L.S. Green. I valued the effects of the late Mr. Clavell. While I was doing so, John Barnes claimed some hay, saying Mr. Clavell had given it to him. Eales claimed a boat. Colonel Mansell said, that was very odd, when Mr. Clavell's name was on it, and he would not give it up. He said he should not wonder, if Barnes was to claim the estate. He did not say he was once near having it.

W. Downes.I was formerly footman to Mr. Clavell. I remember his paying a visit to Colonel Mansell in 1818. Mr. Clavell stayed there some days. There was a christening. When we got home Mrs. Eales wished him much joy of his son and heir. He thanked her, and said he had him called John Clavell, because he should not be christened twice, as

he was.

Benjamin Warwick.-I am a seal engraver, in Regent-street, London. I have seen the seals on the will, as well as Mr. Clavell's seal. I have endeavoured to see if the seal was impressed with this seal, and it is my opinion that it was not. It has been impressed with some seal, the impression of which is smaller than this. There is something like an impression of a coat of arms. On the inside seal there is no impression whatever.

-

George Day. I am in the banking-house at Wareham. I knew Mr. Clavell. I have seen him sign a dozen times. I should think this signature to the will was not his writing. I paid him 300l. on the 30th of March, 1833.

Cross-examined.-I should not believe this to be his writing (the instructions to the lease). This is something similar, but I should have doubted it (the other instructions). There is something of his style to this (the lease). I can't say whether, if it had been to a check, I should have doubted it. I should think this was not his (the grant of the annuity to Mrs. Clavell, produced by the plaintiff.)

Thomas Bascombe, cashier of the Dorchester bank.-I was acquainted with Mr. Clavell's handwriting. This signature to the will appears of a lighter character than his. I should not like to pay a check with that signature. I should not be lieve it to be his.

--

Thomas Bartlett. I am an attorney at Wareham, and was concerned for Mr. Clavell. I prepared two or three leases for him. I saw him on the 30th of March and beginning of April at my office. The two Barnes's were with him. It was stated that they came to give me instructions for some leases to Messrs. Barnes. They said it was for 21 years. Mr. Clavell said "No, certainly not." He asked me if it was usual. I said no. He then said he would not grant them, for he would not part with his estate for so long a term, and he was exceedingly violent. They were contending between 21 years and 16 years for a considerable time. The ultimate instructions were for 16 years. Mr. Barnes said if he would grant the lease for 21 years, it would be an encouragement to them to improve. They spoke of draining to

Mr. Clavell, and it was agreed to have the usual covenants in the lease. No leases were prepared from these instructions. In all the leases I have seen in this county, and I have seen a great many, that covenant not to assign is invariably inserted. Down to the time of Mr. Clavell's death nothing had occurred to interrupt our connexion. I was never concerned for Mr. Voss in the dispute between him and Mr. Clavell. The two letters, the one anonymous, the other from Mr. Clavell, I received. I also received this letter from Mr. Clavell, thanking me for my exertions in the affair with Voss. I have received the rents from 1829. Mr. Voss had been his bailiff for many years. No differences arose between Mr. Clavell and Voss that I heard of, until the Barneses came there. I have heard him say he was greatly indebted to his tenant, Voss, for the exertions he made, and he had done all his business gratis. From my knowledge of Mr. Clavell, should not think him capable of dictating such a will as this. He, certainly was not a man of busi ness, and, undoubtedly, inferior to the generality of gentlemen. very much doubt that this signature to the will is Mr. Clavell's writing. I do not believe it to be is.

I

I

Cross-examined. I have seen the will before. I think this is his writing (one of the leases). I do believe this is his writing (one of the instructions), and this (the other); and this I must believe to be his writing, though it differs (the other lease). In 1829, he altered the formation of his C. This copy of Mrs. Eales's will is, certainly, in his writing: she died in 1830.

Re-examined. From 1817 to 1829 he affixed his name to all in

struments with a long C without any deviation; and from 1829 he adopted the small C.

George Filliter.-I am a solicitor at Wareham, and manager of the bank there. I was acquainted with the handwriting of Mr. Clavell. I believe this signature to the will is not his.

Cross-examined.-I think this is (the instructions). I have heard the witnesses say what they had been examined to. I am inclined to think this is his (a lease); I think this is more like his writing than the other (the lease).

Mr. Bartlett re-called.-There is invariably a dot put between the J. and the C.

Lord Denman.But I don't see it.

Witness. Oh, I see it's put in the wrong place here. I am sure he was agitated at the time. This is his handwriting, but there is not the dot, nor is the C made in the same way. I went to the house the morning after his death. Mrs. Churchill told me that if I had not made the will, she did not think he had made one. I found in the small box an old 501. note and some shillings, which, with what I received from Mrs. Churchill, made 751., and that of a man of 3,000l.

