a thrashing machine, the property of Mr. J. Sparham, at Shimpling-place, which they utterly demolished. Warrants were immediately issued for bringing six of the offenders to the King'shead, Diss. On Saturday morning, they arrived in the marketplace in that town, about ten o'clock, accompanied by about two hundred labourers from the neighbourhood, who were determined that the offenders should not be taken into the magistrates' room. Considerable resistance was made to the first man being taken into custody. Mr. Lee then read the riot act, after which the remaining five surrendered without giving any farther trouble. They were admitted to bail to appear at the adjourned sessions at Norwich, on the 6th of March next, for 'trial.

LORD BYRON'S "CAIN."-Mr. Shadwell applied to the lord chancellor lately, on the part of Mr. Murray, the publisher, for an injunction to restrain a printer named Benbow from pirating the above work. The lord chancellor informed Mr. Shadwell, that, having read the work, he entertained a reasonable doubt of its character; and therefore, until the learned counsel could show that he could maintain an action upon it, he 'must refuse an injunction.

Lord

"CAIN."-Letter from Byron to Mr. Murray.-Pisa, Feb. 8.-"Dear Sir; attacks upon me were to be expected; but I perceive one upon you in the papers, which I confess that I did not expect. How, or in what manner, you can be considered responsible for what I publish, I am at a loss to conceive. If Cain' be blasphemous,' Paradise Lost is blasphemous; and the

words of the Oxford gentleman, Evil, be thou my good,' are from that very poem, from the mouth of Satan; and is there any thing more in that of Lucifer in the Mystery? Cain is nothing more than a drama, not a piece of argument. If Lucifer and Cain speak as the first murderer and the first rebel may be supposed to speak, surely all the rest of the personages talk also according to their characters; and the stronger passions have ever been permitted to the drama. I have even avoided introducing the Deity, as in Scripture (though Milton does, and not very wisely either); but have adopted his angel, as sent to Cain instead, on purpose to avoid shocking any feelings on the subject, by falling short of, what all uninspired men must fall short in, viz., giving an adequate notion of the effect of the presence of Jehovah. The old Mysteries introduced him liberally enough, and all this is avoided in the new one.

"The attempt to bully you, because they think it will not succeed with me, seems to me as atrocious an attempt as ever disgraced the times. What! when · Gibbon's, Hume's, Priestley's, and Drummond's publishers have been allowed to rest in peace for seventy years, are you to be singled out for a work of fiction, not of history or argument? There must be something at the bottom of thissome private enemy of your own: it is otherwise incredible.

"I can only say, 'Me-me-adsum qui feci,' that any proceedings directed against you, I beg may be transferred to me, who am willing, and ought to endure them all; that if you have lost money by the publication, I will refund any, or all, of the copyright; that I desire

you will say, that both you and Mr. Gifford remonstrated against the publication, as also Mr. Hobhouse; that I alone occasioned it, and I alone am the person who either legally or otherwise should bear the burthen. If they prosecute, I will come to England; that is, if by meeting it in my own person, I can save yours. Let me know-you sha'nt suffer for me, if I can help it. Make any use of this letter which you please. Yours, ever,

BYRON."

FRANCE. By a royal ordinance of Louis 18th, M. Lain, in quality of ex-minister of the interior, is granted a pension for his natural life of about 800l. per annum; M. Pasquier, late foreign secretary, 480%. per annum; and M. Portal, late minister of marine, the like yearly

sum.

A very important suit, says a French paper (involving property to the annual amount of 150,000 francs), will shortly be brought before the tribunals. When marshal Massena (who was duke de Rivoli) was created prince d'Esling, the letters-patent, which conferred upon him the latter title, stipulated for him and his male issue, by order of progeniture, that at his death, in the event of his leaving several male heirs, the title of prince d'Esling, and the revenue attached to it, should devolve upon the eldest son; and the title of duke of Rivoli, and the dependent revenue, to the youngest son. The contingency, thus provided for by the letters-patent, has happened. Massena died several years ago, and left two sons. The eldest took possession of the principality of Esling, and the youngest of the duchy of Rivoli. In the course of last year, the eldest died without male issue, on which the youngest

