The Principality

TO THE KUITOli OF THE PRINCIPALITY. S CR; Through the milium of your enlightened journal I put a few plain questions to the editor of the Merlin, on what seemed to me an important subject, a reply to which. I had a ri"ht to expect. The subject justified the queries, and it mat- ters little whether their author be anonymous or not. My in- nocent and natural procedure has excited the irascible gentle- man into a fury and although his wrath has not. resulted in "blood" or "fire," it has manifested itself in "vapours of si-noke." I had always thought him a polite individual, of his amiability J had heard, and I have had serious thoughts of throwing my bonnet at him, only that I coald not tolerate moral weakness or mental imbecility in a husband; but now bavin" "dubbed" me "ass" or "liar," let me tell him that: Mi°s Ninper has in time become wrathful, and may scratch his face before she has done. That he who looks at most thMva through a mist should sea me enthroned on a pair of koras is not at all to be wondered at. Natural and beautiful objects when seen in a fog often present a very queer and grotesque appearance and it is quite probable that a rational and sensible lady standing erect with feet firmly planted on tei-i-a jirma, putting an editor to the question, may seem to him in a situation hurtful to her dignity. In reply to my remark about his-want of principle, 1resays :— « We have been the advocates of rational liberty in commercial, political and ecclesiastical affairs." Let me ask him what he means bv liberty Does he mean what the Czar, the ^sdieated Emperor of Austria, and the childish Grand Duke of Tuscany mean by it ? I)oes he intend us to understand that he is the advocate of the liberty deemed rational when he was a young man ? If so> ^-is ideas intelligent Europe proclaims to be absurd now", and are gone, like the pig-tails worn then, out of fishion Is he not guilty of artifice in obscuring his sentiments, if he lus any, under the ambiguous phrase "rational libertry," which may mean anything or nothing ? It is plain that what he deems reasonable, judging by his article on the Roman Republic, I and the majority of your readers consider ridicu- lous. His sentiments on the most prominent questions of the day he leads us to believe have been often and fully declared. When did he pronounce on the principles and proceedings of] the Anti-State Church Association ?_ When did he ever give any lucid statement of his views on the six paints of the charter ? At; what period in his history did he give his reasons for or against the present movement in favour of arbitration instead! of war ? And when did this public writer" tell us what his thoughts are on Stated-education? I hxve: no hesitation in spying never. And these are the questions now of most import- ance since they command mast the attention of the popular mind. And when he does favour us with his lucubrations on any subject, what nerve, force, or pungency is there in his best productions ? After reading them.on a debated subject, are we-, not always left with the impression thst the "public writer} thinks very much may be said on both sides ?" lie has addressed himself to the performance of the task I ast him—that is to answer the questions which he say* "I so if iotiously put." He had first to show that the article quoted in his paper from the Sun, entitled, Revolutions of a year," is unsound in principle." It is, he say*, generally unsound, because it represents in the light of enduring changes, events of an uncertain character, in some cases already followed by reaction." Will it be believed, sir, that in the whole course of the article referred to there is not one word about the perma- nnce of the alterations spokenof?—and can it be credited that a writer in such a journal as the Sun should describe these "changes" as" cnduring" when they have already been foI- bv reaction"? Impossible. The author of the lieyo- lutions of a year" says, that in the events which have recently tifken place, the prophecies of Byron and Chateaubriand are 41 beholding their fulfilment." One of these men, says the writer, asserted that kings' days were coming to an end; the other maintained that the regeneration of society politically, socially, and intellectually, was no longer chili-iericil,-it had become a necessity which mankind would, of its own accord, Accomplish Now how the statement that these prophecies are beholding their tulfilment in the recent agitations of na- tions," can be made to mean that all the changes" referred to are enduring," I will not pretend to say. Who but a man in despair of making out his case would have put such an assertion on record ? The next proposition lie had to establish -was that the in- surrectionists of Rome," i. e. the Roman people, are under the control of base political adventurers." Has this been de- monstrated? No fact is cited in evidence, no