closed against them, and were told by officials that there
were no preparations for them. They adjourned to the
Chapter Library, and wrote a joint letter to their
Archbishop, asking when and where they might present their
petitions for the real meeting of Convocation. Among
the clergy present, were the Archdeacons Churton and
Wilberforce, the Honourable and Reverend F. Grey,
Messrs. Trevor, Gamlen, &c.

A deputation of persons connected with the
Agricultural Interest waited on Lord John Russell, on the
10th inst., to impress upon his lordship the necessity of
conceding the repeal of the malt-tax, an equitable
measure of tenant-right, a thorough revision of the
present mode of managing the county expenditure, the
abolition of the game-laws, the removal of restrictions to
the growth of exciseable articles, and the adaptation of
the tithe rent-charge to present prices. The deputation
was introduced by Lord Rendlesham, and amongst its
principal members were Mr. C. H. Lattimore, Mr. T.
B. Johnson, Mr. R. Haward, Mr. C. F. Fitch, Mr. P.
R. Welch, Mr. J. Garrould, and many other influential
tenant farmers residing in the counties of Norfolk,
Suffolk, and Essex. Lord John Russell said that he
could not at present enter into all the important matters
which had been brought under his notice, but would
give them full consideration. He observed, however,
with regard to the malt-tax, that it supplied so large a
source of revenue, that the chancellor of the exchequer
could hardly afford to spare it. In respect to the excise
duties, he doubted whether they could make out their
case, that the consumption of corn was diminished by
the duty on malt, because, it must be remembered, that
the beer duty was taken off in 1830, and the war-duty
was repealed after the peace. He should not deny that
the excise duties were in some degree injurious, but he
thought it would be a serious thing for the government
to propose the entire abolition of the malt-tax, or to
substitute another tax for it.

Admiral Houston Stewart was elected member for
Greenwich on the 10th, after a contest with Mr.
Montague Chambers, Q.C. Admiral Stewart polled 2964,
Mr. Chambers 1249.

Mr. Vernon Smith, Secretary of War, was re-elected
for the borough of Northampton, on the 9th.—On the
same day, Mr. Fox Maule was re-elected for Perth.

An official notification has been published to this
effect, "that her Majesty's government are prepared, in
certain cases, to advise her Majesty to accept the
services of volunteer rifle corps, provided that the proposed
formation of such corps is recommended by the lord-
lieutenant of the county, and that the members of the
corps undertake to provide their own arms and
equipments, and to defray all the expenses attending it,
except in the event of the corps being assembled for
actual service."

A meeting of the Surrey magistracy and gentry at
Epsom, held on the 17th inst., resolved to establish a
Rifle Corps, under the conditions of the government
notice. Public meetings to the same effect have been
held at East Grinstead and other places.

Sir Brook Bridges has been elected member for East
Kent, in opposition to Sir E. Dering.

The following are announced as the names of the New
Ministry:—First Lord of the Treasury, Earl of Derby;
Lord Chancellor, Sir Edward Sugden; Privy Seal, the
Marquis of Salisbury; President of the Council, Earl of
Lonsdale; Woods and Forests, Lord John Manners;
Home Secretary, Mr. Walpole; Colonial Secretary, Sir
J. Pakington; Under Secretary for Colonies, Lord
Desart; Secretary at War, Major Beresford; Board of
Control, Right Hon. C. Herries; Secretaries for the
India Board, Lord Jocelyn and Mr. Gaskell; First Lord
of the Admiralty, Duke of Northumberland;
Postmaster-General, Earl of Hardwicke; Board of Trade,
Mr. Henley; Vice-President of the Board of Trade, Mr.
G. F. Young; Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr.
Disraeli; Foreign Secretary, Earl of Malmesbury;
Secretaries to the Treasury, Messrs. G. A. Hamilton
and Forbes Mackenzie; Attorney-General, Sir Frederick
Thesiger; Solicitor-General, Sir Fitzroy Kelly;
Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Sir J. Y. Buller.
—To hold offices without seats in the Cabinet:—Lord-
Lieutenant of Ireland, the Earl of Eglinton; Lord
Chancellor for Ireland, Mr. Blackburne; Under-Secretary
for Foreign Affairs, Lord Stanley; Attorney-General
for Ireland, Mr. Napier; Solicitor-General for
Ireland, Mr. Whiteside; Commander-in-Chief, the
Duke of Wellington.

