The Sun. — London, England, 1865-05-05 00:00:00

The Edmunds Inquiry. The select committee appointed to inquire into all the circumstances connected with the resignation by Mr. Edmunds of the offices of Clerk of the Patents and Clerk of the Commissioners of Patents, and with his resignation of the office of Reading Clerk and Clerk of Out-door Committees in the Lords, and also into all the circumstances connected with the grant of a retiring pension to him by that House, and to whom were referred several letters and documents relating thereto (laid before the House pursuant to an order of Friday, the 10th of March), have made the following report, which was laid on their lordships' table on Tuesday night. After a narrative of the circumstances attending Mr. Edmunds' resignation of his posts in the Patent office, corroborating that already given by the Lord Chancellor, the committee say : " They are compelled to express their regret that he was allowed to resign, and thereby withdraw himself from the impending inquiry before the Lord Chancellor and the Vice-Chancellors. The Attor ney-General, indeed, stated that in his opinion it was desirable at once to remove Mr. Edmunds from his office, and that the acceptance of this enforced retirement was preferable to the delay which must have taken place in the inquiry. Notwithstanding this high authority the committee are still of opinion that the inquiry ought to have proceeded, and if the charges which Mr. Edmunds had been called upon to answer had been proved (as it will be pre sently seen that in the judgment of the committee the principal part of them must have been), he should at once have been dismissed, leaving it open to future consideration whether ulterior proceedings blight to be taken against him." _ _ The committee then discuss the several charges against Mr. Edmunds in detail. The first charge is— " For having between the 23d day of August, 1853, and the present time, in concert and combi nation with Thomas Ruscoe, improperly caused to be obtained and applied, partly to his own use, and partly to the use of the said Thomas Ruscoe, allowances of discounts to a large amount upon the prices of stamps purchased from her Majesty's Stamp office, for use in her Majesty's Patent-office, such stamps having been purchased with public moneys, for which he, or the said Thomas Ruscoe, to his knowledge, was accountable to her Maiestv." ame tvnclusion of the committee is stated as fol lows : " Mr. Leman, in his evidence, stated that at his first interview with the Lord Chancellor, onJuly 27, he said that he thought there was nothing in the charge relating to the discounts, and that the atten tion of Mr. Edmunds need not be drawn to it. The Lord Chancellor stated that he had no doubt what he did say was, that the mere taking of discounts, if the money was properly obtained for the purpose, was a comparatively innocent thing, and that he would not make it the subject of charge.' It is highly improbable that the Lord Chancellor, in speaking of the charge relating to the discounts, should have meant to refer to the application of public money for the purpose of obtaining the profit as a matter not deserving of attention. It might very well be that, as there was a distinct charge against Mr. Edmunds of applying divers sums of public money to his own use,' the Lord Chancellor might have overlooked the fact that the latter part of the first charge related to the misappropriation of public money, and might have regarded it as con fined entirely to the allowances of discounts.' The committee are of opinion that so much of the first charge as relates to the purchase with public moneys of stamps, upon which allowances of discounts were obtained by Mr. Edmunds, is fully established by the evidence." The second charge preferred against Mr. Edmunds is for having improperly retained in his hands or under his control, between the 9th August, 1852, and the month of July, 1864, without duly paying the same over into her Majesty's Exchequer, divers large sums of money received by him for fees on patents, which ought to have been from time to l time during that period paid by him into her Ma jesty's Exchequer. The committee hold this charge fully proved. They add : " It might have been considered as some mitiga tion of the serious misconduct on the part of Mr. Edmunds if the fact had been that the money paid into the Patent-office account had remained un touched, though unaccounted for, during so many years ; but that this was not the case will appear in considering the third charge." The third charge is for having, from time to time, improperly caused to be transferred to the credit of his private account with Messrs. Coutts and Co., bankers, from a separate account kept by him with the same bankers for the public purposes of her Majesty's Patent-office, and having applied to his own use divers sums of public money for which he was accountable to her Majesty. This the committee also hold to be fully proved. The fourth and last charge is for having impro perly retained