Welsh Newspapers
Search 15 million Welsh newspaper articles
6 articles on this Page
THE TITHE AGITATIONI IN WALES.I
THE TITHE AGITATION IN WALES. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners have issued to the tithe-payers of the PriDcipality a statement of their position in connection with the tithe agitation now taking place. Tli-, statement is printed in English and Welsh, and in it the Commissioners wish their position with reference to the tithe-rent charge to be thoroughly understood. The Com- missioners are only trustees of a fund consisting partly of tithe-rent charge, pttrfcly of agricaltnral tents, and partly of other property. This fund is heavily charged with payments in augmentation of the incomes of more than 5000 of the poor olergy. These payments amount to £ 600,000 per annum, in addition to the fixed incomes of bishops, deans, and chapters, to whom the greater part of the estates formerly belonged. Tithe-rent charge is similar to land tax and income tax, which are only paid by the tenant on behalf of the landlord, and it <8 a charge prior to the rent. Rent is fixed only after dednctiou of the tithe-rent charge. The legislature provided that the tithe-rent charge shonld vary with the price of corn, on a seven years' average. At the present time it is 12J per cent. less than the par value," and nearly 25 per cent. less than it was in 1878. The Tithe Act provided that the tenant should pay the tithe-rent charge on behalf of the landlord, and deduct it from his next payment of rent. But landlords and tenauts have agreed be- tween themselves that, iustead of the tenant paying a larger rent acd deducting from it the tithe-rent charge, the tenant shall pay a reduced rent and take the payment of the tithe-rent charge upon him- self. Jtjy doing so the tenant has had for several years past the benefit of the fall in the averages, as in fixing the rent it is the commuted amount which is deducted, and not the sum payable in any particular year, which is now, as above stated, some 121 per cent, below the" commuted valne. 11 The commissioners, as owners of agricultural lands, have made large and liberal allowances (varying from 15 to 40 per cent.) from the rents pay- able to them. It is only from these rents, and not from the tithe rent charge, that allowances can rightly be made to enable the tenants to meet the severe agricultural depression. A recent parlia- mentary paper shows that while the whole income derived by the commissioners from property of every description in Wales does not exceed zC31,000 per annum, the payments made by the commis- sioners for the Church in Wales exceed £ 65,000 per annum. Writing to the Times, Colonel Cornwallis West stiyij: "I have reason t. believe that thetithe-payera are many of them strongly adverse to the assembling of mobs at the distraint sales. though they pnsh their objection to pay unless a reduction is made to the length of insisting on force being nsed-being determined in the resistance they offer to show their deep dissatisfaction at the want of considera. tion they receive at the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and other lay titlieowners. There are, however, some ill-advised persons, not them- selves tithe-payers, who in order to bring the political issue into greater prominence, stop at nothing, and It is they, and not the protesting farmers, who are distinctly anBwerable for the presence of excited crowds at these sales and for the consequent action forced upon the county authority, with the unha^ov results we have seen. It is melancholy to cfhink wbiot thes irresPQneible advisers of the people have brought about among a population hitherto famed for its love of law and order. However desirable in themselves the measures demanded by the Welsh people maybe, they can never be promoted by lawlessness. In fact, the question of the disestablishment of the State Church (which by no stretch of imagination can be oalled the Church of the people) is pre- judiced by its supposed connection with the anti- tithe riots, and a cause which is steadily gaining ground and receiving the candid consideration of many Conservatives both in and out of Parliament, ia inevitably doomed to be further postponed if it is suspeoted in any way to be mixed up with dis- orderly proceedings which no Executive Govtrn- ment in the world could for a moment tolerate. That this is the opinion of many Liberals in Denbighshire who are strong disestablishment men is amply proved by the letters I daily receive on the subject." Captain Griffith-Boscawen has written to Mr O. Morgan, M.P., complaining of the terms of a question he pnt in the House of Commons, as re- flesting upon his remarks when presiding at iRuthin Quarter Sessions, having referenoe to the riots in Wales. The police of this county," he said," have been placed in exceedingly difficult and trying circumstances during the last nine or ten months, and, in my opinion, have endeavoured to do their duty. Surely, in face of the inquiry about to be held into their conduct at Mochdre. it is scaroely fair that you,our county member and a magistrate, should prejudice their case by stating that' they beat in the heads and broke the arms of very old men, of inoffensive cripples, and of parish idiots', merely because such statements have appeared in some of the newspapers—statements which the police havebad as yet no opportunity of questioning or refuting." In reply, Mr O. Morgan disclaimed any intention to attribute want of impartiality to Captain Griffith-Boscawen in the discharge of his judicial duties but said he saw nothing in what he had said to regret or retract, adding that he would 11 be sincerely glad it the police can clear them- selves of the somewhat grave imputations which now rest upon them." Captain Griffith-Boscawen, in his rejoin:1er,exprpsss a belief that Mr Morgan's statements must tend to prejudice the police.
