31ttrupnIto.

The breezes of Metropolitan agitation which preceded the opening of the Budget, have been quickened by disappointment on the Window-tax subject into a gale. The delegates chosen by the parishes to organize a movement for "unconditional abolition" have begun a series of meet- ings, at one of which the compromise plan of the Chancellor of the Ex- chequer has been condemned with unusual energy of expression. Mr. Nicholay, the president, avowed that he has hitherto deprecated speaking in plain English, but the time has gone by for such a feeling : they must be humbugged no more, but must throw away the scabbard, and defy the Government till the game is up. Mr. Foster declared that the time is come for a fusion of all parties against Lord John Russell's Cabinet. Mr. George denounced the Budget as a swindle. Mr. Geesin pronounced the Window-tax proposal "unholy, un- just, unchristian." Lord Duncan attacked the Ministry for breach of their promises of further economy, and told the delegates that he trusts in them for not permitting this House-tax, or Window-tax with a new name, to be imposed. The Chairman refused explanations of detail asked by a mild delegate, "as they do not intend to submit to it at all; they mean to fling it back in the face of Government." Sir Benjamin Hall explained, that he will first divide on the Income-tax, as the alteration of the Window-tax depends on that ; and then he will do the same on the Window-tax. Let them back him well, and it will be found that the re- presentatives of 400,000 inhabitants assessed at 2,000,0001. will have great weight.

The great revenue case of the Crown against the London Docks Company was brought to a close on Tuesday, the eleventh day, after a trial "the most protracted of the kind" that Chief Baron Pollock had ever known in all his experience. We gave a notion of the case made out by the Crown last week, and intimated that the Court seemed to regard it as one so strong as would need a vigorous defence. Sir Fitzroy Kelly opened his defence with the as- sertion that he would prove the whole of the strong prima facie case of the Crown to be a fabrication ; and the depositions of his witnesses bore him out. They contradicted nearly every circumstance of a criminatory character ad- vanced for the Crown. The Judge observed in summing up, "it was quite clear that upon one side or the other there had been gross perjury committed." At the beginning of his summary of the case, Chief Baron Pollock told the Jury to dismiss from their minds the " long episode of Davis's Corner" : independently of the contradictions which had confronted the statements re- specting it, those statements had been characterized by a " vast amount of exaggeration " ; but the contradictions were supported by a body of witnesses whose respectability the Solicitor-General had not attempted to impugn. The Solicitor-General had also not only abandoned, but disclaimed, all in- tention of imputing dishonour to the directors of the Dock Company, either collectively or individually. It might be assumed, therefore, that " what- ever might have taken place in Davis's Corner had taken place, if at all, without the authority, knowledge, or sanction of the London Docks Com- pany." Again, later in his charge, Judge Pollock remarked, that the evi- dence given had shown that the directors' interests as merchants, in the honest conduct of the business of the Docks, would preponderate over any interest they could by possibility derive from the little addition which the imputed dishonesty of their servants could contribute to their dividends. The Solicitor-General to the last contended that a certain system of laxity prevailed, which had superinduced the irregularities of which the Board of Customs complained. Some bearing on this point is to be seen in the remarks of Chief Baron Pollock on the giving of perquisites to the Dock servants—" Such things were bad ; they had a tendency to promote disho- nesty, and ought therefore to be put an end to." " After all that had oc- curred, he had no doubt but that all perquisites in the London Docks would be done away with in future."

The principal of the specific charges made were those relating to excessive drawings of sugar under pretence of sampling—that three or four ounces were taken from each of the thousands of bags forming a cargo, and only

one ounce or so sent to the merchant for his sample ; those relating to the excessive sweepings of sugar and cocoa; and those relating to the irregular removal of goods from one place to another with the object of fraudulently evading the payment of duties. Upon the first point, the Chief Baron said, he " very . much doubted whether Sir Fitzroy Kelly was not per- fectly correct in his argument that this was no affair concerning the Crown, and whether the merchant who inspected and approved the practice was not the sole party concerned." The Jury would decide whether the sampling was done with intent to defraud the Crown. As to sweep- ings, it seemed Tian that the cargoes of the London Docks and those of the West India Docks, coming from different places in the world and being packed with differing degrees of care, were liable to different degrees of escape from the packages. It was proved that the Customs have themselves sanctioned the export of these accumulations, by the very name of " sweepings." Among the specific charges of fraudulently removing goods, two instances stood out from the mass : one respecting five bags of cocoa, which were " undoubtedly found in a place where they ought not to have been found," and one respecting two boxes of merchantable Havannah sugar, which were treated as dirty sweepings, and packed with the other " sweepings" for export as such. In regard to both these cases, the Jury would consider the evidence specifically with relation to the inten- tion disclosed ; remembering the statement of Wicks, that the sugar was packed as described, in course of an effort made by him personally to screen l'onting from getting into a scrape in respect of that sugar. The question would be, were the coffee and the sugar concealed ? and if so, were they concealed with intention to defraud the revenue ?

The Jury retired, and considered their verdict for an hour. The verdict was in these terms- " We find for the Crown on the seventh and eighth counts, as regards the two boxes of Havinnah; and we also find for the Docks Company on all the remaining allegations. We wish, too, to accompany our verdict with this observation—' We would recommend that great strictness should be exercised by the London Docks Company with regard to their subordinate officers, as many irregularities have oc- curred.' We also find that there was no intention to evade the duty."

The Lord Chief Baron—"Let me understand: do you find that the two boxes were not fraudulently concealed? " The Jury—" We find, upon your Lordship's ruling, that the removal of the boxes was illegal, but that they were removed without any view to an evasion of the duty.