in his hands, until some time after the same had been made the subject of inquiry by her Majesty's Commissioners of Patents, a sum of £399 7s. 4d., part of a sum of £749 7s. 4d. paid by or on behalf of one J. S. Smith, a clerk lately em ployed in her Majesty's Patent-office, for the pur pose of making good public moneys in the said Patent-office, which had been by the said J. S. Smith improperly applied to his own use. The committee are willing to give Mr. Edmunds credit for the truth of his statement that he had forgotten this sum of £399 7s. 4d. And in this case, as the charge of improperly retaining the money in his hands must be intended to allege that he wilfully and intentionally did so, they consider that this charge has not been substantiated. The committee inquiring what check there was upon Mr. Edmunds, discovered that there really was no check upon him—no one responsible for seeing that he made affidavits and paid sums into the Treasury, and, quoting a statement by the Chan cellor of the Exchequer as to the deficient state of the law, they recommend that some steps should be taken to remedy it. The committee then refer to the second report of Messrs. Greenwood and Hindmarch, but abstain from expressing any opinion of their own as to the additional charges against Mr. Edmunds, as they may be the subject of future investigation. After narrating some proceedings as far back as October and November last, the committee narrate the final circumstances of Mr. Edmund's resignation, and express their opinion as follows : " On Saturday, the 4th February, Mr. Leman, who had frequently recommended Mr. Edmunds to send in his resignation, had another interview with the Lord Chancellor at his lordship's house. He took with him the following paper, signed by Mr. Edmunds : " L. E. proposes to resign the office of reading clerk in the usual manner, viz., a petition to the House to grant him the usual retiring allowance to which he is entitled for his services. _ _ " ' That the petition will be presented on Tues day at the meeting of the House. " 'To ask the Lord Chancellor, under these cir cumstances not to move for a special committee, or at least to postpone such motion. " 44th February, 1865. " L. E.' " Mr. Leman siated that he handed this paper to the Lord Chancellor to read, and that he read it and said, ' If the resignation take place between this and Friday, I will throw no obstacle in the way of the pension.' Mr. Leman then said to the Lord Chancellor,:' My lord, would your lordship object to Mr. Edmunds taking his seat in the usual way at the table of the Lords ?' He said, I shall take no notice of it if he does.' The Lord Chancellor's re collection of the conversation with Mr. Leman upon this day is that he stated most distinctly to Mr. Leman that he thought the resignation was the best thing Mr. Edmunds could do, that it would relieve him from the duty imposed upon him of being Mr. Edmunds' accuser, and that he would throw no obstacle in the way of his having a pension. That he told him so distinctly, but his lordship thinks with this addition, that he should not feel that he was under any obligation to pursue Mr. Edmunds before a Parliamentary committee. His lordship further stated to the committee ' that he would not have proceeded at all unless he had been told that his publi c d u t y re quired it. That was the question that he put to Lord Cranworth and Lord Ki_ngsd own. Th a t h e would not have proceeded at Dahl the Cabinet had not told him that it was his duty to do so. B ut that duty was only to tak e care that in the face of these charges Mr. Edmunds should not remain an officer of the House of Lords. That whether he was r i g h t or whether he was wrong, the rule he laid down to himself was this, that while he remained an officer, it being his duty to bring the charges before the House of Lords, he must do so ; but when he ceased to be an officer, he thought he bad no long er an y such duty.' His lordship further said, '.?.row that is the only time when I had any conversation about a pension. What I told Mr. Leman was exactly what he says, that I would throw no obstacle in the way of the pension. I never held out to Mr. Leman, or to any individual in any manner, direct or indirect, that I would do anything beyond being passive and silent until I was called upon.' On the 6th February Mr. Leman wrote a letter to the Lord Chancellor's secretary in these words :—' Will you have the goodness to request the Lord Chancellor to postpone any motion in the House of Lords till Monday or Tuesday, instead of Friday. lam de sirous of having a further communication from Mr. William Brougham or Lord Brougham (who were then at Cannes), before anything is done in the House of Lords ; and I cannot depend on getting a reply to my letter by Friday.' To which the secretary answered on the same day, The Lord Chancellor desires me to say that he is willing to postpone action in the house until Monday next (the 13th of February), but his lordship cannot approve of Mr. Edmunds attending the house