But I say, that if the landlords stick to us we will stick
to them." (At this, the whole assembly rose in a body
and cheered vehemently; Lord Stanhope's excitement
rose to the pitch of giving the speaker a slap on the back
in token of approbation.)—The next speaker, Mr. Ball,
was equally energetic; alluding to an alleged observation
of Mr. Cobden's at Leeds, that, if the landlords put
a single shilling of fixed duty on corn, he would raise
such a tumult as would shake the kingdom to its centre,
Mr. Ball exclaimed—"The sooner the better! No
worse can come." In the name of the tenantry of the
country, he declared they were prepared "to risk all,
to dare all. They would be prepared, in the hour of
the country's peril, to take those terrible steps, most
frightful to imagine, which necessity was driving them
to contemplate." Here, again, the assembly rose and
uttered tremendous cheers, at the close of which a
gentleman on the platform proposed three groans for Sir
Robert Peel "the arch enemy of the human species;"
but the meeting, with all its excitement, was not
prepared for this, and the call was not answered. Mr.
Caldecott said that Lord John Russell was a public destroyer;
and Mr. Higgins called on Government to redress their
wrongs—if not, they would "fight for it." A good
deal more hot-blooded language was used and responded
to by loud acclamations. The Noble Chairman
counselled moderation; and resolutions somewhat moderate
in tone were passed, and a deputation appointed to represent
to the Prime Minister the state of the country.

On the 11th this deputation, headed by Mr. G. F.
Young, the Chairman of the National Association for
the Protection of British Industry, had an interview
with Lord John Russell, who heard them and replied to
them with great attention and courtesy, making them
aware at the same time that his mind was made up, and
that he did not think himself called on to advise Her
Majesty to dissolve the Parliament, or to take any other
step on the subject. Mr. Young made a sort of apology
for the strong language which had been used, and which
was not to be held as conveying the general sentiments
of the meeting. Lord John said, that on such occasions
great latitude of speech must be allowed, and that
though there had been language somewhat stronger
than necessary, the Duke of Richmond had gone as far
in censuring it, as he himself would have done.

      NARRATIVE OF LAW AND CRIME.

Two juvenile offenders were brought before the
Middlesex Sessions on the 25th April; the one, Thomas
Smith, aged fourteen, and the other, James Cook, aged
ten. They had stolen twelve wine glasses. The judge
said he had obtained the history of the younger boy,
Cook, which would illustrate the operation of Summary
Punishments. He found that though only ten years
old, he had, during the last twelvemonth, undergone
seven sentences of imprisonment and six whippings; yet
here he was again. He had no home, and no means of
subsistence. The Court could not, as the law at present
stood, send him to Parkhurst, where he would have
received an education which would have enabled him to
have earned his future livelihood; and there was no
other course than to send him again to a common
prison. The sentence, therefore, was that each prisoner
should undergo imprisonment and hard labour for six
months.

On the 25th of April an application was made, in
the Queen's Bench, for a Criminal Information against
the Plymouth and Devonport Journal, for an alleged
libel against Miss Sellon, the superior of the Sisters of
Mercy, residing in Devonport. These ladies had
presented a service of communion plate to the church of
Stoke Damerel; and the above newspaper had stated
that the plate would be paid for out of £14,000. which
the Sisters of Mercy had received from the public.
They had complained to the proprietor, and he had
answered that if they assured him that the statement
was unfounded, he would immediately express his
satisfaction in his paper. They conceived it necessary,
however, to ask the protection of the Court. The application
for a rule was granted; but the rule was subsequently
discharged, by mutual consent, on payment of costs.

At the Mansion House on the 26th April, Maria Biscomb
was committed to prison for three months with hard
labour for obtaining five shillings from a gentleman by
the Feigned death of a Child. This woman was well
known as a notorious swindler, and had been continually
in prison. On one occasion she applied to a lady for
assistance, representing that she had a child lying dead,
and was unable to bury it. The lady visited her house,
and saw apparently the body of a child covered with a
cloth. She gave the prisoner 10s., but on going to a
window she heard a voice from beneath the cloth
exclaim, " Mother, how long am I to be dead?"

A case at the Thames Police Court on the same day
produced a startling disclosure of American Law respecting
Persons of Colour. A black man named Bowers
claimed a balance of wages from Captain Waddington,
master of the barque Mary Anne; and the claim was
resisted on the ground that Captain Waddington had
paid £20 for the man's keep while he remained in gaol
for two months at Charleston. It turned out that the
vessel, on arriving at Charleston, had been boarded by
the authorities, and Bowers taken out of her and lodged
in prison, where he was kept all the time she remained
in the harbour, simply because he was a man of colour.
By the law of the State of South Carolina, it seems, no
man of colour, not belonging to the State, is allowed to
be at large; and all coloured men who come into the
State are put in prison. Men found on board of vessels
are taken out of them and kept in prison till the vessel
sails; the master being charged so much a day for their
support. The magistrate adjourned the case, and on
the 29th expressed his opinion that, as the Captain, who
was aware of the practice, had taken Bowers with him
without any stipulation as to deduction from his wages
in case of his being put in prison. Bowers was entitled
to his full wages; and gave judgment accordingly. This
matter, it will be observed, was brought before the
House of Commons on the 29th of April.

The Court of Queen's Bench having, in the Gorham
Case, refused the Bishop of Exeter's application to
prohibit the Court of Arches from giving effect to the
decision of the Privy Council, an application was made
on the 2nd instant by the Bishop to the court of Common
Pleas to grant a rule similar to that which the Court of
Queen's Bench had refused. The Court gave judgment
on the 27th. It was similar to the previous judgment
of the Queen's Bench; deciding that the appeal from
the Court of Arches was to the Judicial Committee of
the Privy Council, and therefore refusing the application
of the Bishop of Exeter

An instance of the Punishment of Crime in the
Act of its Perpetration occurred at Hove, near
Brighton, on the 27th of April. On the previous day, a
man entered the Ship Inn, ordered some refreshment,
and engaged a bed for the night. Early next morning
he was found lying in the street, under the inn windows,
bleeding and insensible; and died in a few hours, never
having spoken. A bundle filled with the landlord's
bedding was lying by his side, and it appeared that he
had fallen while endeavouring to escape with his booty.
An inquest was held on his body, but nothing was
known of his name or residence.

A well-dressed man, named Charles Stanley, was
charged at Bow Street on the 29th April with defrauding
Henry Louton of £10. The complainant had answered
Advertisements "for a Clerk and Messenger," and had
consequently met Mr. Stanley, who took him into
his employment under a written agreement, and
required him to deposit £10. in his hands as a security.
The complainant soon found he had no real duties to
perform, and that he could neither get the stipulated
salary, nor restitution of his £10. The magistrate said
he could do nothing in such a case, the only recourse
was to a County court. Such scandalous frauds were
constantly committed, and it was impossible for the law
to protect people who would not take the slightest pains
to protect themselves by a little previous inquiry. The
prisoner was consequently discharged amid the
execrations of the people present. It was stated that a
young man was in the Court who, duped by one of these
advertisements, had come with his wife and children
from a distant part of the country, had exhausted his
entire means by paying his travelling expenses and