argument is stated in proof. The false representation is again made, and nothing more. This part of the task is yet unaccomplished then. °Those forming the constituent assembly at Rome are designated conceited, babbling upstarts, and a blatant band of wandering democrats anxious for personal power;" but as to why he applies to them these choice epithets lie has left us in total darkness. Has he not been guilty of foul and m*li<matrt misrepresentation ? What shall be thought of the man-of the Liberal and the Reformer foriooth-who can call & band of pure and ardent patriots headed by such veterans as Sterbini, Muzzanelli,—the latter oi whom has been distin- guished'these thirty years for his great literary and forensic abilities and the Prince de Corsini, venerable no less for his political sagacity than for his patriarchal age (eighty-two), aId who can boast not only of popes but of a canonised saint in his family (Andrea Corsini), conceited, babbling up- starts ?— of the man who can represent as a band of blatant wandering democrats," an assembly of which the famous Maz- sini of European celebrity, and known in England as the elo. quent apostle of democracy," is a mam-ber > How shall we designate the editor who th'us maligns men whose earliest de- bates were described by a writer on the spot as remarkable for grave and earnest eloquence"—whose every enactment has been distinguished for moderation and wisdom—and who de- serve an immortality for one of their latest decrees—the one far abolishing the infernal inquisition ? They were elected by universal suffrage, and have the confidence of the people, in pi-oof of which I quote a late communication of the correspon- dent of the Daily Netos Though during the month of Rossi's administration, based on utter defiance of public opinion, there occurred either a murder or a robbery every second day at Rome, and in the legations the roads were scarcely passable in broad daylight, but "one single crime of this nature has been committed since the establishment ot a popular form of govern- ment; and the laws, as emanating from themselves, obtain respect from the poorest as well as the be ter orders of society. Oii -,vh-it ground are th.3 Republicans charged with personal ambition—men who, having the power in their own hands, have sacredly respected the person of the Pope, done every- thing in their power to govern with him, and who only deposed him when he ran away in the undignified disguise of a lacquey, and has rendered government with his aid an impossibility f Bonaparte, this public writer asserts, is the leader of tho Rom-.tn Republicans, ti-id li(, has been guilty of a misdeed. To s-how the groundlessness of this statement it will be sufficient fur me to quote the latest intelligence from Rome -11 Canino, m leader of the Opposition or Red Republican party, though lie assailed the executive on the 11th with the gestures of an Athlete aId the voice of a Stentor, was left in a p-oor minority, •and the confi fence of the Assembly reconfirmed in the Govern- ment." Whether the son of Lucieu be a good or bad man, it is plain he is not the leader of the Romans, and that he is no type of the members of their senate. If the editor condemn that gnve assembly for what Canino is, I shall expect him next to fulminate against the French Republic because of the excesses of Louis Blanc. The public writer" next attempts to demonstrate that the Roman Republicans have been actuated by ingratitude to the Pope, and under this head we h,ti e some rare specimens of « feeble cavils," and of what Jonathan would call powerful weak arguments. He tells us that the Romans were "not wngratefuf because they asked for more political power than he jj; would give — that," he adds, they were justified in doing." 'Why justified, Mr. Editor? Because beggars may ask but not take? or is it because they had a right to what- they requested ? 'Every people have a right to govern themselves. As no man says a luminous author can have any natural or inhe- rent right to rule any more than another, it necessarily fallows that a claim to dominion wherever it is lodged must be iilti- mat el v referred back to the explicit or implied consent of the people. And as the natural eqaaluy of one generation is the same with that of another, the pe)ple have always the a,i.4 set ctsido t-hfiir rut>ors. I ne: Romans felt what they so wdllexprcsse-l in their manifesto that the hour was come when Italy must cease to be a geo- graphical name and become a nation." The three millions of people." said their journals, forming the Roman states are not. a parish nor an ecclesiastical benefice, but a nstion deter- mined on self-government. And because the Romans are intelligent and "manly, and prove themselves wortny of their name-because they will govern themselves, and since they cannot uo it wiln tne rope tney wm uo is witnout nim, tney are what ir-11 grossly ungrateful," The, editors syllogism must run thus. The Rotnaivs have rights .