Cross-examined. I went to London to see it before. I believe this is not his handwriting (the instructions). I cannot say this is (other instructions). I believe this is (a lease). I believe this is (the instructions he had first said he did not believe was his). I be. lieve this is his (this was the will folded up in a different way).

Several letters were read which had been written by Mr. Clavell to some members of his family, couched in the kindest manner.

Lord Denman summed up. The question for the consideration of the jury was-whether they believed the four witnesses for the defendant. If they were speaking that which was untrue, they were not only guilty of forgery, but guilty of a capital crime-of forging a will; and there must also have been a great deal of conspiracy. They were to deliberate upon this; and he would not pay the jury so bad a compliment as to suppose any warning was necessary to discharge from their minds any wishes or feelings, but they would apply their judgment to the evidence that had been laid before them. His lordship then read over the whole of the evidence, and at 11 o'clock on Thursday night the jury retired. At halfpast 4 on Friday morning they, returned a verdict for the plaintiff, thus invalidating the will.

EXTRACT from a dispatch from the Lord Lieutenant to Lord Melbourne, dated Dublin Castle, April 15, 1834.

My Lord,-The abstract of the reports for the month of March, 1834, from the four chief inspectors of police has been submitted to your lordship and his Majesty's government, and the detailed reports are now forwarded to the Irish office, for reference to the particular condition of each province and county.

These documents are calculated to exhibit a view of the comparative state of crime in the months of January and February, 1834, and also of March 1834, and the corresponding months in 1833.

There is a distinct statement of the class of crimes of an insurrectionary, political, or intimidating character for the same period of time.

Although these papers, with the daily reports transmitted to your lordship, and with the observations of the sub-inspectors, and the chief inspectors, might be deemed to furnish his Majesty's government with a sufficient view of the general state of Ireland,

your Lordship will probably expect from me, at the present season, the addition of my remarks and opinion.

The province of Ulster, upon the whole, is in a tranquil and even a flourishing condition; and although a large increase of crime (104 under the general class, including twenty-two under that of insurrectionary character) appears on comparion with the corresponding month in 1833, the heavier crimes have diminished on the same comparison. No general combination for purposes of insurrection, intimidation, or assumption of legislative or executive powers, is to be discovered in this province.

A part of the county of Monaghan requires vigilant observation; but I trust it may be restored to tranquillity by the ordinary employment of the magistracy, police, and military.

Agriculture and internal trade are all in an improving state in this province, and (with the exceptions already stated) there is no cause to apprehend any interruption of peace or good order in Ulster.

The province of Connaught may be considered generally in a state

of tranquillity with the exceptions of parts of Galway, especially those bordering on the baronies of Garrycastle and Eglish, in the King's County. Those parts of Galway (although proclaimed under the Peace Preservation Act) may require the application of stronger

powers.

The crimes under the general head in the province of Connaught, as compared with the corresponding month of March, in the year 1833, are increased eighty-eight; but the crimes of an insurrectionary, &c., character, for the same period of time, are decreased fifty-seven. The general aversion to the payment of the tithe and the resistance to it have been strongly marked in this province; and the spirit of the people is certainly of a discontented, disorderly, and turbulent character. Secret combination, concealed organization, intimidation, suppression of all evidence of crime, and the ambition of usurping the government, of ruling society by the authority of the common people, and of superseding the law by the decrees of illegal associations-all these have prevailed to a great extent in Connaught, especially in Galway, and the people are easily excited to mischief.

Your lordship will observe a considerable variation in the condition of the different counties in this province. Leitrim, Mayo, and Clare are nearly in a state of positive tranquillity, while Galway, Roscommon, and Sligo have been the scenes of all the evils which I have described.

These disturbances have been in every instance excited and inflamed by the agitation of the combined projects for the abolition of tithes and the destruction of the union

of Great Britain. I cannot employ words of sufficient strength to express my solicitude that his Majesty's government should fix the deepest attention on the intimate connexion marked by the strongest characters in all these transactions between the system of agitation and its inevitable consequence, the system of combination, leading to violence and outrage; they are, inseparably, cause and effect; nor can I (after the most attentive consideration of the dreadful scenes passing under my view), by any effort of my understanding, separate one from the other in that unbroken chain of indissoluble connexion.

In this (certainly awful and alarming) state of the popular temper, there is, however, no appearance of any settled plot or conspiracy against the state which menaces approaching convulsion; but while these pernicious habits of nocturnal assemblages and secret councils of the people, for planning the execution of schemes of outrage, plunder, and murder, shall prevail under the action of the most powerful incentives, any government must be lost to all sense of prudence which should not feel hourly apprehension of danger.

This province generally is stated to be well supplied with food; the apprehensionsrespecting the failure of the crop of potatoes here, as well as in other parts of Ireland, have disappeared; agriculture also appears to be making progress, and there is no complaint of any failure of internal trade.

To the province of Munster most of the observations which I have submitted to your lordship with regard to that of Connaught may be applied with equal force; the offences committed during the