Papurau Newydd Cymru
Chwiliwch 15 miliwn o erthyglau papurau newydd Cymru
5 erthygl ar y dudalen hon
IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.
IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. ASSESSED RATES. Mr Goschen explained his Bill on Thursday for amending the law with respect to Rates assessed on occupiers for short terms. Disclaiming at the outset any intention to revive the controversy of 1867, or to disturb the electoral machinery of the Reform Act, be dwelt on the numerous inconveniences produced by the abolition of the compounding system, which in many places had led to illegal arrangements between landlords and tenants with the collusion of the parochial authorities, and in others to excuses on an enormous scale. The difficulty he pointed out arose from this—that a Rate was always made in advance- never for less than a quarter of a Ytlar-and that the overseers had no legal power to collect Rates by in- stalments, although it was occasionally done by arrange- ment. The Bill, therefore, would go on the principle that in the case of weekly tenements it would be wiser to look rather to the landlord than the tenant as ultimately responsible tor the Rate. It proposed that the occupier for short terms should continue to be rated, and to have his name on the rate-book but that he should be at, liberty to deduct whatever Rates be paid from the rent due or accruing to the landlord. And lest be should be called on to pay a larger proportion of the Rate than would be covered by his tenincy, the over seers would be enabled to collect the Rate by instal- ments, with the proviso that no weekly tenant should be called on at one time to pay a larger sum than would amount to two weeks' rent. ThIs would Dot interfere with voluntary arrangements between land- lord and tenant-in fact, it would rather encourage them. The landlord would be compensated for this additional liability by a lower assessment of his houses. Finally, Mr Goschen explained that the Bill would apply to all boroughs Parliamentary and others. Mr Goldney remarked of the Bill that it seemed needlessly roundabout, and that the same end might have been attained by rating the landlord and collect- ing the Rates from him directly. Mr Bright repeated the oft narrated hardships of the town of Birmingham under the new system, and expressed a hope that the Bill, which offered a fair settlement of an embarrassing difficulty, would be dis- discussed without any party heat. Mr Lowther promised for the Opposition that it should be considered in a candid; spirit. The Bill was brought in. THE IRISH CHURCH. On Monday evening the House of Commons was crowded in every part. The Peers met early, and soon adjourned that they might be in time to hear the Premier in the other House. In the front row of their gallery the Archbishop of Canterbury, Duke of Cambridge, and Duke of Argyll sat together behind, Lord Hatberley's venerable head contrasted with the boyish looks of the youngest peer on the roll-the Duke of Norfolk. Dean Stanley, the Irish Chancellor, Mr Reverdy Johnson, and other diplomatists were also present. For three hours and a quarter the close attention of this large assembly was held by Mr Gladstone's delivery of one of his finest speeches, a model of calm. dispassionate, yet vigorous aud spirited argument aud lucid exposition. Excusing himself from the repetition of the well-worn and familiar arguments of Ia. session and the hustings, he contrived in a few broad, masterly strokes to give an artistic picture of the Church whose abolition he as- sumed had be,-n decreed by the voice alike of the late Parliament and the couutry which returned the present one—a church with, in many place, little else than a mere official population, buttressed by grants to Presby- terians and Catholics, and flagrantly unj ust and ano- malous that it had actually to be partly pulled down and wasted away by special rnactments, in order that its magnitude cons pared with its duties might not check the public eye too much. The prominent objections to t disestablishment and disendowmeut were sur^uiarlly reviewed and dismissed. Before it could oo said that such a policy would injure Prqt^tantfsm it should first be shown that the existing system had been a benefit. An illvasif1 oi the rights of property might perhaps bo i charged against the Church Temporalities Act c-f i«33, but not against the present measure; except on the ab- surd and futile pretence rarliarac-nt, which had absolute power over the course of property in the case of natural dasttent, had no right when once the artificial [ existence of what was called a corporaie,1 cad been created to control the existence of hf4t corporation, or I te extinguish it even qn4e? the gravest public exigency. As to the Act of Union there might be a verbal altera- tion in its terms, but its whole spirit and purport would be strethened and confirmed. Taking his stand on the fixed and definite assumption that the Irish Church must be abolished, he next defined the principles which should govern the process—while conducted not only with equity but indulgence towards existing interests, it must be prompt, final, and decisive, relieving the church, on the one hand, from the misery of a lingering death, and the kingdom from an irritating and dangerous controversy. Unfolding the plan of operations in the order of time, Mr Gladstone exhibited the various phases of existence through which the church would pass before it finally emerged in the character of a voluntary religious association. The exposition had much the effect of a dissolving view. You saw the scene gradually breaking up; new tints and outlines replacing each pnrt before it had faded quite away cer- tain features of the original design lingering oddly amid completely changed surroundings, like trees at sea, or a Greek temple in the Alps, till at last they too vanished, and the new picture was completely revealed, all traces of its predecessor having disappeared. First, the existing Ecclesiastical Commission gives way to the fresh one. Here and there small details undergo a change, incumbents as they die out being either re- placed provisionally, or their offices left vacant. After a pause of some eighteen months the draperies of Estab- lishment fall from off the church, her ministers losing all official rank, in the State, her bishops subsiding into ordinary commoners, and all ecclesiastical laws and jurisdiction ceasing except as a voluntary contract; the new governing body, devised by the bishops, clergy, and laity in consultation, and thoroughly representative of all three, as the government will have to be satisfied before recognizing it, now stands revealed. The only surviving relics of the old church are the life interests of incumbents, which are gradually absorbed by death cf inctimbeiat,?, which