-th I exer- cise those rights — therefore the: iv-e ungrateful. After this one we may expect the taWnted logician to, exercise his ingenuity in making anotbor to prove that a knife and a fork will boil a tea kettle." r The last point the public writhag to prove was, that the Romans have done more against the expansion of ra- tional liberty than Robespierre and his blood-dripping co- terrorists of the first revolution. And in his remarks under er this head, we have a striking illustration of Milton's phrase, "Confusion worse confounded. Indeed it is difficult to see at all what he is aiming at. His object should have been, I conceive, to show the extent of the injury done to liberty by Robespierre and his compeers, and then to prove from a com- parison of the conduct of both parties that the Romans have done the greater damage. Many," he asserts, who are not de- terred from supporting liberalism by what took place in France, are alarmed by what has happened in Italy." What rational man will agree with that statement ? The thing is too puerile to be seriously refuted. Then he adds, The well-known influence which the French revolution had upon the timid has died away but the treatment of the lontiff has rekindled the feeling of dread." Never mind, it only affects the timid. Men now sway the destinies of most European nations. The terrorists frightened the timid, and the Romans have rekindled the feeling of dread with the additional conviction that the popu- lace are as fickle now as half a century ago." Then it is clear from his own showing, that the evil done by both is precisely the same; therefore one cannot have done more injury than the other. But "the French revolution, we are informed, was directed against civil tyranny." Doøs it in this res-peet differ from the Romans ? Not at all. The Constituent Assembly have left the spiritual supremacy of his holiness untouched, and have even invited him to return to Rome to exercise his func- tions as Our Lord God the Pope." Here then again is no difference. But added to these nothings, consider how much worse the Romans are than the French, because they mur- dered Count Rossi." How ungenerous to charge the Roman Senate with the crime of a private assassin Some of the papers spoke of it as an unpremeditated act, prompted by the feelings excited by the count's hauteur, Other journals spoke of a plot among fifteen young men of the city to take his life but nothing has yet transpired to criminate those now forming the Government. They are as reasonably charged with it as the French Government with the assassination of the Arch- bishop of Paris. But supposing Count Rossi was murdered at Rome by her present senators, have they, as this editor repre- sents, done more therefore to injure the cause of "liberty than Robespierre," &c., when under the regimen of the last-named gentleman a king and queen, princes and princesses, together withcounts and countesses almost innumerable, were beheaded ? But, says my opponent, anticipating this query, "the French revolution did not begin with assassinations." Indeed! and what has that to do with the matter ? Just as much as what happened in France the year before that revolution. His busi- ness was to compare what has been done at Rome with what was done in France during the reign of terror and to prove, by the comparison, that the Romans are greater sinners than the terrorists. Well, how does this slippery gentleman ma- nage ? In order to help us to form an estimate of the evil done by the Roman revolution, and to prove that it was greater than that done by the "terrorists," he compares it with a pgriodan- terior to the" reign of terror." Ought he not to have a chair at one of our universities as Professor of Logic ? Before this new light," Whately, hide thy diminished head." But he says, the "Roman Republic has yet only existed a few days." It is manifest that we can only judge of its acts by what it has done,-we have, in the present discussion, nothing to do with their proceedings in the future. Unless Merlin can prove the Romans worse than the "terrorists," from their past history, we know he cannot from their future conduct. I am glad to have done with this blatant" editor, proud to have defended the Roman patriots from his aspersions, and to have raised my feeble voice in support of the glorious cause of democracy. I have, I believe, proved the utter groundless- ness of the charges urged by him against the Roman Govern- ment, and have shown that the editor of the Merlin, i"n his article in answer to my letter, has either proclaimed himself an ass," or that he now" stands convicted as the calumniator of the Roman patriots, as the insidious enemy of freedom, and the blind and bigoted partisan of the Pope and Papacy," and on the horns of this dilemma I leave him." Yours,.& SUSAN NIPPER.

