morning of the 4th, the Benlomond steam-boat, plying between Edinburgh and Stirling, was lost by fire on the Firth of Forth. She sailed about 9 a. m., from Newhaven, having on board not fewer than 220 passengers. About five minutes after she had left the Chain-pier, smoke was observed by the steward to issue from behind the funnel. The alarm having been given, she bore round to make for the Chain-pier, and also hoisted a signal of distress, when, very fortunately, the Lion steam-packet, which was about 200 yards a-head, came to her assistance, as did also the Stirling Castle, which was lying at the Chain-pier. Most of the luggage was saved, but not the whole of it, for by the time that the last of the passengers were leaving the Benlomond, the fire was blazing 12 or 15 feet above the deck of the vessel. The captain ran the vessel ashore opposite Caroline park, about one mile west from the Chain-pier, for the purpose of scuttling it; but so rapid was the progress of the flames, that before this could be accomplished, the whole vessel, behind the paddle-beams, was burnt close to the water, and this too in less than forty minutes after she had left the Chain-pier. After burning to the water's edge, the hull sunk with the mast standing, at the distance of a quarter of a mile from the shore. The fire originated from the boilers containing too little water, in consequence of which they became red hot, and ignited the wood.

18. BOTTOMRY.-ADMIRALTY COURT. The Orelia.-This was an action on a bottomry bond given by William Hudson, the master of the Orelia, bound to London, to Mr. Henry Barlow, at the Mau

ritius, for 9001. bearing a maritime interest of 18 per cent. The owners, as well as the master, had become bankrupt, and the proceeds of the sale of the ship were insufficient to meet the full demand of the bondholder. It appeared that the master of the vessel was part owner, but had mortgaged his share to the full amount; that he had traded between Swan River, Sourabaya, and the Mauritius, in the years 1830 and 1831, partly on his

own account; that his consignees at the Mauritius were Thomson, Pasmose, and Co., to whom he became indebted in a balance of 900 dollars, besides 514 dollars due to Mr. Edes on bottomry bond, and 50l. to Messrs. Pearson and Co.; that the vessel was stopped from proceeding on her voyage by a process in the court at the Mauritius till the two latter sums were paid; Thomson, Pasmore, and Co., holding, as consignees, a cargo of rice belonging to the master; that an advertisement was inserted by Thomson and Co. in the Gazette of the island, of the 20th May, inviting a loan for 3,000 dollars on the bottom of the ship; that Mr. Barlow, in casual conversation, on the 12th of June, hearing that Captain Hudson was in want of a loan on bottomry, and being desirous to remit money to England, by advice of Mr. Cookney, the Procurator-General of the island, on the 15th of June, agreed to advance 9001. (which was more than the sum advertised for) on bottomry, and the bond was executed without any inquiry made by the lender as to the actual necessities of the master.

Dr. Dodson, on the part of the assignees of the owners, contended that the vessel was not in a condition to require an advance on

bottomry; that the master was not without funds and credit; that the money advanced was not applied to the necessary repairs of the ship, but to the purposes of the master; and that the bondholder had not exercised due caution, or made proper inquiries, which would have disclosed to him the real state of the case.

The King's Advocate argued that there, had been perfect bona fides on the part of the bondholder; that he had dealt with the master, not merely in his capacity of master, but as part owner; that although he might have been guilty of some inadvertence in not consulting the consignees, Messrs. Thomson and Co., they had in fact held out, by their advertisement, that a bottomry bond was necessary; and that, in point of fact, the vessel not being able to sail till the accounts of the master were liquidated, she was in a condition to justify an advance on bottomry.

Sir John Nicholl held, that under the circumstances of the case, the bondholder was entitled to no priority of claim. Mr. Barlow had not exercised that reasonable degree of caution which would have shown that the master was not without funds or credit, and that the vessel was not in want of those necessary repairs and provisions which could justify a security which gave the lender a priority of claim; and if he had been overcome by the representations of Hudson-if Hudson had, as he stated in one of his letters, swindled him—the loss must fall upon him, on account of his want of caution. Bottomry bonds were not to be used merely as a convenient mode of remittance to England. He directed the money

to be paid out of the registry to the assignees of the owners.