IMPORTANT DISCUSSION IN THE…
IMPORTANT DISCUSSION IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS. 1ft the House of Commons, on Friday night, in Committee of Supply, in the discussion on the motion t'uat a sum of RI,885,100 be voted on account to lefray the charges of the Civil Service and Revenue Departments, Mr T. ELLIS referred to the state of matters in North Wales, which, he said, was most grievous. In some parts the officers of the law had the worst of it, and In other parts the bystanders were the sufferers. The Government promised to appoint a committee to enquire into the conduct of the police, and a trial had been instituted against a number of men. In the course of the trial the Public Prosecutor had, on his own initiative, changed the venue from the petty sessional division where the offence took place to another division fifteen or eighteen miles distaut. The excuse was that there was not sufficient court accommodation at Cerrigydruidion; but if the Home Secretary would make farther enquiry, he would probably find there was ample accommodation. Thau he said it was not desirable the preliminary trial should take place in the district where the disturbances occurred. That seemed to be carrying Irish methods of administration into Wales (hear, hear). If the right hon. gentleman wished to change the place of trial, he should see that the expenses of the defendants and their witnesses were paid. Then, in the case of the man whose wife died, the right hon gentle- man said the oourt adjourned two or three hours after the event was known, but the fact was that it happened on the morning of Thursday, and no ;diour?rnent was given till the evening of Friday. Was it d?eent or fair to rush the cage through with- out an adjournment for this distressing case ? At the instance chiefly of the Tory members, the Home Secretary had enlarged the scope of the inquiry so as to include not merely the disturbances at Mochdre, but the origin and nature of all the disturbances in North Wales. The commissioner or commissioners who were to oonduct that work should have two qualifications. He should under- stand the language of the people-(hear, bear)- and he should be able to take a fair and dis- passionate view of the case. But the right hon. gentleman had seleoted the very worst man possible. This gentleman, Mr Bridge, had recently inquired into the Cardiff riots, and almost the whole of the people were dissatisfied with the way in which he whitewashed the police. Besides, he could not understand one word of what the Welsh people said. This inquiry was promised about a month ago, but the arrangements had not yet been made, They had no information as to who the secretary was to be, and they had no promise that a ahorthaud report would be obtained. The whole thing hung fire. If the Govern- ment wished to inflame the public mind in Wales, they could back up the Ecclesiastical Com- missioners and the authority of Christ Church in distraining the stock of the farmers and taking it away by stealth and if they wished farther to inflame it, they could do it by proceedings such as rushing a crinnioal prosecution through. He moved, as "a protest, that this vote be reduced by £ 2000.—Mr Matthews thought the hon. member would agree that the case of the riots was serious enough to oall for a prosecution. The thirty-one men charged with taking part in the riots did not all live in the same part of the oountry. He was told that the aooemmodation at Corrigydrudiou was totally inadequate. It was, of course, hard on the defendants that if they were pot to extra cost to go to Rutbin that extra cost should not be defrayed. He sympathised with the hon. gentleman's com- plaint on that head, but unhappily the law did not permit of that expenditure being met. The only course was for the magistrates to give a cortifioste, upan which the cost .of the witnesses wonld be defrayed. Th., hon. member bad renewed a grtev- ance about the man who nnhappily lost, his wife, Inthe had alrea ly given an answer whioh he thought was satisfactory. It was impossible tc go on with the depositions without this man, and, seeing that a vast number of other persons had come at expense to themselves, it would have been inexpedient to h?ve adjourned without doing anything on tat Friday morning. But the court adjourned at thp end of ?hedJ ayto let this poor man attend his wife's funera f on the Monday. The hon. member had found "t fault with the inquiry which, at the request of certain members of that House, he instituted. He was bound to say that it was his having read Mr Bridge's Cardiff report whioh sug- gested that gentleman to his mind. That report, so far from whitewashing the polioe, was a re- markably temperate, fair, and impartial report, and he would add that Mr Bridge waa oomple ely_ outside partisan passions in the matter. He (Mr ",biog f,r a good Matthews) spared no pains in searohing fJr a good Welsh scholar who would be competent to ??sist the commissioner as secretary, and he ultimately fixed upon Mr Rhys, professor of Celtic at Oxford. who was a perfect master of the language, a Liberal, he believed, in politics, and bad thorough mdepen. d"nce of character.-Mr Osborne Morgan gladly recognized the spirit of the reply of his right hon- ourable friend, but he was bound to My that on one matter he was entirely misinformed. The petty sessional division of Cerrigy- druidion was close to whete nme-tenths of the defendants lived, and if the trial had been conduoted at that place there would not have been the slightest inconvenience. Ruthin, on the other hand, was eighteen to twenty miles distant, and as there was no public conveyance all the way, many of those poor men would have to walk a distanoe of something like forty miles. If his information was oorrect,there were four justices in the Cerrigydruid- ion district, but a quorum could not be got simply because there was one magistrate whom the other three did not Jike. Those poor men would have to walk forty miles because three magistrates wout?d not sit with the fourth. The Home Secretary had not said a word as to the delay. The riots to)k plaoe on the 27th May, and nc proceedings were taken for a month. lie heard on all sides a good deal of dissatisfaction expressed with Mr Bridge's decision in Cardiff. He did not altogether like the idea of putting a police magistrate to try policemen. He was scarcely the right man to do it. A better choice, however, than that of Professor. Rhys as secretary could Lot be made. He hoped the right honourable gentleman would be able to say that the proceedings would commence at once, because delay led to a good deal of irritation. He hoped also that he might make an inquiry into the origin of the riot at Llang,vvrn._Tttr Bigoar thought, under the circumstances, that instead of settinp the Public Prosecutor in motion against these unfortunate people, the just oourse would be to stop proceedings altogether, as the people had been sufficiently punished already.—Mr Ellis asked if Professor Rhys was to b (Secretary or a lay com- missioner.— Mr Matthews was understood to say he would be secretary.- Mr Ellis pointed out that nine- tenths of the defendants lived in the district of Cerrigydruidion, witnin two or three miles of the court. There were three or four men who lived at a distance, but instead of having to go seventeen or eiohteen miles they would have to go twenty-four or twenty-five miles to Ruthiv.-Air Biggar asked whether it was competent to summon a defendant from one petty sessional division district to another without some special law on the subject.—Mr Matthews said the law was that a prisoner could be taken on a criminal charge from one district to another by the justices of the county.-Sir W. Plowden thought the Home Secretary should give his attention to the remarkable statement that three justioes refused to sit with a fourth.—Mr Matthews said he would make further inquiry, but he had oeen informed that the popular idea of dissension among the magistrates was quite unfounded. Col. ê:;ah: West admitted t%e :;os:uS: I tion for the statement that three justices had some personal objection to the fourth—(hear, hear)—but on this case they were not asked to sit. The Publio Prosecutor of his own accord moved the inquirv to a further petty sessional dis- trict. His reason for doing so was that the riot was of such a character as to make it desirable that those who were implicated Bbould be transferred to a district where no feeling was like!y to arise. He was exceedingly sorry that these defendants should be taken a long distance, and he had been in great hopes that their expenses might be at any rate partially paid, but he understood that could not be the case. In these circumstances, he hoped that a very liberal allowance would be made for the wit- nesses. With regard to the number of justices, he had done the best he could to increase the number of those who would act, and he had got those four to agree to act, but, as he had said, they were not asked to sit in the case of this riot.