appealed to the minister of finance, in support of his claim to the title and revenue of the principality of Esling, which his excellency recognised. This revenue, which principally consists of shares in the canals of Orleans and Toulouse, reverting, conformably to the stipulations of the letters-patent, in case of extinction of the title, to the crown, and the said shares, by the law of December 1814, being on that event to be restored to their ancient possessors, the family of Caraman have entered before the tribunals, against the duke de Rivoli, a demand to the effect of declaring, that the title of prince of Esling is extinct, that the revenue thereof was revertible to the crown; and consequently that the shares ought to be restored to the ancient possessors, M. M. de Caraman. The question to be decided therefore is, whether, when Buonaparte said, there are two titles at the death of the marshal

the eldest son shall have the title of duke d'Esling, and its dependent revenue; the younger, the duchy of Rivoli and its revenue

it was to be understood, that in case the eldest son died without male heirs, the title should be extinct; or if, on the contrary, according to the law of Majorats, the younger brother has not a right to take possession, on the death of the elder?

OUTRAGE AT GLASGOW. A house in Clyde-street, which has been occupied for some time by Mr. Provand, partly as a dwelling, and partly as a manufactory for paints, was last night (Sunday) completely sacked by an infuriated mob, every pane of glass being broken, and the whole furniture torn down and tossed into the river. The cause of this outrage

is discreditable to the intelligence of the populace, for it is said they were collected together, and urged on, by a report, that a number of children had been seduced into the house from time to time, and made away with for the purpose of making red paint with their blood. Some, who were above being gulled by such nonsense, got an idea that dissecting operations were carried on in the house, and became equally indignant at the unfortunate proprietor. Four previous attempts had been made, three of them on Sunday evenings, to raise a mob about the house, but the boys, who then collected, were easily driven away by the inmates. Last evening, however, there was a determined attack made, and the assailants were many of them full-grown men. The attack commenced, as usual, by throwing stones at the windows, to which succeeded the more important operations of breaking open the doors and windows, tearing down the furniture and throwing it into the street, from whence it was speedily conveyed into the Clyde. It was four o'clock when the mob began to act, and, none of the magistrates being immediately at hand, it was about five when the master of police arrived with some infantry, and soon after the lord provost, who had been previously on the spot, returned with a party of cavalry. Before this, some police officers had come to the place, and carried off a few prisoners, but were totally inadequate for any effectual resist ance. Some gentlemen, thinking that the appearance and remonstrances of respectable people would bring the mob to reason, made their way into the house, but they were so rudely assailed, that part

of them were glad to effect their escape, and the remainder barricadoed themselves in the upper floor. The arrival of the military put a stop to all farther attack; indeed the mob had left themselves nothing to do in the way of demolition; the riot act was read, but not acted upon. Upon the arrival of the military, a number of prisoners were made, six of whom were taken in the house. The cavalry returned to their barracks about 12 o'clock; but a party of the infantry, with some of the police, remained in the house all night. The magistracy have offered a reward of 200 guineas for informa tion which may lead to the apprehension and conviction of the offenders. Glasgow Herald.

19. COURT OF KING'S BENCH. Woodroffe v. Helps.-Mr. Gur ney stated to the jury, that this was an action brought against the defendant, for the breach of a warranty given on the purchase of a dog.

The plaintiff applied to Mr. Helps, who was a dog-dealer, to procure him a capital setter for the last sporting season, when he promised he would let him have the finest setter ever seen one that was equally well trained to stand or back. Mr. Woodroffe first tried the dog in the fields near Edgeware; but, as might be expected, found very few birds there, and had no opportunity of ascertaining his qualities. He ultimately purchased. him, at the price of 13., with a written warranty that the setter "would back and stand, and was in every respect a thorough-broke dog." Mr. Woodroffe, expecting fine sport with his purchase, took him down, together with a setter bitch, into Leicestershire; and, having arrived at Woburn in his way on the 24th of August, thought

he would try the dog in a field, where a covey of partridges had alighted. The groom was accordingly sent with the dog and bitch into the field; the bitch immediately pointed, but the dog would neither stand nor back, but ran in among the birds, which of course flew away. This happened twice; and Mr. Woodroffe might have directly returned him; but then he foresaw this answer- 66 Oh, this is only the 24th of August; he is a thorough-bred dog, and will neither stand nor back till the 1st of September!" After the 1st of September, however, he was tried in Leicestershire, and, to give him every chance, in Northamptonshire too; but he would never do his duty in standing or backing, nor would he even follow a good example when it was set him. In short, he was not worth a shilling, and Mr. Woodroffe would have immediately returned him, but he became lame, and therefore was not returned till the beginning of December.

