but the attempt to establish, under colour of authority
from the see of Rome or otherwise, such pretended sees,
is illegal and void, and the assumption of ecclesiastical
titles in respect thereof is inconsistent with the rights
intended to be protected by the Emancipation Act;
and that it is expedient to prevent the assumption
of such titles. It is then enacted, that any person
assuming such titles shall forfeit one hundred pounds
for each offence, to be recovered by the Attorney-
General. The second section makes void all deeds
executed under such prohibited titles. The third section
enacts, that where any property is given for the
endowment of any archbishopric, bishopric, or deanery,
designated as of any place in the United Kingdom,
except those of the Established Church, or referring to
the maintenance of any such prohibited sees, or vested
in any person by a prohibited title, or in any chaplain
or subordinate of such person, or in any person
described in reference to such person, it shall without
office found vest in her Majesty, to be disposed of under
the sign manual. The fourth section requires all
persons liable to penalties under the act to answer
notwithstanding such liability.

The Hon. Stuart Knox has been returned without
opposition for Dungannon.

Mr. Barrow has been returned for South Nottinghamshire,
in opposition to Lord Newark.

Colonel Gilpin has been elected for Bedfordshire, in
opposition to Mr. Houghton.

NARRATIVE OF LAW AND CRIME.

On the 1st inst., a young woman, named Harriet
Vickers, applied for her discharge. Her case was a
singular one. She resided with her sister, and followed
no business. In the course of last year, a person named
Scott, calling himself a lieutenant in the Navy, came
to lodge at her sister's; and one day, when in company
with a man named Davis, he asked her to put her name
to a piece of paper which he told her was a receipt for
£60 that he had just paid to Davis. She consented, and
signed the paper. A short time afterwards, Scott told
her that the receipt she had witnessed was incorrect,
and got her to put her name to another piece of paper
in lieu of the former one she had signed. These papers
turned out to he bills of exchange for £60 each; one of
which got into the hands of Mr. Philip Beyfus, of Bury-
street, St. James's, and the other into those of Mr. Joseph
Joel, of the Strand. Both of these parties sued her, and
obtained judgment against her; and she, having no
means of paying the bills, offered £20—all she had,
arising from a bequest from her mother, but it was
refused; she was arrested, taken to prison, and
compelled to petition the Court for her discharge. These
bills formed the only debts in the schedule. Mr.
Commissioner Law instantly rendered the small measure
of justice in his power by ordering Harriet Vickers to be
discharged forthwith.

An investigation took place at the Kent Petty Sessions
on the 3d inst., respecting the Treatment of the Patients
in a Lunatic Asylum at West Mailing, belonging to
Dr. Maddock. The proceedings were instituted by the
Commissioners in Lunacy. The complaint, framed
under the act of parliament of the 8th and 9th Victoria,
cap. 59, was against Dr. Maddock, the proprietor, and
Mr. Perfect, the medical officer of the establishment,
and charged them with having made false entries in the
medical visitation book, and falsely represented that
there were no persons in the asylum who were under
restraint, when, in point of fact, it had been the constant
practice for a considerable period to subject a great
number of the patients, both male and female, to almost
continual restraint. Two male and a female attendant
were examined, and from their evidence it appeared
that it had been the constant practice to restrain the
patients; some of them by spring body-belts and handcuffs,
others by iron leg-hobbles, and some were
fastened to staples fixed in the floor. Other patients, in
addition to the iron belt, had gloves attached to straps,
by which the hands were fastened to the sides. Some
of the patients when in bed were also secured by leg-
hobbles, which were strapped to the bedstead. Similar
restraint was made use of with the female patients; and
it was stated that in July, 1849, one of them was
fastened by her ancle to a staple in the floor, and that
in the spring of 1850 another female patient was confined
by means of a strait-waistcoat and leg locks, or hobbles.
It appeared in the course of the evidence that upon the
occasions when the establishment was visited by the
magistrates, or by the Commissioners in Lunacy, Dr.
Maddock ordered all the patients to be released, and
all the instruments of coercion to be put out of sight.
The witnesses, however, admitted that some of the
patients bad been violent and dangerous, and that Dr.
Maddock treated the patients generally with humanity.
The magistrates called upon both the defendants to enter
into recognizances of £200, with two sureties in £100
each, for their appearance at the next Kent assizes.

In the Insolvent Debtors' Court, on the 3d inst., the
case of Henry Francis Leigh, a clerk to the India Board
of Control, was heard under the Protection Act. There
was no opposition. The schedule contained the names
of several bill discounters, and the insolvency was
attributed to accommodation bills. The case was before the
court in November, and had been adjourned for the
purpose of effecting a settlement with the creditors,
which had not, however, been carried out. Mr.
Commissioner Phillips observed that the insolvent had fallen
into the hands of an abandoned race—bill discounters.
It was really enough to make him shed tears to behold
the schedules he did. Here was the case of a young
man with ample means, who had been speculated upon
—who, with liabilities in the whole amounting to
£15,000, had only received consideration for about
£1000. He thought it was a case for the Legislature,
and that they should consider whether the usury laws
had not been hastily repealed. He was glad the young
man was not opposed, and should give him protection
for an extended period, in the hope that some arrangement
might be made with the creditors. Never again,
did he hope, would the insolvent put his name to a bill.
Protection was granted to the 31st March.

Mr. and Mrs. Sloane were tried before the Central
Criminal Court on the 5th inst. The case excited great
interest, and the court was crowded. Mr. Sloane
entered with an agitated step; his wife followed, in such a
state that she could hardly walk, and on her leaning
against the dock she was allowed to have a seat. She
is described as a "sallow-complexioned, plain-looking,
little woman, from thirty to forty years of age, with
nothing either strikingly prepossessing or repulsive in
her expression." Sloane is described as "tall, and like
a gentleman in dress and manner; his features are
regular, his hair and complexion dark, his cheeks
sunken, and the face generally rather careworn in
character. He wears spectacles, and appears to be from
thirty-six to thirty-eight years old." He turned several
times to his wife, as if for the purpose of encouraging
her; and it appeared to be at his request that a chair
was brought for her. When asked to plead to the
indictment, he did so without hesitation, but in a tone
which betrayed the full consciousness of his degraded
position. He then leaned forward, and appeared to tell
his wife what to say; for, in a broken voice, she
immediately repeated the words which he had used, " Not
guilty as to the first two counts, but guilty as to the
rest." The indictment seems to have been framed with
the usual multiplicity of counts, framed to meet every
possible circumstantial variety of facts that might come
out. The counts to which the prisoners pleaded guilty
were those which variously charged the assaults; those
to which they pleaded not guilty embodied the charges
of starvation. The defence against these latter charges
was, that the counts were not good in law, on the ground
that Jane Wilbred, being sixteen years of age, could
not be considered as an infant of tender years. This
defence was sustained, the Court observing that there
was no evidence to show that any sort of duress was
practised to restrain the girl or prevent her from going
out. The jury, therefore, under the direction of the
Court, found a verdict of Not Guilty on these counts.
In giving judgment on the other counts, Justice
Coleridge, after commenting with indignation on the
conduct of the prisoners, sentenced them to imprisonment