in the interval, so that you had better take care that he does not do so.' Mr. Leman states that he had the greatest difficulty to persuade Mr. Edmunds to resign at all. That he did not finally make up his mind to resign his office until the 13th February, and he did so in consequence of what the Lord Chancellor said in an interview which Mr. Leman had with him on that day. There was some doubt at first as to the exact time of the day at which this interview took place, but Mr. Leman afterwards cleared it up by reference to his own memoranda ' and fixed it to have been between 1 and 2 o'clock.. He says that the Lord Chancellor told him that he had consulted the Government, and that if Mr. Edmunds' resignation was not in Sir John Lefevre's hands by 4 o'clock on the following day, he would move for the committee, and lay the reports on the table of the House of Lords.' Mr. Leman says his impression was that Mr. Edmunds was wavering as to his resignation until he told him what the Chancellor had said at this interview. Upon his at last consenting to resign, his petition was prepared in the usual form, and sent by Mr. Edmunds to the Lord Chancellor on the 14th Fe bruary, with a letter in these words I respect fully request your lordship to present to the House of Lords the enclosed petition, expressing my wish to retire from the offices of Reading Clerk and Clerk of Private Committees, and praying their lordships to grant me such retiring allowance as their lordships may think fit.' The Lord Chancellor says that he received the petition just as he was taking his seat on the woolsack. That the petition was presented by him, assuming it to be a common petition for re signation, and that he did not advert to the fact when he presented it that it contained a prayer for a pmicion. ' But,' his lordship adds, lam bound to say this, that if I had observed that, I should have presented it notwithstanding.' It will not have escaped observation that there is a material difference in the statements of Mr. Leman and of the Lord Chancellor as to the promise made by his lord ship with respect to the pension. Both agree as to the words used, that the Lord Chancellor' would throw no obstacle in the way of the pension;' but Mr. Leman states that on each occasion the terms of the Lord Chancellor's assurance were, 'if Mr. Edmunds would resign, he would throw no obstacle in the way of his pension ;' while the Lord Chancellor says that, when it was communicated to him that Mr. Ed munds intended to resign, then he did, as Mr. Leman says, voluntarily and of his own accord say, ' I will throw no obstacle in the way of his having a pension.' " The Lord Chancellor has stated to the com mittee that after the tender of Mr. Edmunds' resig nation, it was no longer his intention to lay the papers on the table, and that they would not have been laid before the House if public attention had not been drawn to the subject out of doors. And his lordship added, I beg the committee for a moment to understand that, from the beginning to the end, I have acted on this principle, that I would do nothing against Mr. Edmunds but what public duty required. I asked Lord Cranworth and Lord Kingsdown whether my duty required his discharge, if the alleged facts were true. They said " Yes ;" then I directed the inquiry to go on. When I found that the House of Lords was the tribunal, I asked the Cabinet, Is it my duty to bring it in before the House of Lords ? Not whether I was justified in doing it, but it is my bounden duty to it ? They said " Yes," but that was only in order that the House of Lords might no longer have that officer; and when that officer retired, I then determined for myself, rightly or wrongly (I take all the responsi bility of it), that I would not interfere actively to prevent his having a pension.' " The committee cannot coincide with the Lord Chan cellor in the view thus taken by him of his public duty. In their opinion it was incumbent on him, who presented the petition of Mr. Edmunds to the House of Lords, in somo manner to have apprised the Parliament-office committee of the circumstances under which the resignation of Mr. Edmunds of the clerkship had taken place, and with which the Lord Chancellor was officially acquainted, and not to have left them to decide the question cf a position with no clearer light than that which could be derived from vague and uncertain rumours. The committee have, however, no reason to believe that the Lord Chancellor was in fluenced by any unworthy or unbecoming motives in thus abstaining from giving any information to the committee. The committee have examined the Chairman of Committees as to the knowledge by the members of the select commit tee (which he attended) of any circumstances which might disentitle Mr. Edmunds to a pension. He stated that there was 'a general knowledge, or a general impression on the part of most of the members of the committee, that in con sequence of certain pecuniary transactions in which Mr. Edmunds had been concerned in the Patent-office, he had resigned