The next case was that of the Eliza. The vessel, when at Van Dieman's Land, was chartered by the house of Kemp and Wilson for a voyage to London, they paying the whole sum, 1,2001., to enable the master to defray all charges at Van Dieman's Land, to discharge a bottomry bond at the Cape, and to put the ship in proper condition for the voyage. Just at the moment of sailing, the master took up 560l. on bottomry of another house. On the arrival of the vessel in London, suits were instituted for wages; the ship was sold, and the sub-freight earned on the voyage, which was now in the registry, was claimed by the charterers on the one hand, and by the bondholders on the other.

Sir J. Nicholl said, that if the question lay between the charterers and the owners, the claim of the former would be preferable; but the bondholder was entitled to a preference over charterers who had advanced the freight. The validity of the hypothecation was not disputed, and if the money had not been advanced (for he must presume it was necessary), the ship might have lain at Van Dieman's Land, which would have been extremely injurious to the charterers as well as to the sub-shippers.

19. LIBEL.-COURT OF EXCHEQUER.-Hunt v. Ratcliffe.This was an action for a libel on the ex-member for Preston, who conducted his own case. The defendant was proprietor of the Liverpool Journal, in which the publication complained of appeared; and he pleaded the general issue. The plaintiff said, he had been returned in two successive Parliaments as member for Preston, and he had

frequently in his place in the house stated his opinion, that the Reform Bill would disappoint the expectations of the nation at large, and would not produce the blessings expected to result from it, and he had commented freely and honestly upon the measures of His Majesty's Ministers. This conduct had rendered him obnoxious to the ministerial journals. He lost his election in the Parliament following the Reform Bill, in consequence of the clause depriving the householders of their votes, if their rates were not paid by a certain time. On the 14th of December last the election ended, and on the next day, the defendant published the libel in his paper. It was as follows:

"Latest News!-Preston, Dec. 14. The election is over. Mr. Fleetwood and Mr. Stanley are returned; but we regret to state that there have been riots and loss of life. Mr. Hunt seeing Counsellor Segrave in the mob pointed him out, saying There is a black sheep!' The mob fell upon him, and killed him. Mr. Hunt had his nose cut off. The coroner's inquest returned a verdict of murder against him, and he is now in custody."

Mr. F. Pollock, for the defendant, said, that the libel was a mere electioneering squib, which ought not to be scanned too severely, and in the absence of all attempt to prove malice by reading other paragraphs from the same paper, he had a right to infer that there

was none.

Lord Lyndhurst said, he was of opinion that the paragraph was a libel. If, indeed, it was a joke, as the defendant's counsel had treated it, it was a very bad joke; but there was nothing in it which

would lead any person to suppose it was meant as one.-Verdict for the plaintiff. Damages 40s.-A similar verdict was returned in an action at the instance of Mr. Hunt against the proprietor of the Globe and Traveller, for copying the paragraph.

24. SCIENTIFIC MEETING AT CAMBRIDGE. On the 24th the British Association for the Promotion of Science held their third annual meeting at Cambridge, Professor Sedgwick in the chair. The meeting consisted of nearly 800 persons, comprising the most distinguished men of science from every part of the empire. The general meetings were held in the Senate-house, and the sectional meetings, under their respective Vice-Presidents, were held in the extensive range of apartments behind the Senate-house. The first day was occupied in various arrangements and preliminary discourses, describing the objects of the meeting; and the subsequent days in reading papers on various philosophical subjects. The proceedings each day commenced at 10 o'clock in the morning in the various sections under their respective VicePresidents, and the whole assembled together in the Senate-house at 1 o'clock, under the direction of the President; when the proceedings of the respective sections were reported, and followed by reading papers upon general subjects. The coup d'œil of the Senate-house during these re-unions was particularly imposing, comprehending above 1,000 persons, of both sexes, distinguished for their rank, talent, and accomplishments. On Wednesday the Master and Fellows of Trinity College gave a splendid entertainment to 400 members of the association in their great hall;