ire or commutation. With the establishment fade away too the Regium Donum and the Maynooth Grant, and after ten years the temporary Commission vanishes as well, and the Irish Church remains a simple, voluntary body amid other voluntary bodies who all rank equal with it in the eye of the State. During the first part -of Mr Gladstone's speech his audience were more charmed by his lucid simplicity of exposition than much interested in his plan. He had spoken for nearly two hours and attention was some- what flagging, when he stimulated it into a more earnest curiosity than before by the mention of the magic words Tithe Commutation Rent-charge. This was passing from what to many members doubtless savoured rather of abstract theory inio a very practical region indeed, where they were quite at home and personally interested in what mLht happen. There was a general production of pencils and fumbling for bits of paper for note-taking purposes, and Mr Gladstone's calculations on the sub- ject were closely taken down and checked, no doubt, with certain private applications of the figures. The result, on the whole, seemed to be satisfactoy. The sellers of rent-charges will get twenty-two and a half years' purchase, instead of the ordinary market price of six- teen or seventeen years and the public will not suffer, Mr Gladstone argued, by a lone at :3 per cent., which is what the tranctions will be indirectly. Mr Gladstone now proceeded to reckon np the capital in hand af ter'd isendo wing the church. Its income he fixed between the calculation of the Royal Commission and that of Colonel Adair, at £ 700,900 a year. The capi- tal account was thus composed Tithe-rent charge £ 9,000,000 Land and perpetuity rents. 6,250,000 Funds invested and in bank. 750,000 £16,000,000 The charges against this fund are as follows :— Life interests of 2,000 incumbents, in- cluding S800,000 to curates £ 4,900,000 Lay compensations, including £ 300,000 for ad vow sons 900,000 Private endowments 500,000 Building charges 250,000 Presbyterian claims and Maynooth 1,100,000 Expense of temporary Commission 200,000 j67,850,000 Having thus in hand beetween £ 7,000,000 ana £ 8,000,000 of surplus, the question arose, What waa to be done with it?" And here the attention of the House become still more concentrated, for the secret had been well kept, and as Mr Gladstone artfully raised one suggestion after another for its disposal, only to dis- miss it with some sharp peremptory argument, his hearers grew almost excited in their curiosity. It most be given exclusively to Ireland. No ecclesiastical object was permissible, no use involving indirect relief to im- perial taxation, or in the burdens which the rioh had had to bear for the poor. The county cess, which presses heavily on those least able to bear it, met these conditions, and the proposal of the Government is to apply the money to the purposes of this tax — that is to say, the relief of unavoidable calamity and snffering not provided for by the poor law, the maintenance of lunatic asylums, idiot, asylums, training schools for the deaf, dumb, and blind training schools for nnrses, and county infirmaries. The announcement was ap- parently so unexpected that members were not pre- pared to greet it with a responsive cheer; but the re- mark that such a use could not be called a secularization of property was afterwards warmly applauded, as was also Mr Gladstone's eloquent though, perhaps, rather too slowly solemn peroration. Mr Disraeli contented himself with declaring the unchanged opinion of his party as to the impropriety of a confiscating policy, although they were obliged to vied to public opinion in the matter, and, admitting that something must be done, reserved his criticism for a future occasion. 1- AGRICULTURE. A motion by Mr Acland for a Select Committee to inquire into the expediency of committing to some one department the duty of dealing with administrative and legislative questions affecting agriculture, gave rise to a debatg, on Tuesday, the chief interest of which attached to Mr Bright's connection with the subject. Mr Acland's notion was that a special department of the Board of Trade should be created for agricultural questions, and mentioned that at a recent bucolic par- liament the farmers present had expressed a strong desire to place themselves in Mr Bright's hands. Mr Bright acknowledged the compliment and referred to his successful efforts to benefit the agricultural com- munity by procuring for them the blessings of free trade. The best advice he could now give them was to come as little as possible to any Government office. They had much better take care of themselves and trust to their own exertions. Their present restlessness reminded him of the lady who sent for the doctor i, because she felt so well she was sure something was going to happen to her." Reviewing the long list of subjects which Mr Acland had suggested—transfer of land, improvement of cottages, cattle traffic, drainage, and tenant right (rather a delicate sub- ject for hon. gentleman opposite) — he said he wondered the Board of Trade was not asked also to deal with the question of the game laws. There were already six important departments, with fifty-seven subdivisions, at the Board of Trade, and it was proposed to effect a mutual exchange in regard to certain duties between the Board and the Home Office. He hoped, for one thing, that the statistical work of his office would soon be much improved. He would take care that agriculture was not neglected. Although the motion for a committee had been supported by Sir S. Xorthcote and other members, Mr Acland, satisfied with Mr Bright's assurance, withdrew it.
LIVERPOOL RACES.- WEDNESDAY.
LIVERPOOL RACES.- WEDNESDAY. GRAND NATIONAL STEEPLECHASE. The Colonel, 1 Hallcourt, 2; Gardener, 3. Twenty-two ran.
HUNTING APPOINTMENTS.
HUNTING APPOINTMENTS. Mr. Powell's Hounds will: meet on Tuesday, at Trawsmawr Gate, and on Friday, at Pass Bye each day at 10 30. a.m. Mr Pryse's Harriers will meet on Monday, at Glanrafon Thursday at Alltywalis Finger-post; each day at half-past ten; Saturday, at Pantseuy Mountain-gate, at eight o'clock. The Pembrokeshire Foxhounds will meet on Monday, Sth at Ford Bridge, and on Thursday, lltb at the ken- nels, Haverfordwest, each day at half-past ten. Mr Lloyd Price's Harriers will meet on Monday, at Trawsmawr Gate, and on Friday, at Rbydygie each day at 11 o'clock. The South Pembrokeshire Hounds will meet on Tuesday, March 9th, at Jeffreston Village, and on Friday, 12th, at Quoit's Mill each day at 10.30. The Vale of Ayron, Capt. Vaughan's, will meet on Thursday, March 11th, at Llanwnen, and on Saturday, 13th, at Bwlch Debewydd each day at 10.30. The Tivy Side Foxhounds will meet on Tuesday, March 9th, at Aberceri Bridge, and on Thursday, 11th, at Fynone each day at 10.30.