his appointment in it." But,' he added, the peti tion was presented to the house without observation, and no order was made directing the committee to inquire into it. We had only the facts stated in the petition which was referred to us, and upon those facts we had to inquire what pension Mr. Edmunds should be considered entitled to.' It is to be regretted that the committee did not consider it to be their duty under the circumstances to act upon their general knowledge or impression so far as to interpose some delay before the question was finally disposed of in favour of a pension which, had the circumstances been fully known to them, would probably not have been re commended." The committee then consider the incidental ques tion of the £3OO a year, which Mr. Edmunds had stated was deducted out of his salary as clerk of the patents. As the result of their investigations, it ap pears only necessary to state : " That a mortgage was granted by Lord Brougham in 1811 over his estate, in order to raise money for his brother James, who was in possession of the estate, which mort gage was assigned in 1827 to trustees, of whom Mr. Ed munds was one, for the benefit of his sisters. " That Lord Brougham knew nothing of the assignment or subsequent transactions, for many years entrusting the management of his property to Mr. James Brougham, and afterwards to Mr. Win. Brougham. " That when Mr. Edmunds was appointed to the office of Clerk of the Patents (salary (400), Mr. Jas. Brougham, who was the medium of communication between him and Lord Brougham, directed him to pay or account for £3OO of the salary to him (James Bougham)—who also told him that the office was intended for the eldest son of Mr. John Brougham, then deceased, another brother of Lord Brougham, but that as he was not old enough to hold it himself, he was to take it in the meantime in trust for the benefit of the widow and five children of John Brougham. " That at Mr. James Brougham's death the £2OO was retained by Mr. Edmunds in payment of his sisters, and £lOO was paid to Mr. William Brougham. " Mr. William Brougham, however, denies all knowledge of how the £2OO was applied, but the committee cite a great many cireumstances, lead* them to the conclusion that he was cognisant of the whole arrangement." The committee say in conclusion : " It thus appears that at the time of the appointment of Mr. Edmunds to the office of Clerk of the Patents, it was agreed between him and Mr. James Brougham that £3OO a year out of the salary should be applied either for the benefit of the family of John Brougham, or should be avail able towards the liquidation of the debts of Jas. Brougham. And it is also proved that in the year 1863, when it was proposed that Mr. Edmunds should resign his offices of Clerk of the Patents and Clerk to the Commissioners of Patents, there was an understanding between him and Mr. William Brougham, that if Mr. William Brougham's son should be appointed to succeed to the office, a similar de duction should be made from his emoluments, to be applied in the same manner as the £3OO a year which had been then charged upon Mr. Edmunds' salary for a period of 30 years. So far as the public is concerned, what was the actual agreement as to the application of this £3OO a yearis wholly immaterial. Any private arrangement that a portion of the salary of a public officer which is the remuneration for his services shall be applied to the benefit of any other person is a grave offence against public morality, and de serves the severest condemnation. " All the witnesses concur in stating that these trans actions took place without the slightest knowledge of them on the part of Lord Brougham. That he was no party to the arrangement for the appropriation of any part of the salary of the Clerk of the Patents in any other manner than for the sole benefit of Mr. Edmunds. That he was kept in entire ignorance of all the circum stances connected with -the payment of the interest upon the mortgage of 1811, ind the transfer of that mortgage to trustees for the sisters of Mr. Edmunds, and that he had no means of arriving at the facts, as he had resigned the entire management of his affairs first to his brother, James Brougham, and afterwards to Mr. William Brougham, the latter of whom has expressly sworn that he never communi cated any information to Lord Brougham upon the subject. Mr. Edmunds, who lived upon the most confidential terms with Lord Brougham, and was for a long course of years an inmate in his house, also states positively that Lord Brougham knew nothing of the arrangements respectinghis office, nor of the application of any portion of his salary, otherwise than f or hi s own benefit ; and Lord Brougham him self in an affidavit, Which the committee consented to receive, satisfied appointed xr unable .r t E o d a m t t u e n n d d s , s u l p v o e n arsin beingthese words — ' clerk of the patents, the salary being ,400 a year. I made the appointment freely and without any condition, or stipu lation, or understanding whatever. I