (Dublin) Bill, the Harwich Har- The Parsonages Bill was read a third time and passed, as were the National Gallery (Dublin) Bill, the Harwich Har- bour Bill, the Carriers Act Amendment Bill, the Salmon Fishery Act (1861) Amendment Bill, the Falmouth Borough Bill, and the Peace Preservation (Ireland) Bill. The Ap- Pr-Tia^n Bl,U ^aa brought in. „ d oiirned r 8111003 was gone through, and the House

The Seconds in a Duel.—According to a French maxim, 11 It is neither the balls nor swords that kill, it is the seconds. And there is an Irish story that one of paraes, thinking the seconds too pugnacious, turned to his adversary and said, "I will fire at your second if you w at mine." But in England the sense of responsibility is. so strong that seconds were more prone to compromising arrangements than the contrary. The late Sir Alexander Grant, having occa- sion to employ a friend, applied to the late Lord Hert- ford (then Yarmouth), who settled the affair amicably. On Sir Alexander mor, tioning what had passed to the late Sir Robert Peel, he said: "You are wrong; Yar. mouth would be thinking more of getting out of the scrape himsylf than of your honour. I should have preferred Daly," naming an Irish gentleman, whose gallantry was well known. If we aie not mistaken, he was the Opposition candidate for the county of Galway, when Martin, on being asked which would win the seat, replied, "The survivor."—Fraser's Magazine. '¿. i. .S. J! f ) ?'r_ Ü