—Mr Osborne Morgan protested against the doctrine that because the riots were serious, therefore the defendants should travel forty miles.1- Mr Ellis said the doctrine just enunciated was a preposterous one-- viz., that because certain offences were supposed to have been committed in one end of the county, that therefore the defendants must be taken to the other end of the county, regardless of expense or the fair administration of justice. In a published letter one of the Cerrigydruidion magistrates referred to the T L_ _1 T :v.l offending magistrate as a ijioertu IiUU LHVCpVV" tea merchant (bear, hear). Whatever might be said about their personal quarrels, two of the local Justioes understood the language of the people, whereas the four magistrates, before whom the defendants were to be tried, were not only opposed to them on politioal and religious affairs, but not one of them understood a word of their language. —Sir J. Swinburne asked on what principle her Majesty's Government advised that these men should be taken from one petty sessional division to another. Mr Matthews said the honourable baronet laboured under a misapprehension. The Government had nothing to do with it. It was not a matter oorcerning the discretion of the Govern- ment; it was the law.-The subject then dropped, and the amendment was withdrawn. In the House of Commons on Monday, Mr Thomas Ellis asked the Home Secretary whether the Treasury had applied to remove the trial of the thirty-one men charged with riot in connection with the collection of tithe from the Denbigh Sessions to the Central Criminal Court.—The Attorney-General (replying) said the Treasury had made no such application. TherA was no intention of removing the trial (oheers). In the House of Commons on Tuesday, Mr THOMAS ELLIS said :—I beg to ask the Attorney- General whether the Treasury has applied for a writ of certiorari to remove the trial of the 31 men oharged with rioting during the collection of tithe at Llaugwm, and if so upon what grounds ? (Oppo- sition cheers). There is an omission after trial of the words II At the Assizes^in the County of Denbigh." The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: In pursuance of the powers vested in my office, I have caused the pro- ceedings in question to be removed to the Queen's Bench in order to secure a fair trial. In regard to the place of trial, that was not mentioned by the hon. member in his question. It is not a matter which is yet dealt with, as it must come before I the court. Mr T. HEALY: Did not the Attorney-General tell us in answer to a question that be had no such power for a change of venue? The ATTOMEY-GENEHiL Certainly not. I have not said there was any such power as to the change of venue. The question is with regard to the removal to the Queen's Bench, and that does not involve change of venue at all. Mr T. ELLIS The Attorney-General has not stated on what grounds his action has been taken. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I ha\ i already stated to the house that it was in order to secure a fair trial. Mr T. ELLIS: I ask the Attcrney-General whether he can give the house any reasons or considerations why these men should not have had a fair trial at the Assizes in the County of Den- bigh? (Opposition cheers). The ATTORNEY-GENERAL As the responsibility rests with me, I must decline to give lay reason for the action I have taken (ministerial cheers). After the questions had been all disposed of, Mr T. ELLIS rose and said that in consequenoe of the reply of the Attorney-General he moved the adjournment of the house" to disouss a definite matter of urgent public importatice-namely, the determination of the Government to try by special jury 31 men charged with riot during the collection of tithes at Llangwm, in North Wales." On the SPEAKER asking whether the hon. member was supported by 40 members, the whole of the Parnellites and three or four Radicals rose in their places, and the Speaker then called upon Mr Ellis to proceed. Mr Eixis said he did not intend to take up much of the time of the house, but he considered it would be unfair to these men to allow tl'.i* rial to be con- ducted without calling public attention to it in Parlia.ment. Daring the last two years various distriots in North and South Wales had bebn dis- turbed o«ing to the difficulties in coll acting tithes, and in two instances, including that referred to in bis motion, the disturbances were serious, and publio attention had been oalled to them in various ways. The Government had thought fit in some of these oases to institute an inquiry before a com- missioner, but in the Llangwm case the direobor of publio prosecutions had instituted a trial against 31 for assault and riot. The riot took place on the r 27th of May, soon after the Home Secretary pro- I mised the inquiry into the disturbance in North Wales, and they were therefore under the idea that there would be no prosecutions; but on Friday, the 30th Jane, summonses were issued against these 31 men, farmers and labourers in the district. The trial was fixed for the following Wednesday. On an interval of three days the trial was removed from Cerrigydruidion, the petty sessional court in the district. to Ruthin, and the solicitors for the defence bad only a few sheets of brief, owing to the short interval allowed. On the Saturday and Mon- day the solicitors for the defendants asked the pro- secutor to give an adjournment, bat that was absolutely refused, as were also renewed applioa- tions for adjournment, inolnding one made after the death of one of the defendants' wives. Last Tues- day the defendants were committed for trial at the assize at Ruthin, which was to be held next Thurs- day. Since the oommitmept the solicitors for the defence had gone to the district and secured evi- dence at great expense, and also had engaged four counsel. As crime was so rare in North Wales it was not worth while for barristers to attach them- solves to bthNw:r i?:I:sarci:f:. t:Jt the :It was that the solicitors had to go outside the County Court to get competent counsel. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL The hon. member is quite misinformed. Mr T. ELLIS said that perhaps the Attorney- General weuld give some statistics to show how often the judges during the last twenty or thirty years had got white gloves presented to them at the Welsh Assizes. Some of the judges had said that going to North Wales on circuit was merely a public holiday (laughter). Last Saturday, after being at the expense to which he had referred the solicitor forthe defendants got an intimation that a writ was to be moved in order to remove the trial from the Denbigh Assizes to the Central Criminal Court, the Queen's Bench, or elsewhere, and he was told that it was unnecessary to prepare for the trial on Thursday. He asked the Government why, when there had been so much hnrry to get the men committed to the assizes, there should be this change of front on the part of the prosecution ? (ohears). The Attorney-General gave as a reason for the removal of .,the trial that they could not expect a fair trial. It seemed to him (Mr Ellis) very remarkable that at the very first semi-political trial in Wales such a course should be taken(Parnel- lite cheers). What did the removal of the trial mean ? In the first place, it would entail expense on these men, who were farmers and labourers and, in the second, it meant that the Attorney-General suggested that Welsh juries were not to be trusted (Parnellite cheers). He would like the right hon. gentleman to tell the house why he thus early ex- pressed his distrust of Welsh juries when politics and religion were to some extent involved? Where was the trial to be removed ? If it were removed to any other place in North Wales the jury would be very much the same, but these men were either to be taken to Chester or to London. When the Government proposed to bring witnesses to London from Ireland, they shrank from the pro- posal when it came to be discussed in the house, and they withdrew the clause (Parnellite oheers). He thought it a very ill omen for the Government that they should, in the first place, have given only three or four days' notice to the defendants, some of whom had left the distriot in order to go har- vesting in other counties, and then to rush the preliminary trial through, and when the defend- ants had brought their witnesses, secured their evidence, and engaged their oounsel, for the Attorney-General by his own fiat to remove the trial either to Chester or to London. It wag re- markable that the Attorney-General, without any experience of Welsh juries, should cast this publio insult upon Welsh juries and brand them as un- worthy to carry out the law of the land (Parnellite cheers). If the Government wished to make matters more difficult in Wales, to inflame a quiet and orderly peasantry to harbour feelings and to do acts which were foreign to their nature, he could not possibly have picked out a surer method of doing it. He gave the Government fair warning that the Welsh people, no more than the Irish, would not allow themselves to be trampled upon, and to be insulted by acts of this kind (Parnellite cheers). The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said it was impossible for him, for obvious reasons, to reply to some part of the observations mado (for an evident