by two other youths, however, he retreated further into
the pew; and there the affair in the church ended; but
next day Mr. Fitzroy obtained a summons against Mr.
Westerton for assault. Mr. Arnold, the magistrate,
dismissed the summons, since Mr. Westerton was doing
what he thought his duty as a churchwarden; but
expressly declined to say whether the conduct of Mr.
Fitzroy, in chanting, was illegal or not.

At the Central Criminal Court, on the 23rd instant, a
young man named George Williams, a "Ticket-of-leave-
man," was indicted for Stealing a Chaise, the property
of Thomas Morrison. There was a second indictment
against him for a like offence, and he pleaded "Guilty"
to both. The Assistant-Judge said, this case was another
specimen of the working of the ticket-of-leave system.
In the year 1850 the prisoner was sentenced to seven
years' transportation, having before that been convicted
of felony. The prisoner, in answer to the Court, said he
was discharged from Woolwich on the 5th of August,
and received the sum of £4 17s. The Assistant-Judge,
—And here you are, in October, stealing trucks again,
the same offence you were convicted of before. Such are
the effects of this wondrous system, that since January,
this year, the committals have exceeded by six hundred
the number of committals in the corresponding period of
last year. The Court is determined to sentence to
transportation all prisoners who are convicted after having a
ticket of leave; for, whether it be right or wrong that
such should be the system, it is quite clear that with
respect to a man who so uses his ticket of leave, it
would be sheer idleness to show him any further
leniency.—He then sentenced the prisoner to 14 years'
transportation, but that sentence was changed to eight
years' penal servitude, it being found that the former
conviction was not laid in the indictment.

There have been fresh Disturbances at Nottingham.
On the evening of the 24th instant, a number of persons,
principally lads, assembled before the shop of Mr. North,
baker, of Colwick-street, and broke a number of panes
of glass in his windows. Mr. North was in his shop at
the time, and was struck a violent blow in the face by a
brickbat, hurled by one of the rabble. After this the
shop of Mr. Greenfield was attacked, but no great
damage done. The shops of Mr. Reeves, Narrow-
marsh; Mr. Hutchinson, Pleasant-row; and Mr. Adamson,
were also visited, and a number of panes broken.
Next morning a number of master bakers went to the
police-office, to consult the magistrates upon the matter,
and ask for the protection of their property, in case of a
repetition of violence. Upon this, the Mayor (Mr.
Reekless) and magistrates had a private meeting, when
it was resolved to send an increased force of police out,
and to swear in a number of special constables, so that
they may be in readiness at a moment's notice, if
required. A youth who was captured at one of the
disturbances, was brought before the magistrates, and,
after paying the amount of damage and costs, was
discharged.

At the Middlesex Sessions, on the 24th inst., two cases
were brought before the court by a society called the
"Associate Institute for Improving and Enforcing the
Laws for the Protection of Women." The charges
were, indecent assaults upon girls, the particulars of
which are unfit for publication. One of the cases
"broke down," and in the other the jury, without
hesitation, returned a verdict of acquittal. The Assistant
Judge said a case of the same kind was tried before
him at the last session at Westminster, and the first he
had now tried was more disgusting, if possible, than
that to which he had just alluded, and which was also
prosecuted by this society. If they raked up such cases,
and prosecuted them as they did, without instructions,
no man would be safe from the accusation of the vilest
of women. With respect to the last case, he would
make this observation, which of course he had abstained
from making before the verdict of the jury was returned,
that the last answer he received from the father of the
girl was that he had given no instructions for the
prosecution, but that this society, or rather the solicitor, had
taken up the case, through seeing it in the newspapers.
Now, he wished to know what right the society,
however laudable its objects might be, had to prosecute
without instructions, merely for the sake of costs, and
he would say this, that a man was indicted for obtaining
money by false pretences by getting money paid to him
for a prosecution which he had taken up without
instructions, and if there had been money obtained in
these instances, there having been no instructions given,
that man's fate would have been staring the society in
the face. He had no great notion at all of volunteer
prosecutors; this society might be an admirably
conducted one, but it became a nuisance if it took up these
prosecutions for the mere sake of costs. These two cases
and another had occurred in about a fortnight, and it
ought to be discontinued. He should not allow the
costs.—Mr. Lawrence, the counsel for the prosecution,
said the court had allowed the costs before, and these
persons being very poor, the society aided and protected
them.—The Assistant Judge replied: That he had
thought in the other cases that instructions had been
given. Most certainly he should not allow these costs.—
A surgeon applied that his costs might be allowed. He
had examined one of the girls, and had been subpœnaed
to attend as a witness, but his evidence had not been
called for. He received one shilling conduct money
with his subpÅ“na.—The Assistant Judge said the question
was whether the county was to bear the expense of
his attendance, or was he to lose his time for nothing.
If there was any remedy against the society, he should
not hesitate for a moment to refuse; but he did not
think that a surgeon who was compelled to attend
should suffer through the proceedings of this society,
and he should, therefore, allow the usual costs to him
as a professional man, but he hoped there would be no
more such disgraceful proceedings.—On the following
day, Mr. Parry, the standing counsel for the society,
called the attention of the court to the observations
made by the Assistant Judge, reflecting on the society
and their solicitor. He found, from the newspaper
reports, that Mr. Serjeant Adams remarked that a case
which he had tried then, was "more disgusting, if
possible," than one which he had tried at the last session
at Westminster.—The Assistant Judge: Those were
the terms I used.—Mr. Parry said he knew they were
when he saw the report.—The Assistant Judge: I am
in the habit of speaking the truth.—Mr. Parry
proceeded: That report contained observations conveying
a very serious imputation on the society, and on their
solicitor. Now, he remembered those two cases very
well, but when they were tried he was unable to appear
himself, but his friend Mr. Lawrence kindly appeared
for him. They were cases which had been fully
investigated, and sent for trial by magistrates of equal rank
and character as himself (Mr. Serjeant Adams), and
who were gentlemen of ability and experience, though
not so high in position as he, and they were magistrates
of the county and of the metropolis.—The Assistant Judge
would willingly hear anything Mr. Parry had to say,
so long as what he did say was not irregular. What
Mr. Parry had just said was very irregular.—Mr. Parry:
Not half so irregular as your original observations.—
The Assistant Judge: Then, Mr. Parry, I cannot hear
anything more you have to say on the subject.—Mr.
Parry would say no more, then, of course.—The Assistant
Judge: Mr. Parry, I will listen to any language
which one gentleman may utter and another hear, but
in this court you shall use no other. I repeat over
again what I said yesterday, that a more disgusting
case was never brought before a jury. The jury
concurred.—Mr. Parry went on, at great length, to
justify his own regularity. He was about to make
a motion, and no judge could deprive him of
the right to do so. He would have replied to the
observations at the time they were made had he
been present, holding as he did, the general retainer of
the society, and knew all about it—how it was
conducted, and how composed. There being no public
prosecutor, this society had acted as it were in that
capacity in this particular class of offence, and yet the
term "disgusting" was applied to them. It was a
serious, a gross, and a sad piece of injustice to the
society and to their solicitor, and he could not for the
life of him understand what right a judge had to send
forth from his judgment seat a gross libel, which he
would not have dared to put in circulation privately.
He now formally asked Mr. Serjeant Adams to