derived, or received, or expected to receive, no benefit or advantage whatsoever from the appointment. If it is stated or suggested that I, or any member of my family, received or derived any bene fit or advantage from the appointment, such statement or suggestion is, as I firmly believe, utterly false, as with re spect to myself I know it to be. I read in the Times of the 10th March that a yearly payment of £3OO had been made by Mr. Edmunds for interest on a mortgage and otherwise, by which I was directly or indirectly benefited. I utterly deny all knowledge of any such transaction, and of any and every part therof. " The committee, in conclusion, trust that they may, without departing from their proper functions, be permitted to express their gratification that the result of their inquiry should thus have been to remove the possibility of any sus picion attaching to the character of so distinguished a mem ber of your lordships' house. " And the committee have directed the minutes of evi dence taken before them, together with an appendix, to be laid before your lordships." THE DRAFT REPORTS. It remains to be added that several divisions took place in committee on passages in the draft report. The following paragraph appeared in the draft report:— " The opinion which the Lord Chancellor appears to have entertained of his duty upon this occasion is one in which it is impossible for the committee to concur. In forming a judgment upon it, it is necessary to bear in mind the position in which Mr. Edmunds stood at the time his petition was presented to the house. A report had been made to the Lord Chancellor by persons whom he himself had selected to inquire into alleged misconduct on the part of Mr. Edmunds, charging him, in the strongest terms, with havig misappropriated to his own use public moneys, with having passed false accounts to the Treasury, and with having.embezzled large sums,which, but for the accidental discovery of his defalcations, would have been lost to the public. Upon this report four grave charges had been framed by the Attorney-General, and Mr. Edmunds had been called upon to answer them in a judicial inquiry. In stead of meeting these charges, Mr. Edmunds preferred to surrender his offices, and to undertake to pay all that was due from him to the public; and he afterwards paid into the Exchequer nearly three times as much as then discovered deficiencies. A second report had been presented only a fortnight before his resignation, which charged Mr.Edmunds with still being a public defaulter to a very considerable amount beyond the sum which he had so paid. "These circumstances were fully known to the Lord Chancellor, and were all essentially important to be known by the house in order to enable it to determine whether Mr. Edmunds was deserving of a pension or not. All that was afterwards done in the house was founded upon the petition presented to the house by the Lord Chancellor without observation. Upon its presentation the acceptance of Mr. Edmunds' resignation was moved and agreed to, and the petition was afterwards referred by the house to the Select Committee on the office of the Clerk of the Parliaments." For this Lord Taunton proposed to substitute the following : " The committee cannot coincide with the Lord Chan cellor in the view thus taken by him of his public duty. In their opinion it was incumbent on him, who presented the petition of Mr. Edmunds to the House of Lords, in some manner to have apprised the Parliament-office Com mittee of the circumstances under which the resignation of Mr. Edmunds of the clerkship had taken place, and with which the Lord Chancellor was officially acquainted, and not to hays left them to decide the question of a pen sion with no clearer light than that which could be derived from vague and uncertain rumours. The committee have, however, no reason to believe that the Lord Chancellor was influenced by any unworthy or unbecoming motives in thus abstaining from giving any information to the committee." On the question, that the paragraphs proposed to be left out stand part of the report, there was the following division : Contents : Earl of Derby, Earl Graham, Earl of Malmesbury, Viscount Hut chinson, and Lord Chelmsford. Not-contents : Lord President, Duke of Somerset, Earl of Claren don, Lord Panmure, Lord Stanley of Alderley, and Lord Taunton. The paragraph proposed to be inserted by Lord Taunton was then agreed to. The following paragraph also appeared in the draft report : " Although the committee see no ground for attributing to the Lord Chancellor any motive except an unwillingness to act harshly toward an officer of the House who had faithfully performed his duties to it for many years, they are compelled to come to the conclusion that in withhold ing from the knowledge of the House the serious matters affecting the character of Mr. Edmunds, and presenting his petition as if he approved of his application for a pension, he acted under a mistaken sense of his duty, and has thereby occasioned serious reflections to be cast upon the