purpose) by the hon. member—that part of the speech addressed to an audience outside the house (Parnellite ones of "Oh"). When he talked about trampling on the Welsh people be must know perfectly well that any law officer of the Crown, who had simply to do his duty. oould not reply in that strain to any observa- tion made in moving the adjournment (hear, hear). The hon. member might have had the iairneBs to remember the distinct answer he (the Attorney- General) gave him last night, in again repeating the statement as to the intentions of the Government, which was exactly the contrary of what he then told him. There had never been the slightest intention to bring this case to London. He said so in as many worde yesterday, and he should think the hon. member had forgotten that statement. The hon. member had fallen into another error in saying that it was the intention of the Attorney- General to change the venue. He had no such power, and he had not removed the venue, because he could not do so. The removal of a place of trial must be done on proper application, made by an order of the court, and, therefore, all this impassioned eloquence about casting a plight upon Welsh juries was absolutely without foundation (hear, hear). The hon. member began his address by referring to matters with which he had no acquaintance and over which he had no control. The Attorney-General had nothing to do with the committal of prisoners, and if there were causes of complaint against the magistrates that could be investigated. He knew nothing of the case until the committal took place, and therefore all the hon. member had said about the delay from the 27th May to the 27th June, as well as the story as to the refusal to adjourn, had nothing to do with the question before the House. It was only on Tuesday last, when the committal for trial took place, that the matter came before him upon the materials brought before him, h be ef¡dtl discuss in that House, and he considered a tair trial would not have been obtained at Ruthin as it then was, and therefore he determined that the case should be removed to the Queen's Bench side in order that a fair trial might be secured. One result of that would be that, if desired, the trial could take place by a special jury, whereas on the Crown side it could not take place by a special jury. He took the full responsibility of that course, and he did not believe there was any lawyer who had been, or was likely to be, Attorney-General who would not recognise that that responsibility must be borne by the Attorney- General (hear, hear). The hon. member said the defendants had had to secure counsel off the circuit. He wished he had given the House the names of the counsel. His information was entirely the contrary of that of the bon. member, and he believed that counsel of eminence and ability upon the Narth Wales circuit would defend these men. The hon. member bad referred to the expense of securing counsel. At the outside the expense in securing counsel would be the sum of one guinea each for the purpose of retaining them. As to the witnesses they must appear wherever they had to give evidence. It was possible that it might not be necessary to try all these 31 men, but anybody who undertook the responsibility of such proceedings should not act with haste or with a desire to rush them into court. He declined to follow the hon. member into the suggestion that he had aoted differently than he would otherwise have done because this case involved either politics or questions of religion (hear, hear). In his judgment it would be found to do nothing of the kind, but would be found to be a riot or disturbance springing probably from the action of two or three, and not from the widespread political or religious feeling, which the hon. member was rather inolined to exaggerate than to underrate (hear, bear). deolared, whether hon. members opposite believed him or not, that he had not aoted in the least from any desire to treat tho question as being either political or religious. It had appeared to him that it was not desirable the trial should take place so suddenly, certainly not desirable in the interests of the defendants, and he wondered what would have been said had he allowed the trial to be rushed ? He had not been actuated in the slightest degree by any question of the result except to see that a fair trial was obtained (hear, hear). Mr OSBORNE MORGAN said the Attorney-General's answer was no answer at all (Paruellite cheers). He began by disclaiming all responsibility. (The Attorney-General; I did not disclaim all responsihity.) He said the Crown could not get a fair and impartial trial at Rnthin. (The Attorney- General: I never said the Crown could not get a fair and impartial trial at Ruthin. What I said was: There would not, in my opinion, be a fair trial at Rnthin.) Why should there not be a fair I trial, at Ruthin ? (Parnellite oheers), Beoause the jury would not be impartial. That coming from an occupant of the Government benoh sur- prised him, for he had always thought that the impartiality of British jurors was a oardinal article of faith with right hon. gentlemen opposite (Parnellite cheers). The Attorney-General said be oould not get an impartial trial in Wales What was the meaning of that ? Why, that. be could not get a conviotion (Opposition oheers, and hear, bear). He would like to know why he Cftld not get a fair trial ? It wag because these unfortunate defendants were so harried and' worried, and he would even say persecuted, in this trial that popular sympathy was in their favour (Opposition cheers, and hear, hear). The Attorney-General said these riots, or so- oalled riots, happened in May. Five weeks; elapsed before a single step was taken in the matter, and then, instead of being tried close to their homes, a cock-and-bull story was told about there being no courthouse, and these unfortunate men, all poor men, were dragged a distance of 18 miles to be taken before justices. There were no less than 103 witnesses of the transactions. The bench was asked whether they would not hear them, because they were unanimously agreed to commit the defendants far trial. The solicitor for the prosecution asked where they were to be tried, and he was told at Ruthin Assizes on the 21st. He Mr O. Morgan) had a telegram from the solicitor to the defendants, in which it was said the prosecu- tion point blank refused to adjourn for a few days on account of the assizes being so near that connssl, would have to proceed with three sheets of briefs, and that serious expense bad been incurred for counsel and law stationery, that he had arranged consultation for to-morrow, believing that the case would then come on, that he was told certiorari would be applied for or: Saturday morning. That part of counsel's fees wan wasted, and the witnesses had to be stopped (hear, hear). Of course every lawyer in the House knew what the position of the Attorney-General was by looking at Archbold. The Attorney-General, as a matter of right, could move for a certiorari. He was not like an ordinary prosecutor. Though this practice existed in the aw it was a practice more honoured in the breach than the observance." One of the last occasions in which it was exercised was a notorious case, where the defendant was defended by Erskine, and the case was brought from Wales to be tried in London. It was a practice handed down from the time when the liberties of Englishmen had to be defended on the scaffold (Opposition cheers). Thank God those times were over now, but there were other ways of crushing liberty as well as by law (Opposition and Irish cheers). The expense of a prosecution was very heavy. That was what was being done- hero. They had on one side the Attorney-General for the prosecution, with the whole wealth of the nation behind him. On the other they bad 31 labouring men. Who was to pay their expense ? The learned Attorney- General would not tell him what led him to his decision, or when or where the men were to be tried. They had a right to know whether it was possible for the men to be in such a position as to properly conduct their defence (hear, hear). As a general rule he did not approve of this mode. What ohance had they of winning any case? Every hour, every minute, of the time was public time. All the time taken up with the Coeroion Bill was publio time. His hon. friend behind had no other opportunity whatever of bringing the matter before the House except by the course he had adopted, and he ven- tured to tell tho hon, and learned Attorney- General that these high-handed proceedings (Op- position cheers) were bringing the administration of justice, even in a law-abiding, peaceful, law- observing country like Wales, into disrepute (" Oh, eh," and Opposition cheers). The hon. and learned gentleman was doing everything in his power-his very best-to bring it into disrepute (Opposition cheers). After the unsatisfactory reply given by the Attorney-General, he hoped his hon. and learned friend would go to a division in order to test the opinion of the House on the matter (cheers). The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said, before going to a division, be thought it right to make some protest