The warranty was then proved, dated the 3rd of August. The groom of Mr. Woodroffe proved that the dog never did stand or back, after repeated trials in the first and subsequent weeks of SepTember; and his testimony was corroborated by several persons from Leicestershire, who attempted to shoot with him in company with the plaintiff. A letter was put in from Mr. Woodroffe to the defendant, dated the 11th of September, in which he complained of the qualities of the dog, but said that he did not discover them before on account of the lateness of the corn, which retarded the season for shooting. To this the defendant replied, alleging that the dog was thorough-bred, but

expressing a willingness to change him, if there was another which would suit Mr. Woodroffe. The dog, however, continued lame at Leicester till November, and, after a refusal on the part of Mr. Helps to receive him, and to return the money, he was lost on the road between Hampstead and Highgate. Mr. Scarlett, for the defendant, contended that the jury ought to infer, that the dog was spoiled by the mismanagement of the plaintiff; that no due notice was given of the deficiencies of the animal; that the best dog in England might be spoiled in a day; and that the plaintiff had evinced the dishonesty of his case, by writing, on the 11th of September, that he had no opportunity of trying the dog before, whereas he had tried him several days in the previous week, by the evidence of his own witnesses. The learned counsel called persons, who swore that Mr. Woodroffe had expressed himself satisfied with the dog before he left London, and others who traced the history of the dog, until he was sold and delivered to Mr. Helps, and who believed him then to be an accomplished setter.

Mr. Gurney replied, contending that it would be a most serious evil, if dog-dealers might get rid of the effect of warranties, by alleging that the dogs were never well managed but in their own hands, and might be spoiled in a day. The expressions of satisfaction alleged, were used, if at all, before the plaintiff' had an opportunity of trial.

The Lord Chief Justice said, that however little the jury might know on the subject of dogs, their knowledge must be equal to his own. The question certainly was, whether the dog was worthless, not

on the 1st of September, but when it was delivered with the warranty: if they thought the latter, they would find a verdict for the plaintiff for 151.

The jury found for the plaintiff -Damages 15l.

EAST INDIA COLLEGE AND MILITARY ASYLUM.-A return to an order of the House of Commons states the total expense of the East India Company's college at Haileybury, since its establishment in 1805 to 1820 inclusive, at 247,5951. 5s. 10d., including 92,3251. 88. 7d., the expense of building. The total number of writers sent out to India and China, 498. Annual amount of salaries of professors and other officers, 6,7021. 10s. Ditto, servants' wages, 1,7441. 8s. Total expense of the East India Company's military asylum at Addiscombe, since its establishment in 1808 to 1821 inclusive, 136,9981.5s., including 41,032l. 13s. 2d. for building. Total number of cadets educated at Addiscombe, sent out to India, 335. Total number of cadets sent out to India by the East India Company, since 1814 inclusive, from the military seminary at Addiscombe, and who have been instructed in the Hindostanee language before their departure, 1,616. Total annual amount of pay to officers and professors, 4,6221. gs. 3d.

20. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. -Garland v. Jekyll and another. -This was an action brought by the plaintiff, who is lord of the manor of Weeks-park-hall, in the county of Essex, to recover from the defendants, as executors of the late sir Charles Bunbury, a sum of 2,600l., the value of 14 horses, claimed by him as heriots, to which he was entitled by the

Sir Charles

a

custom of the manor. was tenant by copy of court-roll of a portion of this manor, which had descended to him from two sisters, who held it in coparcenary, through their several intermediate representatives; in the course of which descent, it became subdivided into 14 lesser estates. Now the plaintiff contended, that the original estate being once severed, each of the minor estates continued separate and distinct estate for ever afterwards, although they all happened to centre in one individual, and as such were liable, by the custom of the manor, each to a separate and specific heriot. In support of this position, the court-roll of the manor was produced in evidence, to prove from entries in it, that in two or three instances, distinct heriots had been paid to the lord for some of the subdivided estates, before they descended to sir Charles Bunbury.

The defendants insisted, that, when an estate descended from a coparcener to her representatives, it still retained its quality of unity, and was therefore only liable to one heriot. This part of the case was reserved for the consideration of the court in Banco, which is to decide whether or not the defendants are liable by law to pay a specific heriot for each of the subdivisions of the original estate which had descended to sir Charles Bunbury; if so, in what proportions it was liable; and then, how far the particular custom of this manor controlled the general law in the present case.

A question then went to the jury under these circumstances :→→ After the death of sir Charles, two men were sent by the plaintiff down to Barton, where sir Charles's stud was, to seize or demand the