Family Notices
BIRTHS. Rowi.AND.-On the 22nd ult., at Dolaeron, Llangeitbo, Cardiganshire, the wife of tho Rev. Lewis T. Rowtand, Vicar of Gartheli, of a son. GEORGE.-On the 28th ult., at 1811LOd Row, io this town the wife of Mr John George, carpenter, of son. H.?-On the 23rd ult., at AbeJystwith, the .ife of E. Hamer Esq., traffic manager of tho Manchester and Milford Railway, of a son. MARRIAGES. EmvARns-WiLLiAMS.-On the 2nd inst, at St. SP??mr<-h Carmarthen, by the Rev Lat.m?M. Jones. Mr John Edwards, late of Anne Williams, of the Printer's Arms, Priory-street, Carmarthen, DEATHS, WlL.lAMS.-On the 28th   age, Anne, the daughter of the Rev James William., £ ?»' the Cambrian S.«, O—- then,
-, I - PEMBROKESHIRE ASSIZES.r'
Jury for the county of Pembroke :-E. T. Massy, Esq., Cottesmore (foreman) J. Bowen, Esq., Haverford- west; H. S. Allen, Esq., Cresselly; R. D. Ackland, Esq., Boulston; Chas. Allen, Esq, Tenby R. 1-1. Bucky, Esq., Begelly Robert Anderson, Esq., Cosheston; F. L. Clark, Esq., Pembroke J. 0. Edwardes, Esq., Castlegorfod W. Fortune, Esq., Lewiston; G. A. Harries, Esq., Hilton; S. Harford, Esq., Clarbeston Grange; Jiis. 4Higgon, Esq., Scolton George James, Esq., Woodston; J. M. Jones, Esq, Sutton Lodge; J. L. G. P Lewis, Esq., Henllan; H. Leach, Esq., Corston W. Owen, Esq., Withybush Baron F. de Rutzen, Slebech Hall W. Richards, Esq., Tenby; G. R. G. r,(ies, Esq., Penllwyn Geo. Rowe, Esq., Haverfordwest N. A. Rocb, Esq., Paskeston Admiral Stokes, Scotch Wells M. A. Saurin, Esq., Orielton J. Stokes, Esq.. Cuffern B. Summers, Esq., Milton House W. Walters, Esq., Haverfordwest. The Grand Jury for the Town and County of Haver- fordwest comprised :—Mr Thomas Rowlands, Glenover Mr J. Brown, Market-street Mr Alfred Beynon, Bridge-street; Mr W. Blethyn, High-street; Mr J. Green, Quay-street; Mr S. Green, High-street Mr R. Greenish, Market-street Mr R..J i-n s, High-street; Mr D. E. James, Old Bridge; Mr W. Lloyd, High- street Mr W. Llewhellin, High-street Mr Daniel Lloyd, Old-Bridge; Mr W. P. Ortnond, Old-Bridge; Mr J. Phillips, Vic-lorit-place Mr W. Phillips, Mar- ket-street; Mr J. Skone, Bethany; Mr J. Thomas, Castle-terrace Mr Samuel Taylor. In charging the Grand Jury for the county of Pem- broke, his lordship said—I rejoice much that on this the first occasion iip,;n which I have had the honour to address a Grand Jury of the county of Pembroke, I have no other or less agreeable task tc perform than to congratulate you, as I do most sincerely, upon the state of the calendar. I do not see that any consider- able offence has to bj, brought under your notice, or any offence at all of such a character as to call for any obser- vation from me upon the nature of your duties upon this occasion. I may venture to add, a from a very ancient usage the gentlemen of the bar do not attend at this Stage of our proceedings, that it is also a matter of con- gratulation to look at the cause list, for in truth there is such an absence of litigation in your county that there is not a single causa for trial. Adverting again to the cases on the calendar, I say that it is impossible not to feel a great degree of satisfaction in looking at the state of crime as shown by the calendar for your county, which I ascribe to the great influence of and the ex- ample which the gentlemen of the county set to those who unlike themselves are not endowed with the gifts of fortune, and many of whom are without education. It is to the want of education, and also to that preva- lent source of crime—drunkenness—we must attribute the prevalence of crime, which occupies so much of our time and attention, and causes such sorrow to those -1 ?, I who are engageu in me administration of justice. I am sure, looking to the state of offences in the county of Pembroke, I need not urge upon you the solemn duty which devolves upon you in the state of society in which you are placed by Providence. I need not tell you that it is your duty by exhortation, and by every means in your power, not only to infuse amongst all classes, and especially amongst the lower class, a system of education, when the legislature shall shortly have given you that power which you do now possess; but, in order to prevent offences, that you shall also do all in your power to put an end to that fatal system of drinking, to which so many crimes are to be attributed. I am very gl, td I unacquainted as I am with the county, to see so large an attendance of county gentlemen. It is in the willing attendance on such occasions as this that you best discharge the duties imposed upon you. ose upon you. As to the calendar, it scarcely needs any observation from me. There is one casi\ however, to which I may refer for a moment. It is the case of three persons charged with setting fire to a stack of hay. I am sure you will give your attention to that as to all your other duties but in the evidence to be brought before you, it will be for you to consider whether Williams ought to be included in the indictment. If you see there is any evidence to lead you to think there should be further enquify into his case, you will of course send him for trial. In speaking to gentlemen of your ex- perience, it is not necessary that I should add a single word. You will consider the evidence to be brought before you in the very few minor cases that appear in the calendar, and I shall simply ask you at once to retire to the discharge of your duties. In charging the Grand Jury for the Town and County of Haverfordwest his Lordship said-You have heard the congratulation which I have with so much satisfac- tion offered to the Grand Jury or the County of Pem- broke upon the comparative insignificance of the cases upon the calendar, and I can. now congratulate you upun the total absence of crime in your town. It gives we very great satisfaction, as it no doubt does to your- selves, to find' that to you, considering the popu- lation of the place, and the temptation, especially to the lower classes, that exists to violate the laws, I may say not ouly the same as I have said to the Grand Jury of the County, but that I may congratulate you upon the total absence of crime. Therefore I will merely ask that you for some little time remain to^otW in case any thin* may call for your attention, and I have only to say that the county is thankful to you for your at- tendance. JAMES WiLLiA?-, '?g? .,„ JAMESWILLIAMS, aged 33, described as a labourer, was charrrcd with wilfully causing a false statement touching the birth of a female child, for the purpose of bein inserted in the register of births, at Narberth, on the Oth of Apr'1 )8G8> the mother of the child, Rutb I Jenkins, not being his wife, as described. Mr B T. Williams appealed for tne p'osecution, instructed by Mr T. Lewis, Narberth the prisoner was defended by Mr J. W. Bowen, instructed by Air J. Price, Haverfordwest.. William Phillips examined I am the registrar of Births and Deaths at Xarherth I know the prisoner. In consequence of information I went to the prisoner's lodging" ut Narberth, on the 9th of April, 1868. I saw Jamen Williams there. 1 told him I was come to renter his child lIe told me the child was born 11th March, that he was married, that his wife s name previous to their marriage ffas Ruth Jenkins ana that she was upstairs. He then signed the bok, that being hlii signa- ture. [Book handed his lordship]. I saw him sign the book. By J u(ige I took down the whole of the information in that book from him. Cross-examined by Mr Bowen I only asked him his wife's maiden name. I asked him if he was married. I asked him where his wife was, and he said up- stairs." Ruth Jenkins examined I was living with James Williams at Narberth, on the 9th of April, I was not married to him at that time. My name was then Ruth Jenkins. I had told the prisoner that was my name. Cross-examined by Mr Howen I live with my bro- ther in the upper part of Cardiganshire, and prisoner is a neighbour. I was engaged to be married to him. We lived together at Narberth as man and wife. We went to Narberth in February. I am a single woman now. Prisoner said the false entry was not made with any bad intent, but from ignorance of its import- ance. This was the evidence for the prosecution, and Mr Bowen addressed the jury for the prisoner. Since the 3rd of November the prisoner had been in custody which might account for the delay in marrying the mother of the child, and the only object in giving the regisLry in the way stated was to spare the feelings of the mother. Rev. D. Davies examined by Mr Bowen I am 11 clergyman of the Church of England, and rector of the parish in which the prisoner's family live, riear the Devil's Bridge." I have known him since a cluid. He was always a very innocent, harmless boy. Griffith Williams examined: I li ve near the prisoner. I have known him for 25 years. He has always borne a good character. His lordship summed up the evidence. The only 'lue¡>,Oon they would have to determine was, whether the prisoner made a false statement knowmg it to be ?