against the speech which had just been delivered by the right hon. and learned member for Denbigh- thire-a speech which, he ventured to say, was a scandal to the House of Commons (" Oh, oh," and cries of Withdraw," from the Opposition and Irish). The SpzAicrR: I must ask the hon. and learned gentle nan to withdraw that expression (hear. hear, and cheers, and Withdraw "). The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (continuing) said if he had travelled beyond the rules cf the order of the House, he respectfully withdrew the expression, and he made his apology to the House for having ased it in the warmth of debate, but he hoped he might be forgiven if he had been betrayed for a moment into an excess of language in making a prompt and vigorous protest against the speech that had been made (hear, hear). He hoped that every word of that speech wonld be reported, and be before the right hon. gentleman himself, who would read it to-morrow morning (hear, hear). He thought too well of the right hon. gentleman to believe that when he read that speech he would fuel other than reerec that he had uttered it with regard to a matter that was now waiting for judicial decision—(hear, hear, and cheirp)—and that he who ha.1 uttered that speech and,, bad put into the consideration ot this question in the House of Commons references to the most acrid and most violent controversies of party feeling-that he who had done that was one who had himself held judicial office, who knew what it was to exercise the responsibility which was entrusted to him in a matter which had become controversial in the House, and had known what the obligation was that be should exercise his duty in that matter, as the Attorney-General had done, simply in reference to the facts of the case before them without any regard to part.- controversies in this House, he could not understand how the right hon. gentleman would excuse himself for having, in a debate of that kind, introduced references to the actions of Parnell v. Pine, and talked about the defendants in the case which had yet to come be- fore a jury having been harried and worried and persecuted in the way they had been (Ministerial cheers). What was it that the Attorney-General had done? He had left the duty upon him, as any legal representative of justioe holding his great Mr OSBORNE MORGAN said he did not attack the Attorney-General (" Oh, oh "). The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (continuing) Upon whom, then, was this attack made? Was it upon the magistrate ? If so, what was the reference to the action taken by the Attorney-General made for ? The charge against the Attorney-General was that he had used the power which the right hou. gentle- man knew was entrusted to him by the law in a way which would prejudice the trial of these per- sons, and that he had used the power in that way knowing what the effect of that action would be, and every suggestion of the right hon. gentleman's speech carried with it this imputation, that he had exercised his power in such a way that, even if these men were convicted, the conviction would be wrongly and most improperly obtained. He could well understand that suggestion for party purposes, but he could not understand that the right hon. gentleman, who had been Judge-Advocate-General, should get up in the Housd of Commons, and without a sufficient foundation, in point of fact, assail the Attorney-General of the day, who had the obligation on him of discharging the duty, without one syllable of foundation or one fact for supporting his allegation (hear, hear, and cheers). He (the Soli citor- General) was, of oourse, unable to take down the terms of the telegram the right hon. gentleman had received with regard to this matter, but with respect to this telegiam it was quite clear to a lawyer reading it that in one or two points it was capable of explana- tion. The Attorney-General pointed out that with regard to the retaining of counsel there could not have been that throwing away of money. He (the Solicitor-General) would like to associate himself with the position the Attorney-General had taken up in this matter. It would be impossible for the functions of the Attorney-General to be properly discharged in the criminal law, if he were called upon to explain or defend in the House all the cir- cumstances by which he took action. It was quite impossible (hear, hear, and cheers). If there was any charge against him with regard to the course he had taken, then the punishment of that action would be prompt and effectual. The Attorney- General was exposed to tbe consideration and the censure of the House, but the Attorney-General had to deal with matters laid before him with regard to arrangements of this kind. The Attorney- General had made no change of venue. He had exercised his power in such a way that this trial might be tried by a special jury, and it might be in the competence of the court, if it saw fit on cause shown, to remove this trial. That would be the act of the court, not of the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General was in agreement with what bad been the course of practice in other times, and he (the Solicitor-General) hoped to-morrow morning the right hon. gentleman (Mr O. Morgan) would regret that he had made a speech into which he had imported all Eorts of party questions and party antagonisms in order to prejudice the fair trial of these persons (Ministerial oheers). Mr SWETENHAM very much regretted the speech of the member for Denbigh, but he knew the posi- tion he oocupied as member for that county, and he also knew full well that the right hon. gentleman knew the difficulties with regard to the juries which would have to try the oases. It was askeft why they wanted to make another Ireland of Wales. To that he replied that no one did; but if such arguments and such language as that were to be continued to be addressed to the House, it would bave the effeot of makiug a Connemara of Wales, and therefore he protested strongly against that sort of imputation. The bon. members for Devon- thire and Merionethshire asked why could not there be a fair trial at Ruthin. Knowing the place very well, he would say the anti-tithe movement began in a parish adjoining Butliiri, and it is from that I district some of the jurymen would be brought. A groat many were brought from the other side of the county, some from Mochdre. The whole of the distriot were associated with the acts and the Anti- Tithe League movement; most of the jurymen were members of the league, and, therefore, being tried before persons implicated with the defendants, it would be impossible to have a fair trial. What the hon. members wanted was not a fair trial. A fair trial meant a trial by jurymen who had no bias, who would come and take the book in their hand and swear to do justice and give a verdict according to the evidence, but it was utterly impossible to get jurymen, who were almost all members of the Anti-Tithe League movement, to do their duty (bear, hear). A question bad been asked with regard to the expenses. He would draw attention to this. By Act of Parliament it was competent, if it had been thought right, to call witnesses before the magistrates, for the defenco to do so and those witnesses, if called, could have been bound over by the magistrates to appear at the trial, and they would have had their expenses paid wherever they went. Therefore it was not the fault of the Attorney-General, or those having the management of the case, that the expense was entailed on the witnesses. Then reference was made to the difficulty of getting counsel for the defence. He knew how that matter stood. There was no diffi- culty in getting counsel, and no additional expense would be incurred. It did not necessarily follow that the trial should be removed from Rutbin, but it did follow that if that trial was removed by certiorari to the civil side a special jury might be had, and a special jury would be of course unbiassed (laughter). One remark he entirely con- curred in which fell from the hon. member for Merionethshire—that the farmers of North Wales had always hitherto been a quiet, law-abiding, peaceable population, and there had been a compara- tive immunity from crime in North Wales, No one knew that better than he did, and he was happy and delighted to corroborate that which thehnn. member had said, because during 35 years he had had an opportunity of intimately knowing North Wales. He defied any one to say that, under ordinary circumstances, they were not quiet, law- abiding, and peaceful-bear, hear)-but be deplored this fact, that there had arisen a class of persons who, he was afraid, were not to be found among the 31 persons who were to take their trial. He feared they were taking too good care to keep in the background, and put forward these poor unfortunate men who, under ordinary circum- stances, would be quiet, peaceable, and law- abiding, and who would be so now if there were not these others in the background. The right hon. member for Denbighshire knew whom he meant-wire -pullers who deserved much more to be tried than these unfortunate 31 persons, who unquestionably had made a ruth- less bargain. Mr A. WILLIAMS