The Press. — London, England, 1856-08-16 00:00:00

772 man to death, it is idle to say it has not suffi cient weight to secure to that man's case a special consideration. In our opinion the Home Secretary should so far have listened to the recommendation, if only from respect to the twelve men who gave it, as to appoint a commission of lunacy doctors to report on the prisoner's state of mind. By their report his decision should have been guided. The wretched man's con fession, his belief in the supernatural power of HARRISON, and his rapture at the thought that a crime at which humanity shudders would open to him the gates of heaven, are strong proofs of a mind positively diseased. The second execution was of the woman BROWN, convicted at Dorchester of murdering her husband on the 6th of July last. If the wmian's confession is to be believed—and it bears internal evidencJof probability—her hus band came home one night very drunk, abused her coarsely, struck her several times, took down a horsewhip and laid it across her shoulders, and finally kicked her severely with his heavy boots. Suffering under this accumulation of ill-treatment, she snatched up a hatchet that was lying by, and broke his skull with it. Sir GEORGE GREY refused to entertain the question of a reprieve, and the law took its course. It is curious to contrast the case of this woman with that of JOHN PRIPSON, tried at Worcester, on the 15th July last, for the wilful murder of ELIZABETH MILWOOD. Both parties were at work in a nail-shop when the fatal occurrence took place, and a quarrel ensued between them, which at first was carried on merely by throwing " slack" at one another, slack consisting of sharp shreds of iron, and causing intolerable pain if they enter the eye Suddenly PRIPSON, irritated beyond endurance, snatched up a rod of iron red hot at one end and flung it at the woman. The iron entered her side, and produced almost immediate death. There was no doubt about the fact, hut the remark of Baron ALDERSON, who presided at the trial, was that—" It was a " very unfcrtunate accident, which might not " happen once in a hundred times." We see little difference in the two eases. The woman BRowN snatched up the hatchet in a moment of great excitement, as PHIPSON snatched up the iron ; and there is no evi. dence whatever to show that she contem plated her husband's death any more than PHIPSON did that of his victim MlLwoon. But she was hung, and PHIPSON was imprisoned for three months. In each of these cases the juries acted under the direction of the judge who presided. Without meaning to convey any insinuation against Sergeant CHANNEL'S professional ability, we mnst say we think the learned judges should so arrange matters that one of their own number should invariably preside at trials for murder. However this may be, we cannot understand, except by re ference to " Eothen," the vigour of Sir GEORGE GREY, in the execution at Dorchester. The two eases of PHIPSON and MARTHA BROWN, when placed side by side, afford such an ex traordinary picture of the uncertainty of the law, that it becomes the imperative duty of our Home Secretary to look into all the cir cumstances of capital convictions before he signs the death warrant, or not suffer wretches to be swung into another world in this reek less manner, under the idea that carelessness of hiuman life is a sign of moral energy. COLLEGE LIVINGS. (Thom • Correspondent.) Tn various Colleges in the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge possess the patronage of about eight hundred Church livings. Many of these livings as they become vacant are filled up by active and efficient parish priests. Many of item are filled up by worn-out coleg dons. We will venture to assert that of the large livings (i.e. exceeding 8001. a year in nu) two out of any three taken at random w 11 co Ile under the latter head, and that of the small livings (i.e. under 300/. a year in value) two out of any three will come under the former THE PRESS. The private experience of our readers will enable them to form their own opinion upon this assertion. If they think it entirely in eorreet—cadit quastio—we need go no further. If they agree with us, they will feel obliged to us for drawing public attention to an evil, and to a course that will be in a great measure its remedy. Take the case of the Rev. CLOISTER ANGLE, B.D. A high mathematical degree, and general good conduct as an undergraduate, has placed him, with universal approbation, among the fellows, and in due course among the tutors, of his college. His lecture-room is filled; his "men" do well in the Senate-house, and he finds his balance at MORTLOCE'S as sume every year a more attractive appearance• Small college livings come down to him in due turn, and are cheerfully passed. Larger ones are equally disregarded. His rooms are very comfortable, the hall-dinner good, and the combination-room keeps up its character for port and conversation. Why should he throw himself away upon a country parish ? But in process of time a few grey hairs begin to show themselves ; men of his stand ing drop off; and after five and twenty years' experience of college life Mr. ANGLE really determines to take the next good living that falls in. In a few years his wishes are grati fied, and, au older man at fifty than most I country clergymen are at sixty-five, he enters ' upon the duties of a parish. Can it be ex pected that those duties will be performed with pleasure to himself or advantage to his parishionc rs? And there are worse cases than this. Mr. ANGLE, with all his deficiencies for the duties of a parish priest, has still been actively em ployed in his line of life. There aro many who have not had even his advantage—work of some kind—but have lived an idle life in college. They have perhaps held a curacy for a few years