* ^The Jury retired, and in about half all hour th,??Y brought in a verdict of guilty," recommending the prisoner to mercy. The Judge in sentencing the prisoner, said he did not believe that the prisoner thought he did any harm, but was quite willing to believe that he acted with the best intention, being anxious to screen the young woman from the disgrace attaching to her situation. Ho sen- tenced him to one month's imprisonment. GEORGE MATHIAS SIXXETT was charged with having committed wilful and corrupt perjury in an open court, held by William Mills, Esq., one of the barristers ap- pointed to revise the list of voters for the borough of Pembroke, at Pembroke, on the 23rd of September 1868- This case excited great interest. The court was crowded during the afternoon, a large number of persons from Pembroke and Pembroke Dock being present. Mr T. Allen and Mr Hughes appeared for the probe- cution, instructed by Mr Hulm, Pembroke. The pri- soner was defended by Mr J. W. Bowen and Mr B. T. Williams, instructed by Mr W. John, Haverfordwest. .Mr Allen, in stating the casts to the jury, said that by a recent act of the legislature persons were allowed to vote for a member of Parliament, provided they occu- pied lodgings for a whole year-from one July to ano- ther July—Uiid provided those lodgings, unfurnished, were of the clear vearly value of £ 10. It was neces- sary that every person should prove his right to vote under such franchise before the revising barrister. The revising barrister came to Pembroke last autumn, and the prisoner attended the court to ciaim a vote. De- siring to have a vote he had gone through the necessary ?n?i navies in sending in his claim to the overseers, Sdi? on!v remained for him to prove his claim by sSearin- that he had lived in lodgings of the yearly valu"e e of ?lO?mJj u? y in the previous year. There were var^is wavs of proving that lodgings were of the value of ein TheY P? take the value as stated in ??ra? ?ok; o? they might take the testimony of Ton?whomav state hat, the house was or was not ?fthat value or they might take the tes,?iinr of sur- vevors or persons who knew the premises, and who m.gut ascertain the xact rent, and then they could say what proportion of the house was let out to the person claim- ing to vote, and see whether that portion was worth E10 r not. In this case the revising barrister seemed to take the actual rent paid as the basis, and decided upon the evidence brought before him that the lodgings were of the clear yearly val ue of £10. The prisoner went to the court and swore that lodgings he held in a particular house in Pembroke Dock and on which he rested his claim to vote were of the value of £ 10. He had stated that the rent of the whole house was £18, and that he paid half the rent besides some thirty shillings as rates and taxes. His claim was allowed, but it was afterwards discovered that the house was only rented at £15, so that his half amounted to Y,7 10s only, and the half of the rates, which amounted to about £ 1 3s 3d. He had therefore paid XS 13s 3d altogether, .and not £ 10 10s as stated. The sum paid was not a long way from Y,10, but it clearly did not entitle him to vote. The falsehood was not a very big one, on that account, but if he had paid Y,5 a-year only he never would have claimed to vote. It might have occurred to the prisoner that as the rent was not much below 110 he would make his claim, and trust to chance to run up the rent to the sum necessary. If he proved the state- ment he had made that was all he was required to do to establish the guilt of the prisoner. He had stated that be paid the higher sum which would enable him to vote, whereas he really paid the lower sum which did not entitle him to vote. A recent Act of Parliament made a false statement of that character perjury, and it would he for them to say after hearing the evidence, whether the prisoner was guilty or not. Mr Robert Lanning, examined by Mr Hughes I am Town Clerk for the borough of Pembroke. 1 gave notice of the Revision Court to be held there in September last. [Notice put in]. Mr Mills held a court for the revision of lists on the 22nd and 23rd September. The list now proposed is the list of lodger claims allowed. Cross-examined by Mr Bowen I was present when the claims were made. I heard Mr Sinnett's claim but cannot pretend to say what took place. I am also magistrates' clerk for the borough of Pembroke. The summons against the prisoner was heard in December, the information being laid on the 16th December. The borough of Pembroke is now rejoicing that an election petition is to be heard there. The election took place the middle of November, and the petition on the 8th Decem- ber. Mr William James, examined by Mr Allen I am as- sistant overseer of the parish of St. Mary, Pembroke. I have a list of claims to vote. That includes the list of those who claim as lodgers. Sinnett's name occurs in that list. [Entry on list read]. I have the poor-rate book. I know Mrs Kneebone's house at Pembroke Dock, in respect of which this claim was made. I have that house in my rate-book. [Entry read, gross estimated rental £ 16, rateable value £ 13 108]. I was present at the revision court 23rd of September. I saw the prisoner coming to make his claim. He was on his oath, being sworn by the revising barrister. I recollect him being asked by one of the attorneys as to the amount of the rent he paid. He said he paid ±9 rent, and half the rates. He was asked the amount of the rates, and he said about £ 3, and he paid about half. Mr John, the attorney, asked him what the rent of the house was, and the prisoner said it was £ 18. I am sure of that. Cross-examined by Mr Bowen He asked him what the rent of the house was, and he said the rent was X18. I took no note of the evidence. I was examined before the magistrate. I was not asked this question, but was examined as to the rates. I think it was on the evening of the day the case was heard at Pembroke, that I told them what I heard Sinnett say. That was the 16th December. I had my rate-book in the revising barrister's court. The rates do not amount to X3. From 31st July 1867, to 31st of July 1868, the whole rates amounted to £2 7s 3d. I have the June book here. From June, 1867, to May, 1868, the rates amounted to C3. I know the house. I have been assistant overseer for ten years. Five or six years ago the house was valued at 119. I do not know the inhabited house duty assessment. Mr Kneebone left the house in Sep- tember last. I think the rent was paid to a Mrs Han- cock Re-examined by Mr Allen Taking the rates from July to July they amounted to X2 7s 3d. In July 1867 the rateable value of the house was reduced to L16. Mrs Kneebone appealed to the assessment committee becanse she was asssessed at more than her rent. Dr. Reid examined by Mr Hughes I am a magis- trate of the Borough of Pembroke. I attended the revision court in September last. I was present when prisoner's claim was heard. It was either the last or very nearly the last claim. I remember what Sinnett said. He was asked whtt rent he paid for his house. His answer was "the half of £ 18." He claimed as a lodger. He was asked the rent of the house, and be said it was XIS, and I pay 4C9. He said he paid half the rates and taxes, and that his share amounted to 35s a-year. The question about the rent and taxes was asked more than once. Cross-examined by Mr Bowen The overseer was present with his book. I did not take any note. Great many cases were heard. Paid