THE REV. J. SHORE.—RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION. TO THE 1MUI-.XDS OF CIVIL AND 11KLIGI0U3 LIBERTY THROUGH- OUT TIIE PHINCIL'ALITY. The crisis has arrived when the zealous and watchful sons of civil Mid. religious liberty are summoned to utter their united And solemn protest againstthe unchristian and cruel conduct of the notorious Bishop of Exeter, in the imprisonment. of Mr. Shore, for daring to preach the Gospel of universal love and liberty beyond the pale of that Church established and sus- tained by human law. I was highly delighted in perusing.the report of the great meeting held at Exeter Hall, the scriptural principles advanced, and the intense feeling of sympathy ex- pressed towards that devout man of God who is now the suffer- ing victim of ecclesiastical perfidy and injustice. It is not only our duty to proclaim, with the voice of thunder, our holiest detestation of ecclesiastical wrongs, but to seek by every prompt and. legitimate means the abrogation of every law which stands opposed to the liberty of conscience, which is so degrading to the intellectual and moral character of man, so subversive of the genius and design of the Christian system. Is it necessary for the sturdy sons of Gwalia, the Nonconformists of the nine- teenth century, to have additional victims placed upon the altar of clerical immolation erw their latent andslumberingener- gies arc aroused into worthy action—combined, powerful, and living action—which shall contribute to the speedy and public empalement of that barbarous law, in the presence of a free and admiring people ? Doubtless there are other noble victims in store, who being eminently endowed with p ),.ver from on high, signally clothed with the meekness and gen leness of Christ, fitted to shine lv-ith.poeiliar sl)lendour in the firmament of the Church, and to proclaim the stupendous message of the cross to admiring multitudes, yet at the present mo.nent they are silenced, and their important labours lost to the public. If the unrighteous law be not speedily revoked, and if the Christ- lik.e Noel should venture to cross the barrier, in the name and power of his Divine Master—if this step of Nonconforming defiance to the existing law be taken, and thus become a noble victim to the prelatical vulture of London—the painful and solemn fact, I am certain, would touch the very spring of national sympathy and deepest indignation—would arouse the activities of the country, and fill the true spiritual Zion with the choicest tears of weeping and lamentation. The cruel fact is before us, not in the person of a seraphic Noel, but in that of a faithful Shore therefore, my fellow-countrymen, I most solemnly conjure you in the name of your forefathers, who studied, wrote, and prayed for you, who suffered, bled, and died to purchase your present freedom, in the name of liberty, conscience, truth, and God, the universal sovereign, I conjure you to the prompt and zealous discharge of duty—let the mantle of departed Nonconformists rest upon you—catch the.spirit which they breathe. and tread with unfaltering step in their virtuous and self-denying path—come out from your sectarian iiielosurei in defeuec of great principles—to express your sympathy with an imprisoned brother, and to record your utter abhorrence of that iniquitous law which has thrust a good nun into a miser- able dungeon. to t'ie (-tlL of the Patxun>\MTY —let there he meetings convened in towns, villages, and hamlets through the length and breadth of the land —let there b. reso- lutions passed, and petitions adopted and presented to the Par- liament of our country—let your voice be heard—your indigna- tion felt-speak the word, and the accursed law shall be blotted out, and the honoured captive shall go forth to liberty. Yours fraternally, Morlais, Merthyr. A. P. JONES.

THE RIGHT HON. FOX MAULE AND THE DISSENTERS OF PKUTH.—We learn from the Scottish Press that the Dis- scnters of Perth have very properly called their represen- tative to account for his vote on the Church-rate question. The following is the reason assigned for his conduct by the right honourable gentl(,iian :I, It would have- given me much pleasure to support Mr. Trelawny's motion for the abolition of Church-rates, had any less invidious mode of maintaining: the fabric of the existing Churches been pointed out; but I was not prepared to vote to an abstract resolution which proposed no substitutes for present rates." Cau !{CH-aATE IN SOUTHAMPTON.— There are nearly 3,(0) defaulters in the parish. Summonses were granted hut week by the Southampton magistrates against several parishioners of St. Mary's, for non-payment of Church-ratea, and if the rate proves valid, the rest of the defaulters wiil be prosecuted for non-pay ment. The whole of them have determined to ret'iwe payment, and to allow tlvur good* to be seized, or go to prison rather th.m pay thcperseelltillg: earl. An Association is forming jn the town to collect funds, defray the legal expenses of the defaulters, and support while in prison any of them who may require such,aid.