repudiated the idea of import- ing party feeling into the matter. He accepted the statement of the Attorney-General that in the exercise of his official duty it would not be incum- bent on him to put in motion this law which they were bringing forward this day. It was very seldom exercised. The director of prosecutions was rarely invoked from fair and impartial motives. He protested against this trial being pushed forward with unueaal haste. When all the preparations were being made for putting these men on their trial, they were informed that an instrument of the law was to be put in motion in an entirely different way. What was the object of the removal? They were informed by the Attorney-General it was because he did not be- lieve an impartial trial could take place before a common jury at Ruthin. Why were they to be removed ? If he was to be put on his trial on a criminal charge, he, as a Welshman, would like to be tried by a jury of the people. In spite of what the Attorney-General had said, they were charges of a political character, more or less influenced by religious feeling. They were charges which ought not to be tried by a particular class, they were certainly not charges which ought to be tried by people who were opposed in every way-mostly, if not entirely, landlords-and all Welsh people would then declare they had not been properly tried. He hoped his friend would preBS his motion to a division. Mr RODERT REID was sorry to hear from the Attorney-General of a lamentable condition of Wales, and he ventured to express a hope that no insinuation would be thrown out that the Welsh people were being paid -vith money from America (Opposition laughter and ironical cheers). Turning to the legal aspect of the oase, he said it was not only important that there should be no injustice, but that there should be no suspicion of injustice (Opposition cheers). The Attorney- General bad re- moved this case. No one desired to impute to him any desire to do wrong for political reasons. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL The resolution does it directly. Mr REID said, at all events, he did not share the feeling, but this he did say, that tho hon. and learned gentleman was not justified in refusing to state the reasons why he substituted a special form of trial from the ordinary process of the law. Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT, whilst agreeing that the House should be careful not to impart party spiritin- to judicial or quasi-judicial matters, Fit the same time could not help protesting very strongly against the doctrine of non-responsibility to the House which the Attorney-General had laid down. In the old days every prosecution could get a certiorari, bnt by 5th and 6th William 4th that was altered. The vexa. tious power, however, was reserved to the Attorney- General, because the Attorney-General was res- ponsible to the House of Commons and the country if he abused the power (cheers). After referring at length to Erskine's account of the celebrated Welsh case of the Dean of St. Asaph, to show that the power of a private prosecutor to get a certiorari was abused, the right hon. gentleman said he could not understand why the Attorney-General should refuse to state (0 the House what his reasons were for putting the court in motion. If it was because Wales was in such a condition that he could not trust a jury, that was a reason which the House was entitled to know something about (Opposition cheers). The preliminary question the House was entitled to ask was: What grounds had he for de- parting from the ordinary methods of administra- tion of justice? (cheers). The hon. member who sat behind the hon. and learned member (Mr Swetenham) had no such difficulty. He told the House that the people of Wales were not to be trusted (Opposition cheers). Mr SWETENHAM.—I never said they were not to be trusted. On the contrary, I said it would be diffi- cult to get a jury of men who are not more or less mixed up with the!, Anti-tithe League ;(Opposition laughter). I think the Welsh people are to be trusted. Sir WILLIAM HARCOCRT said what he had stated was the fair inference to be drawn from the hon. member's words. Why did he wish to change the place of trial if it were not (oheers). The gentle- man who wanted the penalty of 150 lashes im- posed in agrarian cases (Irish cries of 11 Yes, yes "). Mr SWETENHAM If he refers to my amendment he will find it is not agrarian, uniesii he calls cases of mutilating cattle agrarian offences. Sir WILLIAM HARCOCRT certainly did (Opposition oheers). lie did not approve or condemn the course which the Attorney-General bad taken, but he did protest against the right hon. gentleman not giving his reasons. He did not think that a serious departure from the ordinary course of law in a case affecting a great many people beyond the persons to be tried should be taken without some public statement being made of the grounds upon which it was taken (cheere). If the Attorney- General felt bound by his commission, the Secre- tary of State was not nnder a similar obligation. Surely, the right hon. gentleman could tell the House what the state of Wales wbs, and whether he thought it impossible for the ordinary course of justice to come into operation, or why the operation of the ordinary law should be suspended or checked. Surely, it was not an unreasonable demand (Opposition oheers). Mr H. MATTHEWS said one who had been a law officer of the Crown and a Home Secretary should know that ho could not answer the question of the right hon, gentleman in that categorical way. He must be perfectly aware that the application was not a matter which came before the Cabinet. It was a matter which the Attorney-Geneial dealt with entirely on his own discretion. He did not think a single member of the Government had had his attention drawn to this case of the prosecution at Ruthin, as far as he could understand, for lie really knew nothing of the matter-(ironical Opposition oheers)-the case of liability to tithes, or the propriety of tithes, was not involved except in the most indirect manner. The charge was one of attacking policemen who were protect- ing bailiffs in the collection of tithes, but there was no donbt the proceedings had aroused the greatest possible excitement in the neighborhood where they took place. He wondered that the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wm- Harcourt)-a lawyer, too- should have had the courage to suggest, that the At- torney-General should state the grounds upon which he was oing to ask the court to grant his motion. If he had done so the right hOD. gentleman would have been the first to have complained of bis bon. and learned friend having given an er parte state- I raent of the case against the prisoners. Mr REID.— The certiorari is issued. The HOKE SECRETARV.-No, it is not. The ATTOKN'EY-GENERAL.—It is not a case of certiorari at all. The Attorney-General has the right to remove to the civil side of the Queeu s Beneh, but the change of venae must be done by order of the court, and that is what I am asked to state my reasons for. Sir WILLIAM HKRCOURT Does the specNial jury depend on the Attorney-General ? The ATTORNEY-GizNEmL The trial having been removed to the Queen's Bench, the jury may be special or oommon. The HOME SECRETARY (continuing) said the Attorney-General would of course be responsible, subsequently, but it would be highly improper of him &t the present moment to give to the House an ex parte statement of a matter which was sub judice. Mr DILLWYN entered his protest as a Welshman against the trial being removed from the place where it was proposed to be held originally. It would be & reproach to the place that a fair and impartial trial could not be obtained there (OPP03i-' tion cheers). He warned the Government against treating Wa!es as a second Ireland. He hoped his friend would divide the House upon the motion as a protest against the way in which the Govern- ment were treating Wales (oheers). Mr BOWEN-ROWLANDS pointed out that if a com- mon jury was likely to be in favour of the prisoners, was a special jury not equally liable to be biassed against them ? (cheers). He had always under- stood that the reason why cases were removed from a common jury to a special jury was beoause the verdict of a common jury had shocked the con- science of the publio.^Thia,however,was rei lintegra. Not a verdict had been given in Wales (which gave the Government any right to say that any jurors were likely to return an unfair or biassed verdict (cheers). He held that the commonest jury could decide as well as any special jury whether or not a man had taken part in a riot. He did not know if a change of venue was another of the resources of civilisation which the Government intended to use against: the Welsh people, but if it was, a double insult had been offered to that nation. The conduct of the Government would create wide- spred disaffection and convert Wales from being the most peaceable and orderly portion of the king- dom to a most disturbed part. The bonse divided at twenty-five minutes to sAVAn For the adjournment 129 I Against 138 Majority against 69 The result was received with Ministerial cheers.