a good deal of attention. There were professional gentlemen present. I think Mr John asked the amount of the rent. The answer was, the rent is BIS a year." There has been an election in the Pem broke taorougbe. I waa a protfcy strong party man on Mr Meyrick's side. I take no part in the petition. Mr Sinnett was secretary for Sir Hugh Owen's comm:ttee. I never heard such a pro- position as that this charge against the prisoner would be withdrawn if the petition were drawn. I have heard of a rumour, but never heard of a proposition. I was not consulted in the magistrates' room. I have only heard of a rumour since. I say I never heard the words now let," when before the magistrates, when the prifoner was asked about the rent. I never saw the prisoner before this case. I took no notes of what was going- on in the revising barister's court. Re-examined by Mr Allen: I never said that the sug- gestion talked of had been accepted. Mr W. Hulm examined by Mr T. Allen I am a county magistrate, and a magistrate for the borough. I was at the revising barrister's court on the 23rd Septem- ber. Sinnett's claim was the last heard. The revising barrister and attorneys asked him questions. He was asked What rent do you pay?" He said, 11 19 a-year, and half the taxes." He was asked the amount of the rent and he said it was X18, and that his half of the taxes was about 3os, as I understood him. Cross-examined by Mr Bowen He said he paid X9. I was only in court a short time. I sat by the side of Mr Mills, and attended to the question. I did not pay very great attention. I might have said before the magistrates in December, in answer to Mr John, I did not pay the slightest attention to your questions," I think it is going a little too far m saying I had no attention. I gave my personal vote to Mr Meynck, but took no part in the election. I know nothing about the rent of the house I turned into the Town Hall by a mere accident, and heard lllnett I) case. I was not a member of Mr Meynck s committee. I made no note of what took place on the 2.,rd September I takc no part in the election petition. Re-examined by Mr Allen I am manager of a bank, and thought it my duty not to take any part in the election.. 1 b '!I,r H Henry Banner examined by Mr Hughes I was pre- sent at the revising barristers court at Pembroke, on the 23rd of September. I heard the prisoner's claim. He was asked what rent he paid, and he said £ 9. He said the whole of the rent was £ 18. He was asked how much rates he paid, and he said about 30s, The questions were put to him more than once. Cross examined by Mr Bowen I was not examined before the magistrates. I was summoned, but was never examined. Mr Hulm never asked me anv questions I have a tolerably good memory. I was charged here with perjury, but was honorably acquitted I was summoned to the magistrates' court, but was not examined. Mr William Mills examined by Mr Allen I held a revision court at Pembroke on the 23rd of September. I had no recollection of Sinnett's name or the case until I heard the evidence. I recollect the case. It was the last claim heard. My notes are, Six rooms, £ 9 rent. Taxes 30s. Altogether 110 10s." I allowed the rates. Cross-examined by ,Mr Bowen I took a short note, but I have no hesitation in saying that I allowed the vote because he told me he paid the required amount. There were a great many cases heard that day. Mrs Mary Anne Kneebone examined by Mr Hughes. The prisoner lodged with me up to September last. I paid f,15 rent. (Agreement between witness and pri- soner was put and read. Rent was to be j67 10s a-year, and half the taxes.) Prisoner paid me rent quarterly. He paid -01 17s 6d quarterly. I have been from home for nine months. Up to that time he paid me quarterly. He paid me 9s for rates. Cross-examined by Mr Bowen I have now paid all the rates. I was away nine months. I left home in April. I do not know when Mr Sinnett left the house. Miss Edwards now occupies the house. She pays el7 rent. I was asked to put up a bill 11 House to let," The house was not to be let for the same as I had paid Re-examined by Mr Hughes The rates paid in the year from July '67, to July 1868, was 42 7s 3d. I paid the arrears 1st of this month. Mr Hulm did not give me the money to pay. I never saw the gentleman. (Laughter.) Mrs Newby examined by Mr Allen I am a daughter of Mrs Kneebone. My mother was away a good deal last year. I did not live in the house occupied by my mother. Mr Sinnett paid me £ 1 17s Od for one quarter's rent, and Mrs Sinnett paid me XI 17s 6d for another quarter. By Judge lie paid me up to 29th September, but I do not know what day he left. By Mr Bowen They left before the 29th September. He had a cellar given up to him in addition to the rooms named in the agreement. I know nothing about an understanding that he was to pay more when hi3 salary should be increased. I do not remember Mr Fitze coming to ask the rent. I remember a person coming to Mr Sinnett's apartments, but I did not say to anyone that the rent would be ;£18 a-year. By Mr Allen It was dusk when I went there, and I do not know who was inquiring for the house. It was before Sinnett left the house. Dr Reid recalled by Mr Allen I understood the pro- ceedings were delayed until December, in order that ey might not have a political bearing. Mrs Kneebone recalled by Mr Bowen There was no understanding that Mr Sinnett's rent was to be increased when his salary should be increased. This was the evidence for the prosecution. Mr Bowen asked his lordship whether it was not necessary to prove the appointment of Mr Mills, the revising barrister, but his lordship said it was just as necessary to inquire into his (the judge's) authority to sit in that court (laughter.) T Mr Bowen then addressed the jury for the prisoner. He did not wish to put into the case any political matter, but the election proceedings havino- taken place about this time, he thought that they would see that the gentlemen who ha i given their evidence had taken a party view of the question, though he did not mean to say that they had not stated what they believed at the time to be the truth. In times of excitement it was impossible to look at things with the same cool judgment that they might be treated at other times. In the revision court there were pro- fessional men on both sides, and if there were persons whose memories could be depended upon, they would be the professional men, and yet they had not been called to give evidence. But instead of taking that course, they had summoned men with a political bias. It was the same on his side. Mr Sinnett was employed on the side of Sir Hugh Owen and he would frankly admit that the professional man employed on that side could not swear as to what took place but he had other persons who would tell them what, in their opinion, Mr Sinnett said. It only showed them how falacious it was to depend upon the memory. He did not say that Mr Hulm and Dr Reid meant to say that which they did not believe, but he would call equally respectable men to say what they believed to be the truth. Mr Hulm had told them to-day that he paid a general attention to the questions put to the prisoner, but when before the magistrates, when the matter was more fresh in his memory than to-day, he said that he really did not pay the slightest attention to the questions put. They should remember that the proceedings took place during great excitement, and that the fate of the Pembroke boroughs was not yet settled; but he did not wish to say anything to divert their attention from the case before the court. The question was, did Mr Sinnett commit wilful and corrupt perjury. It was said that he swore he paid £2 a year rent, the real answer he gave being, "The house now lets for £ 18; and he believed they would be of opinion that he was justified in giving that answer. That was the question for them to decide. He would put into the box a gentleman who took notes that night of what took place. The only persons on the other side, who heard what took place, were Mr Hulm and Dr Reid, and another person who could not even tell the date on which he gave his infor- mation and that man had stood in the dock charged with perjury, although he said he was acquitted honour- ably. He would say no more about a m!m of +.W sort If they considered the time that elapsed, they would not rely upon the evidence of such a man, and then they had merely the testimony of Mr Hulm and Dr Reid to fall back upon. The facts were these. The house in question had been let for £ 21 a-year 'but in conse- quence of a public house, not very well conducted, being opened next door, the tenant left, and the house was vacant for some time. It was then let to Mrs Knee- bone for X15, and she left in September last. The owner then put a bill in the window, and told Mr Sin- nett that the house was not to be let in future for less than £18. The present occupier was at first asked £ 18, but after some negoeiation the house was let for £. 