THE TRIAL OF RUSH. The trial of James Bloomfteld Rush, at the Norwich Aasir.es, for the murder of Mr, Jermy, commenced on Thursday. Few new facts appeared in the evidence. The local'gentry attended in groat numbers the Earl of Leicester, Earl Cadogan, the Bishop of Norwich, and several members of Parliament, were present. Mr. Baron Rolfe w$s the Judge Mr. Sergeant Byles^ Mr. Prejnderg&st, and Air. Ey»ns appeared for the Crown the defence was'conducted by the prisoner himself, without pro- fessionaT assistance, On being called on to plead, he said in a firm and distinct tone, "Not Guilty," and put in the same answer to an indict- ment on the coroner's inquisition. On one 'juror having been passed over he asked, Why has he been challenged ?" and the clerk of the Court informed him he was challenged by the Crown. The prisoner challenged one juror only, but after the first two or three had been sworn, said, turning to the jury- box,—"There is one observation I should like to make to those gentlemen if they have anything on their minds which might have any influence over their verdict, I hope they will retire without my challenging them, and let others take their place. If they have expressed any opinion as to the trial, they ought to do so. I don't know how many of them there may be, but I hope those who may be influenced will retire." The jury having been sworn, the prisoner said,—" My lord, I wish to make an observation before the counsel makes his address." Mr. Baron Rolfe This is not a time at which you can make any observation. The Prisoner: The evidence has been got up in such an extraordinary way,— Mr. Baron Rolfe: That is matter for observation afterwards. I cannot hear it now. Mr. Sergeant Byles then proceeded to state the case for the Clown. The prisoner was debtor to Mr. Jermy in 1:5,000, se- cured by a mortgage of Potash farm, under which Mr. Jermy mig,ht take possession of that farm on the 30th October, 1848, if the money were not paid. In addition, Rush was tenant of two farms of Mr. Jermy, called Stanfield farm and Felmingham farm. Rush lived on the Stanfield farm-house, at about a mile from Mr. Jenny's house of Stanfield Hall. It seems that Rush got into arrears of his rent and mortgage interest, and had been sued at law and ejected from one of the farms. The title to the two farms held of Mr. Jermy has been litigated between Mr. Jermy and some other descendants of a common ancestor and some of the representatives of Mr. Jermy's opponents had visited at Rush's house. He espoused their cause, and pub- lished a pamphlet in which he spoke of Mr. Jermy as a man without common honesty and a villain snying-" lIe has no right to the Stanfield Hall property; he knows it, and he knows I know it as well." If there is truth in the Bible, such villany is sure to be overtaken, and that when it is least expected." On the 3rd October, two claimants of the property, named Jermy and Larner, met him in London by appointment, at the room of Miss Emily Sandford, whom he represented as a lady of property that would help them to regain their inherit- ance and he made an agreement with the two men, under which he engaged to help them to recover the Felmingham farm, and they in return granted him a lease of it at a beneficial rent from the 11th October, 1848. These two persons went down to Felmingham to take possession, but returned next day. The mode in which Rush obliged Miss.Sandford to sign some .simulated deeds, his habits of going out at night after poachers, and the circumstances under which he left his house on the 28th of November a short time before the murders, as well as the facts of the murder, were stated as they had already been narrated. The witnesses examined on the first day were Mr. Cann, a solicitor; Eliza Chestncy, the house-maid; Watson, the butter; and Reid, the cook. Eliza Chestney was still suSeringseverely. She was introduced lying upon a neatly-constructed litter, which was borne into court upon the shoulders of four men and, in order to afford sufficient accommodation, the witness- box was removed, and the space near it cleared. The side of the bed was so placed that the face of the unfortunate girl was turned towards the prisoner, and, by means of pillows, obliquely towards the ju lge. She answered all the questions with great firmness and confidence. Her voice is described as singularly musical; and it is observed, that Chief Baron Pollock, who stood among the spectators, was affected to tears the moment he heard her speak. When she was removed, the court gave way for a few moments to the excitement which so singular a scene had produced. The prisoner, with great coolness, cross-examined the wit- nesses, with the object of showing material discrepancies between their present testimony and their depositions before the coroner and magistrates; but he did not make out any points of