NARRATIVE OF LAW AND CRIME.

In the Court of Queen's Bench on the 31st ult., Sir
Fitzroy Kelly moved, on behalf of Mr. Ramshay, late
Judge of the Liverpool County Court, for a rule to show
cause why an information should not be exhibited
against Mr. Joseph Pollock, calling on him to show by
what authority he claims to exercise the office of Judge
in the Liverpool County Court. The application arose
out of Mr. Ramshay's removal by the Earl of Carlisle,
and was intended to test the legal validity of that
removal. In the course of the argument the following
letter from the Earl of Carlisle to Mr. Ramshay, was
brought forward:—

"November, 24, 1851.

"Dear Sir,—This letter will reach you together with the
painful intimation of the decision to which I have thought it my
duty to come. One thing I request you to believe, which is,
that nothing I am about to observe is written with the intention
or wish to deprecate any proceedings on your part in consequence
of that decision which you might see fit to adopt: still, in taking
a step which I feel you can only regard as one of the most
inimical character, I cannot, in justice to truth, refrain from
recording my conviction, that the person whom I am thus
removing from the post where I have placed him has conferred
essential benefits on the community in the midst of whom he
prosecuted his labours, now abruptly terminated. And in
addition to other more personal reasons, I feel on these grounds
much additional sorrow to have been unable to resist the conclusion
that he had not the degree of self-command to enable him
to properly perform the duties of Judge of the County Court of
Liverpool. You will have perceived that this is not an official
communication, still less is it one to which I expect any reply;
but you are welcome to make any use of its contents you may
think proper.

"I am, dear sir, your faithful servant,     "Carlisle."

On the 10th inst., the court gave judgment against
Mr. Ramshay's application. The court held that as
Mr. Ramshay does not allege that he was removed
without cause, or without a hearing, or that the matters
complained of against him, if adjudged true, do not
constitute inability or misbehaviour, they cannot interfere.
The chancellor had jurisdiction to inquire; he
had inquired in due form; his judgment was valid, and
it must stand.

At the Bow Street police office, on the 9th, Mr. Feargus
O'Connor was charged with Assaulting a Police
Constable. The constable stated that on the preceding
Saturday evening, he was on duty at the Lyceum
Theatre, when he heard a great noise and disturbance,
caused by the prisoner, who was in one of the private
boxes of the dress circle, standing up, loudly imitating
the violin with his mouth, and the drum with his
hands. Some of the audience were applauding the
prisoner, while others were crying "Turn him out,
turn him out." The witness went up to the prisoner
and civilly requested him to be quiet, and either take
his seat or leave the house, in which latter case his
money should be returned to him. The prisoner, who
was still "jigging about," turned upon witness and
gave him a direct slap in the face with his hand. The
constable then took him into custody and removed him
to the station-house; on the way to which, the prisoner
offered the constable a shilling to let him go, and
subsequently offered him two shillings, with the promise
that he would make him an inspector. This testimony
was fully confirmed by respectable witnesses. Mr. G.
W. M. Reynolds, who attended for his "friend,"
endeavoured to excuse the prisoner, on the ground that his
mind was affected to such a degree that he was not
master of his own conduct, and begged for a
commutation of the sentence of a week's imprisonment, which
the magistrate (Mr. Henry) had awarded. Mr. Henry
said that the infliction of a fine in such a case would be
nothing short of a mockery of justice, particularly as
regarded a person in the position of Mr. O'Connor, as
he had it in his power at once to pay the amount, and