unanimously adopted.—Owing to the overflow of St. Martin's
Hall, a supplementary meeting was held in Freemasons'
Hall, over which Viscount Feilding presided. Dr. Pusey
addressed the meeting, and the same resolutions as those
proposed in St. Martin's Hall were adopted.

The late Henry Robertson Hartley, Esq., of
Southampton, has Left the Bulk of his Fortune, amounting to
£80,000, to the corporation of that town, to be applied in
such manner as may promote the study of natural history,
astronomy, antiquities, and classical and oriental literature,
by forming the requisite institutions for those
purposes. It is to be regretted that, from the inaccurate
preparation of the will, a suit in Chancery will be
necessary to give it effect.

The building committee for the Exhibition of 1851,
has accepted the tender of Mr. Paxton to erect in Hyde
Park a building chiefly of iron and glass. It is to be of
wood-work to the height of eighteen feet, and arrangements
have been made to provide complete ventilation
and secure a moderate temperature. The building is to
be made in Birmingham and the neighbourhood. Messrs.
Fox, Henderson, and Co., of the London Works, at
Smethwick, have the contract for the iron framework;
Messrs. Clance, of Spon Lane, will supply the enormous
quantity of glass required; and the tubes are also
entrusted to a firm in the district. These three materials
constitute, in fact, the entire building.

A meeting of Electors of the City of London, was held
on the 25th, summoned by Baron Rothschild, to consider
what course ought to be adopted by him in consequence
of the Parliamentary Oaths bill being laid aside for this
session. After considerable discussion, in which Baron
Rothschild himself, Mr. J. A. Smith, Mr. P. Taylor,
Lord D. Stuart, Mr. Anstey, Mr. Wire, and others
took part, it was unanimously resolved "That Baron
Rothschild proceed to-morrow to the House of Commons
to claim his seat."

NARRATIVE OF LAW AND CRIME.

MR. Wayse, a draper of Oxford Street, was summoned
before the Marlborough police court on the 29th of
June, for Assaulting a Customer. Mrs. Denning
and a female friend, seeing a ticketed mantle in his
shop-window, went in to buy it, reading the price
to be one guinea. The mantle was produced, and a
guinea and a half asked for it; on the lady's demurring,
a ticket was shown, with one guinea in large print,
and a very small ½  subjoined, which, they believed, had
just been written. High words ensued, and the tradesman
pushed the customer out of the shop. A shopman
deposed that he had put the ticket—one guinea and a
half—on the mantle; and the master declared that he
had used no unnecessary violence, but was provoked by
the accusation of cheating. The magistrate commented
on the impropriety of exhibiting tickets so written as to
mislead the public, and fined the draper twenty shillings.

A respectably dressed young man, who refused to
give his name, was charged at Guildhall, on the 3rd,
with uttering seditious language in a public-house.
Several papers were found upon him. One consisted of
hints to those who thought of suicide, urging that they
might as well be hanged—or take the chance of it with
the alternative of a comfortable provision for life—as
drown themselves; and that they might manage this
by killing a policeman, a duchess, or a countess,
and then pleading insanity. Another paper said
the writer would like to kill five hundred of the
aristocracy, and a third contained a plan of setting fire
to ladies' dresses in Kensington Gardens, at a time
"when the aristocracy are congregated to hear the band
play." Before the alderman the prisoner admitted that
these writings were by him, and said that merely to
explain how an unlawful act might be committed, was no
ofience. He was remanded that inquiries might be made.
He was brought up again on the 10th, when Mr. Maule,
the solicitor of the Home Office, was in attendance, who
requested the alderman to deal summarily with the
case by binding the prisoner over to keep the peace.
He seemed much disappointed that he was not to have
a regular trial, and made a nonsensical speech about his
plan for thinning the numbers of the aristocracy. The
alderman cut short his oratory;—"You are one of three
things, insane, mischievous, or seeking notoriety; I
believe you are the two latter." He was ordered to
find bail and removed in custody.

The Court of Queen's Bench gave judgment, on
the 6th, in the Case of Barber. This gentleman, it
will be remembered, was tried in 1844 on several
charges of fraud and forgery, in conjunction with a
person of the name of Fletcher, and sentenced to
transportation for life. In 1848, after enduring great
hardships in Norfolk Island, he received a free pardon,
in consequence of enquiries made into his case, and
returned to England. He applied to the Court of
Queen's Bench to be allowed anew to take out his
certificate to practise as an attorney; but this being
opposed by the Law Society, a rule nisi was granted,
and the matter was fully argued before the court.
In giving judgment, Mr. Justice Patteson, after taking
a review of the various transactions in which Barber
had been implicated along with Fletcher, said in
conclusion, that looking at all the circumstances of all
these cases, and endeavouring to make all reasonable
allowances for the difficulties in which Mr. Barber was
placed in explaining his conduct, the court regretted
to say that it could not but see such proofs of complicity
with Fletcher as rendered it an imperative duty to
decline complying with the application for the renewal
of his certificate to practise as an attorney of this court.
The rule was therefore discharged.

In the Court of Queen's Bench, on the 6th, an action
of Slander was tried, at the instance of Mr. Barry, the
architect, against Dr. Reid, the ventilator of the new
Houses of Parliament. It appeared that in 1845 there
were meetings between the plaintiff and defendant, at
one of which the defendant admitted that his principle
of ventilation would not act in accordance with the
plaintiff's arrangement that the Houses of Parliament
should be fire-proof. A Mr. Meesom, who was present
at the meeting on the part of Mr. Barry, reported, by
the directions of the plaintiff, Mr. Reid's admission to
the Commissioners of Woods and Forests. At a
subsequent meeting, at which Meesom was present. Dr.
Reid refused to proceed, saying, "I'll transact no
business in a meeting in which Mr. Meesom is, because
he and Mr. Barry sent in a forged document to the
Commissioners of Woods and Forests." These were the
slanderous words complained of. The Chief Justice
said that the plaintiff had no case, because the
communication was privileged, and suggested that the
matter should be settled, a suggestion which was
adopted.

An Irishman named Fahy attempted to Rob the House
of Mr. Swetenham, near Congleton, on the afternoon of
Sunday the 7th, while the family was at church, but
was prevented by the intrepidity of Ann Tranter, the
maid servant. The man pretended to be deaf and dumb,
and begged for alms; the servant gave him some bread;
then he attempted to push past her into the house; on
the girl resisting his entrance, he assailed her with a
stick; she took it from him; then he beat her with his
fists; the girl grappled with him, and being tall and
stout, managed to throw him on the ground, and kept
him there for some time. When the man succeeded in
overpowering her, and rose, she ran to a bell and pulled
it to give an alarm. Again she baffled Fahy's attempts
to enter the house, pushed him into the stable-yard, and
locked him out. The bell had attracted a gamekeeper's
notice, and he hurried to the house; where he found
the courageous girl in a fainting state. The keeper
seized Fahy on the road a short distance from the place,
and had him committed on a charge of assault with
intent to rob. The Congleton magistrates highly
commended Ann Tranter for her conduct.

The Court of Exchequer gave judgment in the Gorham
Case, on the 8th. This is the third decision of precisely
the same question in three different courts of law. The
Bishop of Exeter first applied to the Court of Queen's
Bench for a rule to prohibit the Court of Arches from giving
effect to the decision of the privy council in favour of
Mr. Gorham. On its being refused, the bishop made a
similar application to the Court of Common Pleas, by
whom also it was refused, and he then brought the
matter in the same form before the Court of Exchequer.