importance. The reporters give sketches of Rush s aspect and carriage. This is from the Times—" Without any attempt at minute de- scription, it may be said that Rush is a powerfully-made man, with strong but rather coarsely-moulded limbs, and below, rather than above the middle height. His shoulders, which are slightly inclined forwards, support a short bull neck, on which a large and massive [globular] head, which a craniologist would declare indicative of the possession of strong animal passions and considerable intellectual power, is firmly set, in such a way as to render it rather difficult for its owner to look straight before him. His mouth, and the general formation of his jaw, and of the lower put of his face, betray great determi- nation, and -,Ijl unflinching will." Another says —" He may be called a well-looking man; his countenance presenting no dis- agreeable feature, rather the reverse. He is of a ruddy com- plexion, and wears full whiskers, which pass under the chin and encircle .the face. His hair is inclining to grey but his whole appearance may be said to indicate a man even younger than he is described to be." Again-" Ile has undergone little change from his long confinement. His hand trembled very muyh occasionally, and his body now and then was slightly agitated; but h;s voice and bearing were perfectly firm, and tempered by an air of submission very like what might be ex- pected in tin injured man. He looked confidently arl>un.1 him, but not with an expression of bravado; for he seemed to feel perfectly the danger of his position; and it was a most remark- able spectacle to see the resolution with which he went through long cross-examinations of the witnesses produced—asking the most minute questions, and yet never appearing to give way to any flippancy of manner. Little incidents during the trial ap- peared LO affect him much. The juige complained of the noise in the court, as very injurious to the fair hearing of the! prisoner's cause; and instantly his voice became broken and his frame agitated by the strength of his emotions. The de- scription of the murders by Sergeant Byles seemed to affect him and his voice lost its firmness, and his whole manner its resolute tone, at the most telling parts of Eliza Chestney's evidence. On Friday the prisoner deliberately and systematically arranged his papers whilst the jury was sworn. He appeared collected, and during the pause that ensued before the ap- pearance of the first witness he carefully surveyed the audience. Emily Sandford was then called. She was dressed in mourning, and looked very pale. She was quite collected anl firm. Rush hastily rose after she had been sworn, and said the witness could prove his innocence he felt it his duty to say this, for he possessed, in such a matter as this, a higher power than his lordship.—More than five hours were occupied by the examination in chief of Miss Sandford. She entered the box with tottering steps, emaciated and pale but she gave evi- dence clearly and distinctly, without wavering from the tenor of what she said before the magistrates —indeed, detailing more incriminating facts. The prisoner continued to act his part with self-control and clear intellect, but totally without tact or deli- cacy, and was frequently interrupted by the judge. This scene is a sample. Prisoner: From what you have seen of my character, and of my ateention to my religious duties, can you, speaking solemnly before God, think that I could be guilty of this erl!nc "Witness: You always were amiable in temper to me, and I never knew you otherwise to anyone else. You had prayers read everv morning since yon ca.ne^to Potash (sensation). Prisoner: Have you not, when I was at prayers, knelt down at the bed side by me and said your prayers at the same time? — The witness, who became much excited, we understood to deny having done so often; upon which The" prisoner said, I know you did. Hive you ever given me any reason to believe that your conduct was not consistent with the prayers which you then offered up? — Witness: Do you complain of my conduct towards you? Prisoner: No, my dear; but I repeat the question, I hope I feel that your conduct towards me at that time wis always what, it should be. Have 1 not often told yoti that my expenses were less with yoa than they had ever been previously?—Wit- ness: Yes. I thought I was expensive, anJ asked you when You said to me that the amount of your expenses were less than You had previously incurred. Prisoner: I served a notice upon you to produce your house- keeping account books. The Judge: Do you produce tlnse books ? fitness (Ln tezirs) I c iii't, -)).y ler -Mr. Rush took them from' me. iJ:-iso«er: Did you iir> I any such books among my papers, 'r. u.iii?