The Lord Chief Baron—" That would be a verdict for the Crown on the ninth and tenth counts in respect of the removal of the boxes, but not for an intention to evade the duty. My opinion is, that the ninth and tenth counts, which charge the sugar to have been fraudulently concealed to evade payment of the duty, are divisible into two parts : I understand you to say that the boxes were removed, not to evade the duty, but that the sugar was fraudulently concealed."

The Jury—" Yes. Then we find also for the Docks Company in respect of the cocoa generally." The verdict was entered accordingly, for the Crown on the seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth counts, in respect to the removal of the two boxes of sugar, but that they had not been so removed for the purpose of evading the duty ; and for the Docks Company on all the remaining allegations.

The verdict was received with murmuring demonstrations of applause from an over-crowded court.

The case of Wilks (suing as a pauper) versus Lawson, tried before Lord Campbell at the Guildhall on Wednesday, was an action against the printer of the Times for a libel imputing official corruption. The escape of Hackett the burglar from the Model Prison near Holloway will be recollected : im- mediately after that occurrence, the daily newspapers contained-a biographi- cal note of Hackett, describing his numerous feats in escaping from prison ; one of these feats had been an escape from the lock-up of the Marlborough Street Police Court, and it was in the description of this that the libellous passage occurred, as follows—" The authorities instituted an inquiry, and it turned out that a turnkey had received a large sum of money to effect his [Hackett's] liberation ; and he was discharged.', Willis is the dismissed turnkey. He now sought damages, both on account of the general defamation, and on account of a specific refusal of employment which he pre- tended had been caused by the words just quoted. For the defence it was proved, that the Government authorities did inquire into the conduct of Wilks in relation to the escape, and did dismiss him three days afterwards ; but it was not proved that Willis received the money of corruption. It was also proved that the refusal of employment alleged as special damage oc- curred after the dismissal, and before the appearance of the article in the Times. Lord Campbell directed the Jury, that as the truth of the libel was not established, the verdict must be for the plaintiff ; but the damages might be moderate, for the discreditable attempt to prove special injury had failed. The Jury gave the plaintiff a verdict for one farthing damages.

At Marlborough Street Police Office, on Wednesday, Mary Ann Parkes at- tempted to affiliate a child upon the Earl of Stamford and Warrington. Her corroborating witness was Jane Lewis ; who, when asked if Parkes had been intimate with a Policeman named Sheridan, denied on oath all knowledge of the fact. In cross-examination, Parkes showed that her witness had per- jured herself; and on examination of other witnesses, her own statements were proved entirely false. -It was clearly proved that Sheridan and Parkes had lived as man and wife, and that Lewis well knew it. Mr. Bingham, the Magistrate, declared the case at an end ; but the two women were de- tained on a charge of perjury and conspiracy.

Macharey and O'Shea, rough-looking Irishmen, have been committed for trial by the Marlborough Street Magistrate, for having in their possession a steel mould for making spurious half-crowns. They ordered the mould of Mr. Sounes, a die-engraver of Rupert Street, and also directed him to en- grave copies of notes of the Bank of Ireland. Mr. Sounes informed the Po- lice, and acted in concert with them ; and thus the rogues were captured as they carried away the mould.

As Mr. Bateman, a carrier of Shoreditch, entered by the outer gates of his premises an hour after midnight, two men assailed him. Being powerful, he contended with them successfully, and they at last took to flight ; but as soon as they were gone he swooned from the effects of blows dealt on his head with a life-preserver. The Police found Mr. Bateman still insensible. The thieves bad packed up all the portable property they could_tfmd in the house, but had left it behind them in the kitchen.

The counting-house of Messrs. Clarke and Young, rag-merchants, White Lion Wharf, having been entered, the papers tumbled, and attempts made to open an iron safe, for three successive nights, on the fourth night two Policemen watched in the warehouse. At three o'clock in the morning, a little boy came down stairs, broke a window, got through the aperture, rum- maged the counting-house, and was seized as he retreated : a bundle of cancelled checks was found on him. He begged for water, and said he had been about the premises for several days, without food. His miserable ap- pearance, excessive weakness, and ravenous hunger, seemed to bear out the last assertion. At Guildhall Police Office, Sir Chapman Marshall remanded him ; observing that he thought him the tool of others.

Mr. Francis Edmund Knowles, late Commissary-General, committed sui- cide during Sunday night, at the house of a relative in Grosvenor Square. He was found dead in his bed on Monday morning, having swallowed a large quantity of prussic acid. Mr. Knowles had for some time suffered from low spirits and imagined he had an organic disease : he had been advised to re- sign his office in consequence of his state of health. He had lately lost a daughter, who was burnt to death ; five or six years ago a son died in Sierra Leone ; another son had recently gone there : these things preyed much on his mind. His despondency had been particularly noted of late. Mr. Knowles's surgeon stated to the Coroner's Jury that his patient had no or- ganic affection. The verdict was, "That the deceased died from hydrocyanic acid, taken by himself while in a state of insanity."

A very extensive fire broke out on Wednesday morning in a locality that has often in late years been the scene of great conflagrations. About three o'clock in the morning, a Policeman discovered that the house of Messrs. Wigan and Co., hop-factors, in Duke Street, Southwark, was in flames ; he aroused the couple who had charge of the premises, and they escaped over the roofs of neighbouring houses. The house in Duke Street was occupied for offices, and in the rear, in Tooley Street, was a great pile of buildings, the upper part of which formed the warehouses of Messrs. Wigan, while the lower portion was used by the owner, Alderman Humphery, and by other persons, to store divers kinds of goods. The fire quickly consumed the house, and thence spread to the warehouse. In spite of a dozen engines on land and two floating ones, the warehouse also was destroyed, while neighbouring buildings were damaged. There was 40,000/. worth of hops in the ware- house; but Messrs. Wigan were insured for 60,0001. The fire is thought to have originated in the kitchen of the house.