INEWS IN BRIEF. I
NEWS IN BRIEF. The orijiin of the epidemic of smallpox at Aberdeen has been traced to the importation of rags into the city. Official notice is given that the State apartments of Windsor Castle will be re-opened to the public on and after Monday next until further orders. The Afghan Boundary Commissioners are likely to conclude their labours at the end of this week or beginning of next. A succession of earthquakes has reduced to ruins the town of Bacariac, in the province of Sonora, containing 1200 inhabitants. In the House of Lords, ou Monday, the Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) Billjwas read a third time and passed. A malef&otor has just been released from the galleys in Italy after serving a 57 years' term. He is now 83 yeirs old. He was convicted of homi- cide. Westminster Abbey will be re opened for Divine service on Sunday, the 31st inst., and on and after the following day visitors will be admitted nnder the usual regulations. At the Wesleyan Conference in Manchester, on Tuesday, the Rev. John Walton, of London, was elected president by 291 votes, the Rev. Joseph Bush receiving 138 votes. According to a Parliamentary paper issued on Wednesday, 9140 persons were evicted in Ireland daring the quarter ended 30th June last. Of these 188 were readmitted as tenants or sub-tenants, and 5737 were readmitted as caretakers. The death is announced of Canon Ware, rector of Barnbrough, one ot tne proctors in convoca- tion for the clergy of the archdeaconry of Sheffield. The living is in the gift of the Lord Chancellor. At a meeting of the Royal Society on Monday night, it was announced that the Victoria Jubilee Prize of 100 guineas, founded by Dr Gunning, had beeu awarded to Sir William Thomson for a series of papers on "Fluid Motion." The Government bavebrought in a Bill to Msumi. late the law with regard to bankruptcies under Mr Chamberlain's Act, and bankruptcies of earlier date. The Bill is backed by the Attorney- General, the Solicitor-General, and Baron H. de Worms. An order was issued on Tuesday night by Sir Charles Warien to the Metropolitan police direct- ing that no women soliciting in the streetd shall be taken into custody unless the person complaining attends at the station house and proceeds with the charge. The floating island on Lake Derwentwater has again made its appearance. It came to the surface of the water a year or two ago near Lodore after complete submersion for nearly three years. The cause of the phenomenon has never been satisfactorily explained. A man named Edward Sutton, of Pendleton, was found lying dead in a street at the back of the Albion Hotel, Manchester, on Wednesday. It is said that late on Tuesday night he was fighting with a man known as Jack, who was afterwards apprehended. It is believed that the man received fatal injuries during the mel/e. Mr R. Jefferson, of Rotherskye, having definitely declined to become the Liberal candidate for White- haven at the next election on the ground of ill- health, it is now understood that Mr Shee will again be asked to contest the constituency whenever a vacancy should occur. At the annual assembly of the Methodist Free Church, held at Louth on Tuesday, nearly one hundred delegates were attacked by a mild form of English cholera. The attack was not of long duration. The malady is supposed to have been caused by impurities in the water supply. It is announced that Lord Granville, who has for some time been seeking a purchaser for his house on Carlton Hoase-terrace, has at last dis- posed of it to the Marquis de Sancturce, better known as M. de Maurietta. The price paid is said to be £ 60,000. There is a heavy ground rent. The first silver medal, senior grade, first class, hitherto awarded by the South Kensington looal examiners to a female candidate, has been won by Miss Winifred Wilson, of the school of the ursuline Convent, Upton, Essex, the examination embracing twelve subjects, in all of which honours were obtained. Sir Thomas Crawford, chief of the Medical Department of the Army, was examined before Lord Randolph Churchill's Committee on Tuesday. He said that of late years the health of the British army had improved enormously, and at present the mortality was six per thousand below that of the same class of people in civil life. He attributed this to the better training of the medical officers and ot the army itself, and especially of the colonels commanding. The World says it is unjust to speak cf turtle and wine-bibbing in connection with the Primate. Those who have dined at Lambeth will remember the homely decanters of lemonade on the table, and after dinner it is difficult to secure more than one or two glasses of port or claret. Elderly ecclesiastics who enjoyed Archbishop Longley's famous old port will agree with the writer in defending Archbishop Benson from a charge of luxurious living.
Advertising
FOOD ADULTERATION.—Mr Casss lecturing at the Health Exhibition said" Homcep»tbic Cocoas are well named aa they contain the smallest q ltantIly of Cocoa Cadbury's Cocoa is guaranteed pnre and we recommen- the public to buy no other.-21-72b STORM WAKXrXG !-A SEVKKH STORM MAY be expected every day of the week in all domestic circles where Hudson's Dry Soap is not in regular daily use. A Penny Packet will prevent it. Quick, safe, and leaves no smell. HUDSON'S DRY SOAP is free from anything of an injurious character. A pure, Dry Soap, in fine powder. Rapidly Soluble. Lathers freely. Softens Water. A perfect Hard-Water Soapl A Cold-Water Soap A Soft-Water Soap t A HotWater S-P I Unrivalled for Washing Clothes and everything, and as a purifying 07pnt. Insist npon HUDSON'S DRY SOAP, which has become n household word all over the world for purity, sweetness, and health, If you have not tried a Penny Packet —do so, and you will be amazed at the large amount of thorough House Clean- ng it will perform. THROAT AFFECTIONS AND HOARSENESS.—All suffer ing from irritation of the throat and hoarseness will be aapreeably soipriaed at the almost immediate relief afforded by the uso of "Brown's Bronchial Treches," These famous "lozejges" are now sold by most respect- able chemists in this country ar Is lid per box. People troubled with a "backing cough." a "slight cold." or bronchial aSections, cannot try them too soon, as similar troubles, if allowed to progress, result in serious Pulmonary and Asthmathic affections. See that the words "Brown's Bronchial Troches" are on the Government Stamp around each box.-Prepared by JOHN I. BROWN k SoNS, Boston, U.B. European depot, 33, Farringdon-road London. (c
SERIOUS CHARGE AGAINST A LLANFAIRFECHAN…
SERIOUS CHARGE AGAINST A LLANFAIRFECHAN POLICE CONSTABLE. CASK AGAINST TBE ACCUSED DISMISSED. At the Bangor Petty Sessions, on Tuesdav before Mr Charles Pierce (in the chair), Dr H. R. fiuah re Dr Richards, and Mr William Pughe, Le: Hughes,pohce constable stationed at Llanfalrfecha was oarged with feloniously stealing, taking, an carrying away a certain bag of Petatoea of the value of three shillings and ninepence, the goodg and ohattels of Richard John Jones, shcp-keeper Llanfairfechan. Inspector Roberts prosecuted on behalf of the police, and Mr Allanson defended the accused, who appeared in plain clothes. RICHARD JOHN JONES said he lived at Lianfair. fechan, and was a shop-keeper and farmer. Soma time last spring he left the neighbourhood it was in the beginning of March. He left his son and his assistant in charge of the shop, and the servants who were at the farm, in charge of the farm. David Hughes was the name of the shop assistant, and Owen Lewis the name of the man left in charge of the farm. He had some potatoes in the stable yard at Llvsaled, near rilanfairfechan. Some of the potatoes were loose, aud some in bags. He dealt in potatoes; they were the crop >t the farm. Before he went away he asked a man named John Morri, an ex-policeman, to keep an eye on the yard. lie lived at Llanfairfechan. When he returned