SHE NEVER TOLD HER LOVE. An Alleged Breach of Promise of Marriage. In the Middlesex Nisi Prius Court, the case of Davis v. Barnard was tried before Mr. Justice Byles and a common jury. This was an action to recover damages for breach of a promise of marriage, and the defendant pleaded I that he had been exonerated and discharged from his promise, and also the Statute of Limitations. Mr. H. T. Cole and Mr. Palmer appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., and Mr. Hake for the defendant. Mr. Cole, in opening the case, said that the parties to this suit were in humble circumstances, the plain- tiff being a domestic servant in the employment of Mr. Crowder, a brother of the late judge of this court, and the defendant had been a butler, but had now retired from service, and had taken a respeotable lodging-house in Brighton. The plaintiff was thirty- four years of age, and the defendant was thirty-six or thirty-seven. The engagement commenced as far back as 1848, and continued for upwards of twelve years, and though it was broken off in 1854, it was in 1855 again renewed, and was continued as before; so that the attempt of the defendant to get rid of his promise would no doubt utterly fail. The learned counsel read a number of letters, which were of the ordinary Hind between parties in their station of life. In 1850 the defendant wrote "My dear Sarah,—I hope and trust you have as much pleasure in receiving this as I have in writing these few lines. Wishing you every blessing thi3 world can afford,-I am yours, ever faithfully, WILLIAM BARNARD. Whatever to thenceforth be mine, This heart is fondly ever thine." On July 5th of the same year defendant wrote- "My cruel destiny bids me roam far from my own friends. You must keep up your spirits, and do not think, though I am fa.r from you, that I shall ever forget you.—Your ever constant, "WILLIAM BARNARD." In 1854 there seemed to have been some little inter- ruption to the courtship, for the defendant wrote, referring to the "base, unmanly conduct that yon have experienced from me," and thanking her 10,000 times for her kindness to him. In April, 1855, the de- fendant seemed desirous of breaking off the match: he said- My dear Saraih,—Out of the love I bear you, what was proposed when I saw you must be forgot. How could I dare to bring you to poverty and ruin, than which nothing seems before me ? But, whatever my lot, wherever I go, dear to me will you be." Again he wrote, saying that the correspondence must cease, and added, I trust you will take a right view of the case, for I can assure you honestly no selfish motive influences me, which time will prove.— I remain, your miserable WILLIAM." I In May, 1850, however, the defendant again wrote, 1 asking the plaintiff to meet him on Sunday, and signed | himself ever faithfully yours." In -June following there was another letter. "I thank you for your kind hint with regard to camomile tea; but I am glad to say that I have found an appetite without the stimu- lant." There was another letter dated September 8, 1858, but he would not read that, for he found that it was not one that he wanted. Mr. Hawkins: Oh yes, read it. Mr. Cole must decline to do to; but if his friend thought that there was anything in it which released the defendant from his engagement, he might himself lay it before the jury. In 1859, when the defendant was in the service of Mr. Coningham, at Brighton, the defendant wrote to the plaintiff making an appoint- ment to meet her for a trip by railway on Sunday, and added, what was very suspicious, "If yon do not come, burn the letter." After this, the correspondence continued, and in October, 1860, the defendant wrote:— My dear Friend,—I have not forgotten my promise, that perhaps I indiscreetly made, of writing to you. You must think me a bad-hearted, callous piece of humanity—after all your kindness to me, which will never be forgotten, whatever may be my destiny. The state of my health must be my excuse, and the uncertainty of my movements deters me from settling." Mr. Hawkins: Read on "from settling any one thing." Mr. Cole: But what was the one thing that a young woman thought about under the circumstances ? Why marriage, of course (a laugh). The defendant con- tinued For, after years of faithful servitude, I am a great deal further behind. I had a letter from my sister Cary, in which she reminded me of you, for which I thank you both. With regard to my portrait, which I have not been able to have taken yet, I shall be happy to let you have one if you will accept it in that spirit of friendship.—I remain, yours faithfully, "WILLIAM BARNARD. "I have it in contemplation, if the war continues in Italy, and I get better, to join Garibaldi's Volunteers in the spring, which several members of my company ntend doing." This letter closes the correspondence, and the learned counsel added that he had no doubt that the promise of marriage had continued down to that time, and there was no doubt that it had been broken, because the defendant last year married another woman. Some evidence was given to show that the parties were OR intimate terms in 1858 and 1856, and that the de- fendant was keeping a lodging-house in Brighton, for which he paid a rent of J2200 year. i Mr. Hawkins then addressed the jury, and read some I extracts from letters, which he contended clearly showed that the match had been broken off in 1858, and he added that the defendant had only gone to see the plaintiff on one subsequent occasion, when she asked for an interview. From 1860 the defendant never heard anything from the plaintiff. She never told her love, But let concealment, like a worm in the bud, Feed on her damask cheek." %e never told it until she got to the attorney's office; asd she then told her love there was no concealmen t then (a laugh). The defendant had never thought of this young woman claiming him there had been more than four years' abandonment: he thought he was his own property, and he married in 1864. On the 20th of March, 1865, the attorney wrote reminding him that his breach of promise of marriage which Miss Davis had hoped would have been consummated some time ago; and he added, These hopes have been sadly interfered with by reason of your having entered into the marriage state with another lady (laughter). It now remains for you to compensate Miss Davis to the best of your power," This language, said the learned council, reminded him of that of her Majesty's judges on certain solemn occasions, "It now remains for me to pass upon you the sentence of the law" (loud laughter). The letter went on-, 11 Although no money payment will be commensurate with her loss of peace of mind and bodily health." The writer ought surely to have put in a parenthesis such as they use some- times in the newspapers (here the attorney sobbed) (laughter). He (Mr. Hawkins) trusted that the jury would be satisfied that the promise of marriage had J been broken off in September, 1858, and never re- newed. Some evidence was given to show that the match had been broken off in 1858, and that on two occasions, when the plaintiff had been in the house of the defendant's mother, she had expressed her dis- inclination to see him. Mr. Justice Byles referred in detail to the letter of September the 5th, 1858, in which the defendant stated the pain it caused him to break off every tie," and said that the jury must judge, but to his mind there was no doubt that the engagement was then broken off. If the jury were of this opinion, they would then consider all the circumstances, and say whether there was anything to show that the engagement had been renewed. There was certainly no promise in writing, and no ex-press promise verbally, but the jury would consider whether they prove the oircumstances inferred a promise. The jury after ten minutes' consideratian found a verdict for the defendant.

Death of the Bishop of Chester.—The above learned prelate, who had been seriously ill for some weeks, died on Thursday morning, at the palace at Chester. The deceased was the son of John Graham, Esq., of Durham, and was born in the year 1794. He was educated at the Durham Grammar School, and in 1816 entered at Christ's College, Cambridge, where he was Fourth Wrangler and Chancellor's medallist. He was ordained in 1818, and in 1843 appointed to the rectory of Willingham, Cambridgeshire. On the translation of Dr. Sumner to the archiepisoopal see of Canterbury in 1848 he was consecrated Bishop of Chester, and in the following year was made Clerk of the Closet, The annual value of the diocese is £ 4,500. trri1\f;¡¡r fi)i"-5' V. •• • C.