—Mr. Caan The Judge What can be your object in all this, prisoner ? It has nothing whatever to do with the ease. Prisoner: My object is to show the little expense we were at. The Judge I dare say that will be admitted. Prisoner Have I not promised that you would never want a. home while I had one?- Withess You said so. Prisoner Was it not on that condition that it was agreed between us, that after the second child was born all connexion would cease between us, and that I would be kind to you if you continued to be my housekeeper ?—Witness, who was greatly y agitated, said, "Yes. Prisoner: At the time this conversation took place, was it hot agreed between us that one of my daughters should sleep hi the same room with you ? and have you the least doubt that it was done for your good, and that I was sincere when I made that i proiiiisc;-NVitness: You had promised me marriage (sensation). Prisoner Do you recollect the reasons which I gave you for pressing on you that course ?-NVitiiess No. Prisoner: Dor.'t you recollect it was that we must not have a house full of childrcn ?-The witness (weeping bitterly) You must do this to wound my feelings. The Judge: I can't allow you, prisoner, to hurt the fjelings of the witness in this manner. All this has no bearing on the case and were you defended by counsel you would not be permitted to put such questions at all, f The'witness continued under examination when the expre left at eight, she having been in the box since ten in the morn- ing. The court rose at ten minutes past eight, and the cross- examination of Emily Sandford was to be resumed on the morrow. There are in all fifiy-three, witnesses for the prose-, cution, ten of whom only have been e-iamiiiedlip to this time. On Saturday, the- proceedings in this case were resumed. Thousands assembled before the court as early as six o'clock in the morning, anxiously awaiting the opening of the doors. The jury, on entering, presented a dismal appearance, being farmers, accustomed to the open air. It seems they rose shortly before five o'clock, and, by way of exercise, were marched round the Castle walk, in the custody of the officers and a dozen javelin men. Rush seemed to have lost little or none of his natural self-possession, and coolly bowed to one or two of his acquaintances whom he recognised in the body of the court. He had been engaged all night writing in his cell. Emily Sandford was again placed in the witness-box, being accom- modated with a seat. She seemed to be in an almost exhausted condition, and looked deadly pale. The tenor of the questions put to her may be judged of from the fact that the judge was frequently obliged to interrupt the prisoner. On one occasion when the witness, overpowered, burst into tears, which flowed freely for a few minutes, and caused a little delay, the juclgil said to the prisoner I wish to explain to you, as you are not familiar with these matters as we are, that any points you make you very much Aveiken by the irrelevant questions you asit. You run great risk, in asking these questions, of hurting your- self, and weakening the effect you might otherwise make on the minds of the jury.—Prisoner They are of the greatest import- ance, my lord, as you'll by-and-by see Emily Sandford was recalled, and Rush proceeded to examine her at great length upon her depositions taken before the magistrates. The learned judge had frequent occasion to call him to order for the irrelevancy of some questions, and the improper manner in which he put others. Prisoner (to the witness): Do you recollect me ever putting my name to any paper with Mr. Jenny's signature to itWit- ness No. Prisoner (to the judge): Have you put that down?—The Julge: Not yet. Prisoner: Then put it down. (Laughter.) The Judge Did you ever see him sign a paper in which the name of Jermy appeared?—Witness I can't recollect whether or not I did, my lord. Prisoner (to the judge) Put that down. The Judge Could you see whether Mr. Jermy's nnme was attached to the documents when they were folded up Wit- ness Not always, my lord. At the conclusion of Emily Sandford's cross-examination, she retired from the Court, after being in the witness-box up- wards of sixteen hours. The next witness was William Boweii, who was at Stanfield Hall on the night of the murder, and found a ramrod there, which he produced. Several other witnesses were examined, and the court rose till Monday. On Moiiday the excitement with respect to the tri,ll still continued, and numbers continued to fp-ckto the court, j,l the hope of being enabled to get a glimpse of the prisoner. The jury were carefully guarded on Sunday, when they at- tended service in the cathedral, morning and Rush was placed in the dock at nine o'clock, having, as before, a vast quantity of papers with him. The tirst witness was Point, who took Rush into custody, lie proved finding a wet pair of boots, two loaded double-bar- relled guns; that the clock at Potash was a quarter of an hour faster than