1 i. That was how the sum of jE)8 was mentioned by Mr Sinnett. In all cases of perjury, it was not for them to say whether the statement was incorrect or not, but whether it was false and corrupt. But he would not rest upon that, but would show that what the prisoner stated was true, and the evidence of an honest man. He would call four or five witnesses, but confessed that their state- ments would be open to the same objection as the state- ments of Mr Hulm and Dr Reid, namely, that the time was so far back that it was difficult to persuade people that they could say for certain that Sinnett stated the house was now let for 118, or that he paid £9 a-year. Dr Reid had said that the case was postponed to the 16th of December, not to give it a political aspect; but when they remembered that the revision court was held on the 23rd September, that the election took place about the middle of November, that the election petition was issued on the 8th of December, and that these proceedings were taken on the 16th of December, he would leave them to say whether they were not connected with political questions. It would have been more satisfactory to them and to the court if they had some independent testi- mony besides the testimony of those who were political partizans, or supporters of Mr Mejj^k. The witnesses he should call would admit that they were political par- tizans, but when they considered their position and their respectability, they would give as great credit to their evidence as to the memories of Mr Hulm and Dr Reid. The prisoner was a most respectable man, with the best of characters, and they could not believe that he would have been in that box to-dav had he not been secretary to Sir Hugh Owen's committee. If it had not been for that circumstance, did they think that on the Kith of December he would have had brought against Him a clittis-c of perjury said to have been committee on the 23rd of September. As to the statement of pri- soner that he paid half the rates and taxes, there was some discrepancies in the evidence for the prosecu- tion. One witness said the prisoner swore he paid rates and taxes to the amount of thirty shillings, an- other said it was thirty-five shillings, and the revising barrister had thirty shillings on his notes. Now the half of £ 3 5s 3d would be about £ 1 12s 7d, so that the prisoner was well within the mark, if he said so. The fact was he had only paid nine shillings, but the landlady had not paid the taxes, and it was singular that those taxes should have been paid on the 1st of March-the day before yesterday. He would now refer to the notes of Mr Mills. Unfortunately, they were as meagre as the memories of Mr Hulm and Dr Reid. They were—" Rooms, six. 119. I cook in my own kitchen. He should insult them if he were to tell them that such evidence as that should not be con- sidered. The prisoner had something more at stake tnan an acquittal; he had a character to depend upon and after the evidence they had heard be should not have thought it necessary to call witnesses, except that the prisoner wished they should be called in order to show that he stood here without the slightest cause. He hoped they would restore the prisoner to that good name he had not fairly lost, and that he may return to the position he had occupied and to assume that place in the public estimation which he had lately filled (Applause.) His lordship said that if he heard any further ap- plause he would clear the court of everyone but the counsel and witnesses. John Thomas Cock examined by Mr Williams I am a bachelor of arts of London, and master of the British School at Pembroke- Dock. I attend th'e Wes- leyan Chapel at Pembroke-Dock. I was at the Revi- sion Court on the 23rd September at Pembroke. I ti n,)te that nigh?,, attended to what took place. I nride a note that night of what had taften place, Mr Sinnett was asked by Mr John, the solicitor, What is ths rent of your house f" He said, It is now let for LlS." Mr John said, "I believe you pay half of the rates and half the taxes." Mr Sinnett replied, "I do." Mr John then asked, What would half the rates and taxes amount to ?" to which Mr Sinnett replied, About aos." IJ" w.is asked how many rooms were in the house. He said Eleven." Ho was asked whether he exclusively occupied the rooms, and he said, I do." He was asked whether he had other rooms of that description, and whether for less rent, and he said, No." Mr James, the solicitor, asked when he commenced to occupy the rooms. Ho said November, 1866. Mr James asked him the rent, and he replied, it is now £ 18." Mr James asked if he had any attendance, and he said, No." He was asked where the landlady did her work. He replied, 11 In the kitchen." He was asked whether there were two kitchens. He said there were. He was asked the amount of taxes, and he said he did not know. He was asked if he paid half the taxes, and he said be did. Mr Mills asked him the amount of the rent, and he said The house is now let for £ 18." The barrister asked the amount of half the rates and taxes, and he said 3Hs. By the Judge: Mr Mills asked him if he paid half the rent and half the taxes but he did not ask him what half the rent amounted to. Cross-examined by Mr Allen I have destroyed or lost the other notes. By the Judge Mr John said, I believe that you pay half the rent and half the taxes." It was a mis- take to say half the rate and half the taxes. He was asked what is the rent, and be said, "It is let for Y-18 now." I did not know what ho paid. I did not under- stand that he paid the half of £ 18. Cross-examined by Mr Allen I went to a political meeting that night. I did not see Sinnett there. I went from Pembroke to Pembroke-Dock in company with him and others. Sinnett was not aware that I intended to take notes of his case. I took notes because I intended to have some of them in the Pembroke-Dock Gazette. Another reason was because Mr Sinnett had the opinion of the society in London, that the value of the house was the basis. I had also a reason, because I was on the committee with Mr Sianett. I took the notes in case any question should arise. I have no other reason I merely took them in case any remarks were made. I mean any question relative to our actions, as we, Sinnett and I, were joint secretaries of Sir Hugh Owen's committee. I did not show the notes to anyone but to Mr John. I did not, prior to the magistrates' meeting in this case, tell anyone that I had made notes in Sinnett's case—except Mr Sinnett himself. I did not tell Sinnett what I had taken down in my notes. I did after these proceedings commenced. He saw the notes first after he received the summons. I never told him to mind what he said because that was what he had said. He might have asked me q what did I say f" or something of that Rort. The only diffi- culty about the vote was that Mr Mill might have asked him what rent he paid when he was in the house. I did not examine Sinnett before the rovision court. I did not see him with Mr John, the solicitor. I did not give him any caution. I did not hear Mr John asking him a single question. I did not hear Mr John say it was necessary to show that the house was now let for £ 18. I was not aware that it was let for Y,17 before the 16th December. Re-examined by Mr Bowen —I wrote to the Regiatra- tion Society in London. By tne judge I say upon my oath that I do not know thtt Sinnett was asked what i-ent he I)ai". The was a very short one. Mr James Fitze examined by Mr Bowen: lam a draughtsman in H.M's Dockyard, at