the Vice-Master, Dr. Brown, in the chair, supported by Dr. Buck land, Professor Sedgwick, the Marquis of Northampton, Earl Fitzwilliam, and Lord Morpeth. The evening passed off with the greatest harmony and enthusiasm. It was a splendid sight to behold 400 of the most learned and enlightened men in the empire, together with some of the most distinguished men of science from different parts of Europe and America, all united together for the advancement of knowledge in that hall where Newton, Bacon, Barrow, and other philosophers, had so frequently met before for a similar purpose. The evening terminated with a display of fireworks at the back of King's College gardens. Thursday was passed in the same manner; and doctors' degrees were conferred on Lords Fitzwilliam and Morpeth, Mr. Davies Gilbert, Sir Thomas Brisbane, &c. In the afternoon, the Master and Fellows of St. John's College gave a grand dinner to some members of the associations. The whole concluded with a grand concert of vocal and instrumental music. The next meeting was fixed to take place at Edinburgh.

25. LIBEL ON THE DUKE OF CUMBERLAND. - KING'S BENCH. Rex v. Phillips. - Sir C. We therell stated the case for the prosecution. The information about to be tried had been ordered by the court of King's Bench, at the instance and on the application of the illustrious individual abovementioned, against the defendant, for the publication of a gross, scandalous, and malicious libel upon the Royal Duke; and the question for the jury to decide would be, whether the allegations in that information were sustained

by the evidence.-In the month of June, 1810, a valet or servant of his Royal Highness the Duke of Cumberland, named Sellis, was found with his throat cut in a bed-room at some distance from the Royal Duke's apartments in St. James's palace; and as a circumstance of that sort of course excited a considerable degree of attention, a minute investigation of it immediately took place. The coroner summoned a jury, and one of the most full and minute investigations upon record was gone into for the purpose of ascertaining the real circumstances under which Sellis had met his death. The result was, the returning by the jury of a verdict of felo de se upon the body of Sellis. But, after the transaction had proceeded thus far, there were persons sufficiently evil-minded to insinuate that the Duke of Cumberland himself had murdered Sellis. From that time until the publication of the book in which the present libels were contained, his Royal Highness had been incessantly made the victim of the scandalous calumnies of some obscure slanderer or slanderers, who, in all probability, had for their motive the gratification of some private object. On one occasion, however, these rumours assumed such a shape in the columns of a paper called the "Independent Whig," that the then AttorneyGeneral, Sir Vicary Gibbs, thought it fit that they should be noticed; and he accordingly filed an ex officio information against that paper. Neither that proceeding, however, nor the long interval which had elapsed between the death of Sellis and the present time, had satisfied the malignity of the private and personal enemies

of the Royal Duke, or those of the Royal Family in general; for in the publication which he (Sir C. Wetherell) held in his hands, those rumours were once more revived, and put into, certainly, a most plausible shape. That publication came out in the month of March, 1832, and was entitled "Authentic Records of the Royal Family during the last 70 Years." The book was composed with no ordinary degree of malice, and the language and facts adduced showed that it was the production of a person with no ordinary talents and powers, the libel itself being introduced in a mode evincing considerable ingenuity. The case against the Royal Duke, as upon the evidence adduced on the inquest, would be found to be there stated first; and then the writer referred to, and produced, the deposition of a witness not examined on that inquest, for the purpose of showing, that if he had been examined, his testimony would have had the effect of completely altering the decision of the jury. The learned counsel then read the following passage from the book in question:

"The memorable year 1810 was ushered in under distressing and unsatisfactory circumstances. The Royal Family were divided among themselves, and every branch seemed to have a separate inter

est.

"Under these circumstances, it was not a matter of surprise that truth was now and then elicited. The King was at this time labouring under a severe attack of mental aberration; the situation of the country, his children, and his own peculiar sorrows, made impressions on his mind of the most grievous description.

"About half-past two o'clock Neale was awakened out of his sleep by the shrill cries of some person in much agony. He hastily arose, and proceeded to his master's bed-room, on entering which he saw the Duke, in an apparent quiet attitude, standing in the middle of the room. 'Neale,' said the Duke, send for Sir Henry Halford, I am severely wounded.' His Royal Highness then lay down upon the bed, and would not permit any of his wounds to be examined until the arrival of Sir Henry Halford. The temper of the Duke was too well known to admit of any questions or inquiries, and as soon as Sir Henry arrived every person left the room. When Sir Henry had finished the examination of the Royal patient,