immediately after their election, but have soon returned to college to vegetate there, and be on the spot, as they say, ready for anything that may turn up. Year after year they become more difficult to please as livings come down to them. Why not wait a little longer and get a really valuable living ? Alas, when it does come they are even more unfitted for it than our friend Mr. ANGLE, and their inefficiency is more glaringly manifest. While we assert then that the valuable college livings are as a general rule badly served, we maintain with equal confidence that the small incumbencies are in general well served. For this simple reason : they are taken by young men low down the list. who are desirous of being married, and who enter at the best period of life upon the management of a parish and a household of their own. We have now pointed out a serious evil, viz., that the larger a college living is, the more likely is it to be taken by a man totally unfitted for parochial work. The practical remedy we promised to suggest is simple enough. It is that fellows of certain standing, say six years after election, should be allowed to resign their fellowships, and yet under certain re strictions remain on the list for college pre ferment The result would be that, instead of hanging about college and unfitting themselves more and more every year for parochial work, many junior fellows would take a curacy in the country, and get married, with the plea sant prospect of a good college living about the time when household expenses began to increase upon them. Another advantage gained by this course would be a quicker succession to fellowships, an object so desirable that the superannuation of fellows after ten years has been proposed in some quarters. We do not think any com pulsory enactment in this direction desirable, but we strongly recommend the governing bodies of the various colleges to consider the merits of an enabling clause such as we have suggested. We do not profess to enter into minute details, but merely throw out the sug gestion, believing it to be sound in principle and likely to prove beneficial to many impor• tant parishes in England. SATURDAY, GENERAL WILLIAMS AND GENERAL KNIETY. TO THE EDITOR Ole' "THE PRESS." Beykos, August 1, 1856. Sir,—l enclose the copy of a letter which I have addressed to General Williams, and which I am desirous of making public through the channel of your columns.—l remain, sir, your obedient servant, GEORGE KMETT. Late Hungarian General. (COPY.) Sir,—No one can better appreciate than myself the services which you rendered at Eizeroum and Kars. As long as those services called for.th the plaudits of your country, without allusion to the services which it was in my power to render during the same campaigns, I feit in no way disposed to break the reserve which is habitual to me en such subjects. But, now that I see by the newspapers my name alluded to by you in public., I feel it a duty to my own military reinitation to make some remarks. On your arrival at Kars, in the autumn of 1854, you relieved me from the outpost duties, which had been intrusted to me with the Irregular Corps during nine months, without the intermission of a single day, and in which my strength and constitution had neces sal ily suffered severely. You placed me, at my request, in command of a division of the army, and you sup ported the exercise of my authority in that position with all the weight of an influence such as no other European officer ever enjoyed in this country. At length, when the word " surrender" was uttered for the first time, you enabled me to leave the belea guered garrison on grounds personal to myself. For all this my acknowledgments are due, and far be it from me to withhold them. Now, however, a new aspect is given to our mutual relations by one of your published speeches, if cor rectly reported. After mentioning Colonel Lake, an engineer of great merit; the lamented Captain Thompson, whose premature demise is by me, as by all, regretted; the young Major Teesdale, whose valour and coolness give the best promise; Mr. Churchill, a gentleman who doubtless rendered you important service in his functions of secretary; and, finally, Dr. Sandwith, an able and indefatigable physician—after bestowing on all these, I say, a well deserved meed of praise, you introduce my name, as if half-forgotten, and as if of one who bad contri buted but little to the events of the campaigns. Under these circumstances I can no longer keep silence without losing my self-respect, and I find my self, though most unwillingly, constrained to call upon you, with all due de!erence, to complete the statements of facts which have appeared, and more especially those concerning the battle of the 29th September, 1855, in which the part taken by me will no doubt on consideration appear to you, as it does to me, imperfectly reported. If I have not taken this course sooner, it is also partly because on perusing your despatches in the Blue-book I regarded them as the reports of a British Commissioner concerning his own services and those of other British officers, with which it was no business of mine to interfere. But it is only from another of your public speeches, in which you talk of the Turkish troops being under your com mand, that I learn that these reports can be taken as those of the Commander in-Chief of the army of Kars. As such, I hold that an officer serving in that army, although not having the honour to be a British officer, has an incontrovertible right to come forward and require that all chief questions relating to it should be placed on a distinct and accurate footing.—l have the honour to remain, sir, your very obedient humble servant, GEORGE ICKETT. Late Hungarian General. To Major-Gen. Sir Wm. F. Williams, Bait, M.P., K. 0.8., etc. etc. etc., London.