RATHER ELEVATED. I Renry Thompson, a general dealer, of No. 11, Kirby- 1 street, Bromley, aged thirty-three, was brought before 1 Mr. Partridge, at the Thames Police-court, charged with being drunk and furiously driving a horse and cart, to the common danger of passengers in the parish of Stepney. Benjamin Buckle, a police sergeant, No. 31 K, stated that on Thursday night, at six o'clock, the prisoner's wife came to him near Stepney Old Church, and sought his protection. She was much hurt and excited, and said she had jumped out of her husband's cart, and that he was driving at a furious and reckless pace. He saw the prisoner in his cart lashing his horse in Spring-garden-place and Church. row, where children were at play, driving at fourteen or sixteen miles an hour, to the danger and terror of passengers. After going round the neighbourhood he came bank to Spring-garden-place, driving at full speed, and was about to charge the church gates, when some people stopped him close to the Shio Tavern, and he took f the prisoner into custody. The prisoner was very < drunk and riotous, and he certainly put the lives cf many persons in great peril. The prisoner said he was rather elevated the previous evenirig. Mr. Partridge You ought to know better. If you had injured any one in your reckless career, I would have committed you for trial. The Prisoner I lost my wife last night. She left me. Mr. Partridge: Yes, she jumped out of your eart at the risk of her life. The Prisoner: It is the first time, and I hope it will be the last. Mr. Partridge: I hope it will. You are fined 40?. for furious driving in the public streets The money was paid.

SINGULAR ACTION FOR FALSE IMPRISONMENT. Deemster Drinkwater, the chief judge of the Isle of Man, presided over a special jury, which was occupied on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday last, in assessing the damages in the case of James Bro vn v. Twenty- one members of the House of Keys." The circum- stances of this case are as follows:—The House of Keys is the lower branch of the Legislature of the Isle of Man, and it consists of twenty.four members!, who adopt the highly convenient plan of electing them- selves, and that for life, thus doing away with all the inconveniences of popular election, to say nothing of the expense. As may be supposed, a body of tbis anomalous description does nOR enjoy much popu- larity. In February, 1864, the Commissioners of Douglas, a rapidly rising watering-place, brought be- fore this self-elected body a bill for the further improve- ment of the town, and this measure, after spending four entire days in discussing it, the Keys kicked out. making, during their deliberations, many insult- ing remarks concerning the Commissioners. This course excited much indignation, and strongly con- demnatory articles appeared in two of the local journals, the Isle of Man Times and Mona s Herald. For these articles the proprietors, Mr. Brown and Mr. Fagher, were summoned to the "bar of the House," and asked to apologise. Mr. Brown refused to do this, and demanded, as a British subject, to be tried by a jury, and to be allowed to employ counsel. Both requests were refused, and the refractory journalist was sentenced to six months' imprisonment in the common gaol. Mr. Fagher, warned by Mr. Brown's fate, consented to apologise, and the "Keys" graciously consented not to lock him up. The statutes under which the House of Keys professed to exercise their powers were passed in 1677 and 1817. Shortly after his committal to prison, Mr. Brown applied to the his committal to prison, Mr. Brown applied to the Court of Queen's Bench for a writ of habeas corpus; the application was he aid on the 7th of May, 1864, when the judges at onoe ordered the release of Mr. Brown; he was set at liberty the same day, having been seven weeks and a half in custody. He then brought an action for damages against the House of Keys." This suit, as above stated, occupied three days in the hearing, four lawyers having been em- ployed on each side. The jury, after deliberating four hours, returned a verdict for Mr. Brown, the plaintiff, damages .£518 19s. 6d. It is estimated that the action will cost the members of the House of Keys about £ 900.