that at Stanfield Hall; that it took him 40 minutes to walk between the two that Rush made use of the rcnnrk- able ex oressioi, "You say that the murder was committed at eight o'clock, did not you;" and that Mortar, a constable, replied, "Nobody named the time." In going from the Bridewell to Stanfield Hall Rush asked who was it at Potash that named the time of the murder? In reply to Rush the witness said at that time his impression was that it had been mentioned, but ha found subsequently that it had not. Baron Rolfe said that the witness might commit minor dis- crepancies, but the prisoner's cross-examination had led him to confirm ten thousand more important ones. Rush said the witness had perjured himself. Thompson, another constable, corroborated the material portion of the above. The witness Howe was recalled, and sharply cross-examined by the prisoner. He swore positively to the use by Rush of the expression at Simmonds', the night-house, in Strand, that "he would serve Mr. Jermy with a notice of eject- ment for another world," and that if he was a righting man he would knock him down like a bull. All the documents were read, and the case for the prosecution closed at half-past five, when the court rose, Rush having sought permission to reserve his defence till the morning. On Tuesday before the reporters were admitted the governor, Mr. Pinson, called them together, and expressed a hope that they would keep their penknives, or anything which might be made available as a weapon, out of the reach of Rush, statin that he did not ask this without reason. We understand that during the night the prisoner became exceedingly violent, and vowe l revenge towards the witnesses who had given evidence against him. It was, therefore, feared that lie might lay violent hands upon his own life if the means were placed within his power, or attack any one within his reach. In consequence of the threats used, and the apparently ungovenuble rage which had taken possession of the prisoner, the spikes round the dock were covered, some time before the meeting of the court, with long and stout pieces of wood. The conduct of Rush during the night, we were tolci, wus ferocious iu the extreme, and more like that of a demon than a human being.—The court was crowded and these revelations caused he greatest excitement in the court. Rush then proceeded to address the jury in his defence. lie spoke first in a thick voice, but soon regained his usual com- posure. H: implored them to deal justly with him, and at the outset proclaimed his innocence, admitting freely that from the enmity that existed between him and the Jennys, it was natural he should have been suspected of this horrible crime—the most grave and important charge that they could be called upon to try. He trusted that his lordship would, as far as was consist- ent with his position as judge, assist him in his defence. Mr. Baron Rolfe bowed assent. Rush went on to complain that witnesses had been examined against him, without either himself or the reporters being pre- sent, which he considered not only cruel in the extreme, but unconstitutional. He proclaimed his innocence, and iie should clearly show it by wit;ies~e-». God knew that his heart was free from tiudt, and he prayed he would strengthen him to prove ii, and the jury to be so convinced, and to do him justice, for his own life and the happiness of his dear young children depended upon the issue. He then explained his conduct on th-i night of the murder. I.did not leave Potash on that night until eiyht or half-past eight. I then went out to look for poachers. At first I thought I would go over to the hall, but recollecting what I had said, I made up my mind not to go. I walked towards the fence, about nve minutes' walk, when I heard plainly the report of a gem or pistol. Immediately after I heard another, but not so loud. I was struck wiih amaze- ment, as I thought if they intended to take fire-arms th; y would only use them for intimidation. I then heard the alarm bell rung loudly. I hastened back to Potash as quick as 1 could, going into the house by the garden gate. It was impossible the witnesses could recognise the features or figure of the murderer, disguised as iiewis. I bore no malice in my heart to Mr. Jei-inv, senior, though he had tried to ruin me. Much of the evidence was false, and the prosecution unfairly conduct- ed." No man, he said, coul 1 love a woman more--ftnidv or more truly than he did Emily Sandford. But she had been^ made a tool of for tae purposes of t-his inquiry. Her evidence was full of inconsistencies in rr.:iiiv Sue had comsnitred! perjury. lie should produce lho boots he woni)nth2 aight of-the murder. Speaking of the th:>eu saki to ha-vc-beon ntje* to Howe, he said he never de-hire i his1 feeungs so-strong-iv as to Mr. Jermy himstdf. He had lost his hair air! bought.a "wit?