Pembroke Dock. 1 was at the revision court at Pembroke, on the 23rd September last, when the question of Mr Sinnbtt's vote was gone into. Mr Sinnnett was first asked, What is the rent of your house ?" The answer was, "It is now let for £ 18." Mr John then said, I believe you i):i y half the rates and taxes?" Sinnett said, I do." "What is the amount ?" was the next question, and the answer was, About 30s" He was then asked the number of rooms. Mr James then cross-examined; the question was to elicit the rent of the bonsc. I do not rcenlhct the form of the question. The examination went to show that the occupation was a joint one..e (,i,j not say that he paid £ 9 a year rent, because his claim was based upon the valuation ()f ttie house. I went to look at the house when Mrs Kneebone left. Cross-examined by Mr Alien: The question of 19 might have been mentioned before the revising barris- ter. The revising barrister did not ask him if he paid He did not ask him how much reut he paid. I believe these notes to be the handwriting of Mr Cock. I have not read them before. If these are the notes handed into the magistrates' court, thdl I htve seen them. I hteo -ir,-l other claims under the lodger franchise. The barrister asked some claimants what rent they paid. He asked me the amount of rent I paid. Angus McColl examined by Mr Wiiliams I am foreman millwright at Her Majesty's Dock-yard at Pembroke-Dock. I was at the revision court at Pem- broke on the 23rd September. Sinnett was ashd the rent of his house, and he said It is now let at £ 18 a- year" He was asked what he paid, and he said he paid half the rent and half the rates and taxes. I did not hear him Fav that he paid XI.) a-year rent. Cross-examined by Mr Allen I recollect what took p'ace because I was myself a claimant. I claimed as a ratepayer. I recodect so well because I was also a friend of Mr Sinnett. I answered the questions pu; t* me before the magistrates. I was called after Mr C( ck, and I said, What he has stated is true, so far 88 I know." By the Julge The first question asked was, "Whsi was the rent of the house 7" and he said The house is now let at £ 18." When he said he paid half the rent I understood him to mean that he paid the half of £ 18. Eliza Griffiths examined by Mr Bowen I am daughter of Mrs Handcock, the owner of the house occupied by Mrs Kneebone. I manage my mother's business. The house was occupied by Mt Atford before Mrs Kneebone took it. I requested Sinnett to answer any persons who might inquire about the house, that the nouse was not to oe let under .£ 18 a-year. That was before the 23rd of March. Miss Edwards occupies the house now. I let the house to her. 1 agreed with her before the March quarter. The house is now let for L17. I agreed with Miss Edwards to let the house to her for that amount. Cross-examined by Mr Allen: I never told anybody that the house was let for £18. Sinnett was lodging in the house when I made the agreement with Miss Edwards. Dr Gwynne Harries, Mr Cole, master-smith in H.M Dock-yard, Mr Secombe, writer, and Mr Robertson Hazel Hill, spoke highly of the prisoner's character and public repute. Mr Bowen again briefly addressed the jury, contend- ing that the prisoner when asked the question stated the value of the house, at that time, if let unfurnished to anybody else. Mr Allen addressed the jury at great length. He said that when he was aoout to re-cali Dr. Reid to account for the delay in bringing the case before the magistrates, his learned friend said it was unnecessary, as he should not bring any political feeling into the case. He was going to show that the case was postponed until after the election, but encouraged by his friend he did not go into that. He was therefore rather sur- prised to find that his friend mainly relied upon the political aspect of the case. The Act of Parliament said that if a false statement were made before a revising barrister, the person so making it might be prosecuted that meant, of course, that he should be prosecuted. Now, if those persons who were opposed to the prisoner in politics did not prosecute him, who was to do so ? They were the Tory party against whom he had given a Whig vote, and it was their duty to prosecute. It was not usual for persons to prosecute their friends the law was brought to bear upon those who differed from them in the political world. If they did not do so, no prosecution would take place for offences of this description. His friend said that Mrs Kneebone did not pay her rates until the 1st of March. Did he mean to insinuate that the Tory party paid them for her ? He should have ex- plained what bearing that had upon the case. With regard to Mr Hultn's evidence before the magistrates, what he really did say was, that he did not attend to the questions put by the advocates to the witnesses, but he paid great attention to the questions put by the barrister to the prisoner, and also to the prisoner's answers, and he distinctly remembered the prisoner saying over and over again that the rent paid by him was the half of JBIS. Dr Reid being a party man was led to watch very closely the evidence of the prisoner, and would not be likely to make a mistake as to what took place. The professional men both resided at Haverfordwest, did not know the house, and would not be likely to pay any attention to the evidence; but it was very different with Mr Hulm and Dr Reid. As to Banner not being called before the magistrates, it was very probably that the magistrates said to ttie prosecution, you will only be burning day- light, for you can have nothing from him that you have not already got." Mr Cock had told them that he understood from his statement that Sinnett did not mean to give the revising barrister the impression that he was paying the half of X18 while McOoll said he understood by what Sinnett said that he paid the half of 118. There appeared to have been great anxiety that Sinnett should not state what rent he had paid, but what the house was worth, or what it was fetching; but at that time he occupied it, and paid the half of X15 only, and after he left it was rented at m7 and not P-18. But what were they all afraid of unless there was a prosecution for perjury looming in the future! Unless he know that Sinnett had not told the truth and would very likely be prosecuted, why did Cock go home and take notes. Cock had sworn that he made notes of three or four other cases, but they had been destroyed or thrown away. It was most miraculous that the notes in Sinnett's case should have escaped the destruction that befel the other notes. Some society in London had been communicated with and the evidence of Sinnett's witnesses went to show that he had been told what evi- dence ought to be given before the revising barrister rather than what was tho truth. What did the revising barrister think ? He took short notes of the evidence, and believed Sinnett to have sworn that he paid the hall ()f -CIS rent, and rates and taxes amounting to thirty shillings. If he had not believed this, he would not have allowed the claim. Mr Fitze had told them that other persons wero claiming a lodger franchise, and that the revising barrister asked them what rent they paid, but did not ask Mr Sinnett. That was very odd. The question for them was, whose testimony they be- hoved. If they believed the testimony of the witnesses for the prosecution they were bound to find a verdict against the prisoner. In calling witnesses to character, he questioned whether his learned friend was not heap- ing coals of fire on the prisoner's head for the higher the character the greater the fault in a case of this description. If the prisoner held a respectable position socially, the worse his position was now made to ap- pear. There was less excuse for him than for a man more exposed to temptation. His Lordship very clearly and at great length summed up the evidence. He said this was undoubtedly a case of very high importance, and in every way was entitled to their most serious and attentive consideration. The Legislature having been pleased to extend the elective franchise to a great number of persons, it was certainly of great importance to the constitution and to the people of this country that that Act of Parliament should