THE ALLEGED HOMICIDE AT STEPNEY. [ At the Thames Police-court, on. Tuesday, Mr. Robert Debenham, surgeon and apothecary, of Heath- house, Commercial road, Stepney, surrendered on bail to answer a charge of manslaughter in shooting a man named Thomas Solomon, a ship's painter, on the night of Whit Monday, the 5th of the present month. Mr. Joseph Smith, solicitor, conducted the prosecu- tion for the relatives of the deceased; Mr. Lewis, senior, of Ely-place, again appeared for the defence. The coroner's jury, presided over by Mr. Humphries, who charged them that the case was one of man- slaughter and nothing else, returned an open verdict that the deceased was shot by Mr. Debenham. who intended only to frighten him*. Mr. Paget, however, has taken a very different view of the case. It tran- spired on the second investigation at tills court, that no medical evidence was presented at the inquest, and that no post mortem examination had taken place. Mr. Smith in consequence, made an application to Mr. Paget to support him in a request he intended to make to the Home Secretary to order the body of the deceased to be exhumed and a search made for the ball which was supposed to have remained in the skull. Mr. Paget said the statement of Mr. Stephenson, a surgeon, that no medical evidence was put before the jury, and that there had been no post-mortem examination, had taken him by surprise, and he was very much astonished at the omission. He would certainly support Mr. Smith in his application to the Home Secretary for the ex- humation and examination of the body, which had been hurriedly buried by the parish undertaker. On the accused being arraigned, Mr. Smith said that Sir George Grey had acceded to the application made to him, and ordered the body to be exhumed and a proper examination to be made. He proposed another remand. The exhumation of the body would take place in Ilford Cemetery that evening at six o'clock. Mr. Lewis, senior, was opposed to another remand, I and as the magistrate had determined on sending the case to the Central Criminal Court for trial, he would rather that Mr. Debenham should be committed at once than paraded so often before the public in a police-court. The medical evidence could be adduced police-court. The medical evidence could be adduced on the trial after the usual notice had been given to him and the accused. Mr. Paget said the case was one of great importance, and he was very desirous of putting the judge and jury who would have to try the case in possession of all the information that could be obtained. He was of opinion that every particle of evidence that could throw any additional light on the subject oUGht to appear on the depositions to be sent from that court. A model, prepared by Mr. Thompson, land surveyor, of Heath-house, stabling, and coachhouse adjoining, the fore-court in front, and the lawn and kitchen garden behind, was put in. It was prepared by order of the accused at the magistrate's request. The accu- racy of the model was admitted on both sides. Inspector Hayes, of the K Division, was again examined at great length, but no new facts were brought out. Mr. Paget adjourned the inquiry for another week on the same bail. The post-mortem examination took place on Tues- day at Ilford Cemetery, the body being exhumed by order o ir eorge Grey. The inquiry was con- ducted by an army surgeon appointed by the Home ^re^ryk „• head of the deceased was opened iV1, £ re ,,ain removed, when it was ascertained that the ba 1 entered the left temple, passed through the brain, and was embedded in the back of the skull. ^keory propounded by the prisoner's |advocate, that the deceased was hit by a spent ball after it had struck the corner of a brick wall from which it had rebounded, ia apparently disproved by the post- mortem examination.

A Girl Strangled.A sad accident reoertlv occurred at Woodside, near Aberdeen. A young sirl, named Dexijah Tosh, a#ed nine Teari, while going tr.°™ Woodside Paper Works to her father's house, with a bundle of espa.rto grass, which was tied round her neck, sat down to rest on some steos beside Woodside station, about four o'clock. About an hov afterwards she was found lj-ing on her back quite dead. It is supposed that the poor girl had fallen asleep, and that the weight of the bundle had caused the rope to tighten round her neck, till she was strangled. Dr. Fowler was immediatc-ly sent for, but his services were of no avail.. The girl's father residf i in Gaelic-lane, Woodside, v .V ;J t t {. ¡):i;)

Establishment of Quarantine at Malta.— Letters from Malta of the 14th June report the re- I ceipt by his Excellency the Governor, Sir H. K. Storks, of a telegraphic communication from the British consul-general at Alexandria, dated the 13th, reporting that twelve deaths having on that day taken place from Asiatic cholera, which first manifes- ted itself on the 10th, foul bills of health were neces- sarily granted. The Malta Board of Health had accordingly been convened, when a quarantine of seven fnll days from time of arrival had been imposed on all vessels from Alexandria, which are consequently compelled to enter the quarantine harbour. -a t t.t.,