Morris did not make any statement to him but he (witness) thought some potatoes were missing. He came back for a week, and then returned to Hastings. He came back a second time, and on that occasion both Morris and David Hughes made statements to him. That was about the latter end of April, or the beginning of May. The statements were made on different days. David Hughes went away and returned in three or four weeks, Cross-examined: During the time he was away David Hughes had authority to sell the potatoes ia the yard. He did not require him to keep any account the persons to whom he sold the potatoe-ym- less they were sold on credit. In that case he was to enter them in a book. In the latter end of April or the beginning of May he received information which led him to suspect the defendant, Lewis Hughes, of stealing his potatoes. Since he received information in May he was in the habit of con- stantly seeing Lewis Hughes, who was a constable stationed at Llanfairfechan. He said nothing to him as to the information but he consulted a solicitor. He made a complaint to the Chief-constable, but he onld not say when David Hughes was a respectable young man. He was in the babit of getting leave for a day and staying away for three weeks. The police had been after him once for some money. Lewis Hughes, the defendant, had had occasion to put the law in force against his (complainant's) son. He took his son in charge for dronkenuess, and he was subsequently summoned and fined. He was at that time a local preacher with the Wesleyans. He (witness) was connected with the Wesleyans. He wished Lewis Hughes to hush the matter up. lie was not angry with Haghes. There had been no unpleasantness between them either before or after tbe event. Had told Morris to keep an eye on the yard before the conviction. Morris WiS, as far as he knew, a very respectable man. Did not know there was any unpleasantness between Lewis Hughes and Morris. Had heard of no row at a Coursing Meeting in 1886. After he made the report to the Chief-constable, the matter was inquired into. He should not have been satisfied if Lewis Morris had been dismissed the force. He did not send his son to Lewis Hughes to say he would give him two or three months before he was finished with him, neither did he tell his son to say that he (witness) would get Lewis Hughe3 out of Llanfairfechan some way or other. He dis- liked Lewis Hughes because he believed he had stolen his potatoes. The dislike was none the le-s because he had missed it. He had never told anyone that he would get him dismissed the force if he could. David Hughes was still in his em, ployment. DAVID HcariEs, living at Mona View, Llanfair- fechan, deposed that some time last spring ha told Lewis Hughes there was something wrong going oil at Llysaled. This was in March. Mr Jones was not then at borne. He told him some one was suspected of taking potatoes away. There was another young man, Mr Jones's sou, in charge of the yard. He sold no potatoes to Hughes. When he was in the yard, John Morris and the eon, Owen Francis Jones, came there. Lewis Hughes had a conversation, and had filled a bag of potatoes by the time they came. They left the bag by the stable door, and went out to the yard. He saw Morris about five or ten minutes past eleven o'clock that night. Hughes was with him. Hughes asked him whether Morris suspected anvthing about the potatoes. Hughes told him the way lie went home. He said he would cross the river and up Brynyneuadd farmyard. The bag was filled for P.C. Haghes. He (witness) did not sell him the potatoes. They made an arrangement together that he (witness) should leave the bag of potatoes out on the top ofthe wall on theStation-road, and that he should get a cart, and come and fetch it. He was passing his house at eleven o'clock that night, and they both went down together, and took the potatoes and carried them up to his house. He was not to benefit by the transaction, and PC. Hughes was not to pay his master. He put the sack on the wall between six and seven o'clock. It was not light at eleven. There were no similar transactions between them, P.C. Hughes said to him when they were in the yard, If I bad known there were any potatoes here, I would not have bought a sack at Llanfairfechan;" and he added You might give me a saek of potatoeg, as no one will know anything about it." He (witness) then gave him a bag. He had finished filling the bag when Mr Jones's son and Morris came down. There were a lot of other bags there, and a lot of loose potatoes as well. Cross-examined: He was not going to rob Mr Jones. Lewis Hughes induced him to steal the potatoes to give them to him. He knew he was doing wrong; but lie did not know he was robbing Mr Jones. It was not the first time he had given his master's goods away. He did not tell his master that he had no disagreement with Holies. He never had any money from P.C. Lewis Hughes in his life. Lewis Haghes did not ask him if he had authority to give or sell potatoes; and he did not tell him he bad no authority. He took Hughes to the yard and told him someone was suspected of having stolen the potatoes. Did not say he ns- pected Morris was the man. When he was paaring Hughet's house at eleven o'clock, defendant did not say to him You promised to send the potatoes down by John Jones, the carter. Why didn't you send them?" He (witness) did not say 1, It's no use leaving them thare all night. They'll be stolen." He did not say; If I go down and fetch them at thill time of night, Morris will say I stole them." He did not say It's nothing to do with Morris." He said" You shall have the potatoes, and I'll tell the master as soon as he comes home." He didn't say Well, there they are; they are at your risk." Defendant was in uniform, but he did not say" Well, I am not allowed to carry things with my tunio on I must go in and change it." He would swear that he never had any con- versation with Morris on this subject till the last few days. It was not his conscience that led him to make a communication to his master. He did not tell Hughes that he had made any statement about him. He had been in some trouble with some police court warrant, and Hughes had pro- mised to write for him. Re-examined: The warrant against him was a bastardy case. JOHN MORRIS said he lived at Llanfairfechan. He received instructions from Mr R. J. Jones, and in consequenoe of those instructions he watched his premises. He remembered Mr Jones going away. When he returned he told him something. He saw Lewis Hughes and David HuglBs in the yard, He did not remember the date. He saw Lewis Hughes take up a bag of potatoes and carry it away at night. He thought it was all right, aud went away. Cross-examined: He could not swear it was ths same bag. If there was any mark on the bag, he did not notioe it. As far as he could see every- thing was above board. As soon as he saw the constable take hold of the bag he thought it was all right. Had he thought there was anything wrong, he should have acted on his instructions. He was in the police force 28 years, and had retired on » Pe ° pe=ofL!NSO having addressed the Court on the defendant's behalf, called witnesses. The Bench dismissed the case on the ground thtt they had not sufficient evidence upon which to convict. Great public interest was taken in the case.
Advertising
CAUTION.—HOMEOPATHIC MEDICINES —It is ES>entul to success with these remedies that they should be pre- pared with scrupulous care, and certainly by one who m?es it his sole business hence it is very <?"OM ..Uld i.si?;t on eich b,)ttIO that those using them should tM.ston each bottle obtained from a vendor bearing the label of a firm Of repute. Those sold by the agents of J.IES EPPS and Co. (the first-established Hom<ro?thic ChM ,? n England) have a label over the cork with "'s"??" graph trade mark. 1 U5 ^Extreme heatstill prevails throughout the Uu't? States. heat still prevails throughout tlle 1UL'it0d