be administered and acted upon with truthful- ness, m good faith, and with honesty of purpose. The revising barrister's court had to decide what persons should or should not be entitled to the privilege of the (ranchise, and if by any chance the barrister should be misled by wrong evidence, the intention of the legisla- ture could not be carried out in its integrity. This case was altogether one of a political character, and he would exhort and beseech them to lay aside all considerations of that kind, if any might have wharped their mind by the effect the case might have produced upon those out of doors. They were bound by the most solemn obliga- tionsioi do justice—justice not only to the man at the bar, but tc the law of the land, to the constitution, to ne people of this grctt country. They should have an unswerving determination to do that justice to all parti.es that l?j distinguished the people of this country, and 9"l them the euduiing, high position they had occupied for agcg past. TI e charge against the pri- soner was that he had committed wilful and corrupt perjury In swearing that he occupied lodgings in a house, and that in respect of them he paid X9 a year rent, and rates and taxes to the amount of thirty or thirty-five shillings a year. The question of rates and taxes they might lay aside altoge- ther, for the difference of a few shillings might easily be the result of a mistake. The question was, did the prisoner in giving his evidence before the barrister swear, directly or indirectly, in substance, that ho was paving £ o a-year rent. If they thought he did they were bound, regardless of consequences, to find him guilty; if they were not satisfied upon that point, then they should acquit him. They should look at the cir- cumstances of the case as reasonable beings. The rent paid fur a house or a farm was the best criterion itS to its value, and he should theyefove think that the first question a revising barrister would ask a person claim- ing a vote would be, What rent do you pay P" That was the first question that would occur to any of the learned gentlemen at the table, or even to any ordinary attorney's clerk. According to the evidence of the wit- nesses for the prosecution two or three questions were put to the prisoner by the revising barrister. He was first of all asked, "What rent do i-Oll pay He an- swered, £ 9 a-year." He was then asked, "And do you also pay rates and taxes r" and he replied, "I do." In answer to the barrister as to what they amounted to, the prisoner is said to have replied, to thirty or thirty- five shillings. No doubt, if the prisoner did make that statement, and the case rested there, ne would give him his vote. The value of a house might be ascer- tainable in a variety of ways, but the best evidence of its value was the rent paid. The question was not what the house subsequently let for, but what the prisoner paid, for the amount he paid would alone entitle him to a vote. Did he lead the barrister to sup- pose that the rent he paid was sufficient to entitle him to a vote lie could not help thinking that if he hid I gone before the revising barrister and said that XIS was the rent paid subsequent to his leaving the house, he would not have established his claim. The witnesses for the defence had told them that the question asked was, 'What is the rent of your liouse-" and not What rent do you pay r" The answer of the prisoner was, according to their statement, "It is now let for £ l!>; suppressing the fact that he himself only paid the half of £ 15. If he had been an honest man, 'anxious to tell the truth, would he not have said, It is now let for £ 18, ln;t I confess I only paid 115." It was for them to consider whether, by some happy coincidence, the question was never put to the prisoner, At what rent did you occupy the lodgings;" but that the revis- ing barrister merely put to him the question that enabled him to give that delusive answer, It is now let for ;CIS L-v(,ar." The revising barrister took short notes, in which appear, "I £ <} a-year, rates and taxes, 30s while the witnesses for the prisoner said £ 9 was never mentioned. He asked them to consider whether that was possible. With regard to the evidence for the prisoner, he did not agree with the counsel for the prosecution, that they should not attach any importance to the evidence of the four or S.e persona who had given the prisoner an excellent character. He thought they were bound to look care- fully at that, and also at the eviJenc: for the defence generally. Tue witness Cock said the first question was, What is the rent of the house ?" and the answer was, "It is now let for The next question was "And yon pay half the rates and taxes r" the answer beiii, I do." That was the substance of his evidence. He said there was no mention of £ 9. Fitze said the question was, What is the rent of hOllse 1" and the answer was 9s a-year, So that he contradictod Cock. The witness M'Coll said he understood prisoner to say he paid the half of CIS. They should remember that the 23rd of September was six days before the pri- soner's tenancy expired, so that if be stated that the house was let at £ 18, while he was paying only X15, I. £.1_,1.- .1_ ..L_- .6.1 tiC uiust uitvc swum laiseiv, uuitjss iuey accuuuieu for the statement by the fact that the daughter of the landlady had told him some time previously that the house would not again be let for lass than X18. In any case it was the most reckless swearing he had ever heard of. He should have said, if a straightfor- ward man, The house is now let at £ 1-5, but I have every reason to believe the rent will be XIS from this time." As responsible men they should consider these things and do justice. It he did 81.)', "The house is now let at £ 18," they should consider whether that was not in effect swearing that he paid £ 9 a year, and half the taxes, and that in con- sequence of his so swearing, his claim was admitted. If they believed that he thought he was speaking the truth when he mentioned the sum of Y,18, then they would do him justice and acquit him but if they were satisfied that he in substance gave evidence on oath that he was holding lodgings at P,9 a year, then it would be their duty to do equal justice to the crown and to their country, and find him guilty. The jury retired about seven o'clock, and after the lapse of half-an-hour returned into court with a verdict of Not guilty, which was received with loud applause THURSDAY. His lordship took his seat on the bench at ten o CIOCK. The court was not near so full as on the previous day. JAMES LAWLER, 17, aud HENRY HORSE, 18, were charged with setting fire to a stack of hay, the property of Lewis Mathias, Esq., of Lamphey Court, at the parish of Letterstone on the 31st December last. Mr Oliver Powell appeared for the prosecution, instructed by Mr W. V. James. A man named Thomas Williams, was also indicted for the same offence, but the jury ignored the bill. It appears that the prisoners had told the policeman that thev ware hungry and set fire to the rick, exonerating Williams from any participation in the crime. The jury found them guilty, and they were sentenced to twelve month's imprison- ment. ALLEN DAVIES and THOMAS STEPHENS, were charged with burglariously breaking and entering the dwelling house of Elizabeth Antwis, and stealing a cask of beer, value £ 1, at Milford, about one o'clock on the night of the 13th December last. Mr DeRutzen prosecuted, in- structed by Mr W. Y. James. The prisoner Davies was seen coming from the house of the prosecutrix with the cask on his shoulder, and Stephens was seen walking by his side. The beer was taken to a house and drank. There being no evidence that Stephens was concerned in the burglary, he was acquitted, and Davies found guilty. A previous conviction being aimitced, he was sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment. AJJNE JOHN, 25, pleaded guilty to a charge of en- deavouring to couceal the birth of her child by secretly burying its body at Elans tad well, on the 18th ult., and was sentenced to one month's imprisonment. Mr H Allen appeared for the prosecution, instructed by Mr W. V. James. This concluded the business of the Assizes, and the court rose"nbout half-past eleven.