conduct of the House, and has placed it in a situation of I great embarrassment and difficulty." On the question that the paragraph proposed stand part of the report, there was the following division :—Contents : Earl of Derby, Earl Graham, Earl of Malmesbury, Viscount Hutchinson, and Lord Chelmsford. Non-contents : Lord President, Duke of Somerset, Earl of Clarendon, Lord Pan mure, Lord Stanley of Alderley, and Lord Taunton. The following paragraph was proposed by the Duke of Somerset, viz : " The committee are of opinion that the pension having been granted by the House in ignorance of the facts which are now brought to light, the proper course will be for the House to reconsider its former resolution." On the question that thb paragraph stand part of the report, the committee divided :—Contents : Lord President, Duke of Somerset, and Earl of Clarendon. Non-contents : Earl of Derby, Earl Graham, Earl of Malmesbury, Viscount Hutchin son, Lord Panmure, Lord Stanley of Alderley, Lord Cbelmsford, and Lord Taunton. The report, minutes of committee, and evidence will be printed on Tuesday. THE ROAD MURDER, EXAMINATION OF CONSTANCE KENT. TROWBRIDGE, Thursday. This morning Constance Emile Kent, who stands charged upon her own confe6sion with having murdered Francis Saville Kent, a child four years old, on the night of the 29th of June, 1860, was brought up on remand at the Sessions Court of this town, for further examination. H. G. G. Ludlow, Esq., Heywood House, Westbury, chairman; J. P. Stancomb, Esq., Thomas Clark, Esq., J. H. Webb, Esq., John Sinkins, Esq., and C. F. C. Caillard, Esq., were the magistrates who presided. It was close upon 11 o'clock before the carriage convey ing Miss Kent, her father, and Mr. Alexander, the Gover nor of Devizes Gaol, drove up to the court. By this time some 200 persons had assembled in the approaches, and of course manifested the deepest curiosity to see the unfortu nate prisoner as she stepped from the carriage. The magistrates took their seats on the bench at 11 o'clock precisely, and a few minutes afterwards Constance Kent entered the dock, accompanied by Mrs. Alexander, the wife of the governor of the gaol. Constance walked in with her eyes cast down, and did not once raise her head. She wore a thick black veil, and, as far as could be perceived through it, she appeared much flushed. She was very sad, but extremely quiet and self-possessed. Her father was not in the court. Mr. Rodway rose and said he was present to watch the case on behalf of the prisoner, but that it was not his in tention to cross-examine the witnesses. Elizabeth Gough was then called, and having been sworn, said—ln 1860 I was nurse in Mr. Kent's family at Road-hill House. I remember Friday evening, the 29th of June. On that day I had been cleaning the nursery. I was more busy than usual. I did not wake once during the night, but slept very soundly. I then had charge of the deceased, Francis Saville Kent. He slept in the same room with me, in a cot on the opposite side. There was another child, a little girl, in the same room by the side of my bed. Her name was Eveline. The cot in which the deceased slept was not very near to the door, but on the same side of the room as the door. My bed was opposite the door. I last saw the deceased on the Friday evening, a little before 11 o'clock. ,I then went to bed, leaving him asleep in his cot. I awoke the next morning first at 5 o'clock. The child was not there then. I did not wake Mrs. Kent at that time. I did not wake her because I thought she had taken the child after I went to bed. I think the door of the nursery was slightly on the jar. I can't remember distinctly how it was. After I had seen Mrs. Kent I went to the room of the Misses Kent- I saw the Misses Kent. I went to inquire if they had seen the little boy. I saw the pri soner. She was standing by the door of her own room. The Misses Kent were in their room. The prisoner was near enough to hear the conversation that passed between me and the Misses Kent. Tho prisoner made no remark what ever. I afterwards went down to Mrs. Kent, and I after wards examined the cot where the child had been lying. The clothes were folded down at the foot of the bed. They were put back. They were not disarranged. When the deceased child was brought into the house I discovered that a blanket was missing. It was the blanket between the counterpane and the sheet that was missing. The window and shutters of the dressing-room next to the nursery were fastened as usual on the Friday night when I went to bed, and I found them in the same state the next morning. The window of the nursery was also in the same state. It was the custom of the deceased to sleep in the middle of the day. He did not do so on the Friday in ques tion, because the rooms were all in confusion. Mr. Kent's family consisted of Mr. and Mrs. Kent, Miss Mary Ann Kent, Miss Elizabeth Kent, Miss Constance Emile Kent, and William Saville Kent. These four children were by , the first wife of Mr. Sent. The names of the children by THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, MAY 5, 1865 the present Mrs. Kent were Minnie Saville Kent and Francis Saville Kent, the deceased ; his age was about four years ; and Eveline Kent, aged about two years. There were no visitors staying in the house at that time. There were three servants, viz., witness Sarah Cox (housemaid), and Sarah Kerslake (cook). No man-servant slept in the house. At that time the prisoner had been home for her holidays about a fortnight. She slept by herself. Her brother William also slept alone. Each of the other bed rooms were occupied by two persons. The prisoner being asked if she had any question to put to the witness, shook her head, and replied in the negative. Thomas Benger, farmer, of Road, deposed that he was passing Mr. Kent's house about eight o'clock on the morn ing after the murder, when Mr. Kent came out and said his little boy was lost, and that he would give £lO to have him found. Witness then, with a policeman named Nott, searched about the premises. On coming to the closet they found some blood on the floor, and a light being fetched the body of the deceased was found in the hole, the lid being closed. It was wrapped in a blanket, and had also a night-dress on. Its throat was cut through to the bone of the neck, and there was blood upon its night dress, and a little on the blanket. Mr. Joshua Parsons, surgeon, of Frome, Somerset, de posed as follows :—On the morning of June 30, 1860, I went to Road-hill House, the residence of Mr. Kent, between 8 and 9 o'clock, where I saw the body of the deceased in the laundry, on a table. It had a night-dress and flannel on, and a blanket was wrapped round it. These were stained with blood and soil. There was an incision on the night dress and on the flannel, on the left side, near to the region of the heart. The first thing that struck me was a black ened appearance round the mouth of the body. The tongue was not injured, but it slightly protruded. The blackened appearance round the mouth contrasted so strangely with the pale appearance of the rest of the body that it struck me there had been strong pressure against the mouth be fore death. It did not appear as though anything had been forced into the mouth. I found an incision in the throat, which had been made by a cut from left to right, and which had divided all the structures— air -tubes, blood-vessels, and nerves—quite to the front of the spine. I afterwards, by order of the coroner, made a post-mortem examination of the body of the child. Wit ness here described the internal organs as healthy, but com pletely drained of blood. He did not think any narcotic had been administered to the deceased. The stab in the side had divided the cartilage of two ribs. This had pushed the heart and its bag out of the way, and the stab then pene trated the diaphragm and wounded the upper surface of the stomach. There were two slight wounds on one of the hands. The body was rigid when he first saw it, and might have been dead from five to six hours. In conclusion, wit ness said—My opinion is that the immediate cause of death was the incision in the throat ; but the appearance of the place where the body was found was such as to lead me to suppose either that the throat was not cut there, or that the circulation of the child was in a great degree stopped by suffocation before that was done. My opinion is that the cut in the throat must have been made by a sharp knife or a razor ; either would have done it. The wound in the chest I think could only have been inflicted with a long and sharp-pointed knife. The length of the stab was about II inch, and there was a notch in the side as if the knife had been drawn out in a diffe rent direction to that in which it had been forced in. The witness added—l accompanied the late Superin tendent Foley in searching Mr. Kent's house. Among other things I examined the night-dress of Miss Constance Kent, the prisoner, and I made the remark at the time that it was exceedingly clean, and thought the starch was not gone from the wristbands and frills so much as it would have been if it had been worn from the Saturday before. Witness also described the marks of blood found in the closet. All this blood was of a dark colour, and appeared to have dropped down straight, and not as if it had spurted from living arteries. There was some splashes of blood on the perpendicular front of the seat in the closet, but these must all have been made by the fall of blood on the floor. He was shown a piece of bloody paper which was picked up outside the closet door. Mr. Rodway observed that the statement of the witness as to the blackened appearance of the mouth, and the infe rence which he drew therefrom, was not made at the inquest. The witness, in reply to this remark, said he believed his explanation on this point had formed part of his evidence on the inquest, and that he had then stated that he believed on a diligent examination of the premises more blood would be found. Examined by the Chairman—l accompanied Superin tendent Foley in an examination of the closet. I did not see there so much blood as I should have expected to have seen if the whole of the blood had fallen there from the body of the child ; but it was difficult to form an estimate of it on account of the soil and paper there. I was struck by the appearance of the prisoner's night-dress. I and Mr. Foley also examined the night-dresses of the other in mates of the house, and I was struck by the contrast be tween them and that of the prisoner, which latter had so much less appearance of having been worn. I was the re gular medical attendant of Mr. Kent's family at the time of the murder in 1860. When I and Mr. Foley examined the prisoner's night-dress we found it on the bed in her room. Sarah Rogers, wife of Joseph Rogers, of Shepton Ashton, deposed that her maiden name vas Cox, and that in 1860 she was housemaid in Mr. Kent's family. It was her duty to fasten all the windows and doors at night. On the even ing of June 29, 1860, she fastened the drawing-room door and windows as usual and closed the shutters. The drawing room window was a sash window to throw up, and opened from the ground. The shutters fastened with two iron hasps. When I went to bed I locked and bolted the drawing-room door. Next morning it was open, and the top shutter of the window open. The window also was raised a little. There did not appear to have been any force used. It was my duty every Monday morning to collect the dirty linen from the bedrooms. Some of this *as collected on the Sunday. Miss Constance's night dress and stockings were thrown out on the landing on the Monday morning after the murder. I had some other of her clothes on the Sunday. Ido not recollect finding her night-dress on the landing before this. Miss Constance's clean linen was kept in a drawer in her own room. I took the night-dress to a lumber-room on the first floor with the other linen, and there sorted it out, and Miss Kent having taken down the number, I put the linen in a basket to go to the wash. lam quite sure that I put Miss Constance's night-dress into the basket with the other linen. The only night-dresses I put up besides Miss Constance's were Mrs. Kent's and Miss Kent's. Miss Eliza beth always put up her own clothes in a bundle herself, and a separate book was kept for them. The clothes were packed up in two baskets, and while I was packing them up Miss Constance came to the room and asked me to look in her skirt pocket and see if her purse was there. I there upon pulled the clothes on one side, found the skirt, and told her that the purse was not there. The night-dress of Miss Constance was there then. When I told her that the purse was not in the skirt pocket, she asked me to get her a glass of water, and I went out for that purpose to the kitchen, leaving the basket of clothes uncovered. When I returned, I found Miss Constance on the top of the back stairs, where I had left her. I gave her the water, and she drank it, and then she went up the other back stairs lead ing to her own room. I was very quick in fetching the water. Water fit tor drinking was usually kept in the bed rooms, and a water-bottle was there also. Mrs. Holly, wife of John Holly, labourer, of Road, deposed —I am a washerwoman, and washed for Mr. Kent's family in 1860. I remember on the Monday after the murder going to Mr. Kent's house about eleven o'clock in the morning to fetch the clothes to wash. My daughter Martha accompanied me. We went to the lumber-room, where two baskets of clothes were handed to us. They were not packed up. We carried them home, and I and my three daughters opened the basket. Miss Constance's night dress was not there. There were only three instead of four in the two baskets, viz., those of the two elder Misses Sent and Mrs. Kent's. There were two books used to enter the washing in. I think the one was for the nursery clothes ; but it is a long while ago, and my memory is not good enough to remember about that. By Magistrate's Clerk—Have you seen anything of a night-dress of Miss Constance's since ? Witness (in surprise)—No, sir ; I wish I had. - „ In further examination the witness said she did not men tion the fact of the missing night-dress to anyone on the day they brought the linen home ; but she supposed she had done so afterwards. The night-dresses worn by Miss Con stance bad plain frills on them, and Mrs. Kent's and the two other young ladies' had edged frills on them. A short adjournment for refreshments took place at this point of the proceedings, and the Court re-assembling, Martha Nutt, wife of Edward Nutt, labourer, was called. She deposed that she was the daughter of the last witness, and she corroborated the testimony of her mother as to the fetching away of the two baskets of clothes from Mr. Kent's on the morning after the murder. There was no night-dress belonging to Miss Constance in either of the baskets. Her dresses were made of different materials to those of the others. They were made of long-cloth, with jaconet or plain frills ; and the night dresses of the other young ladies were made of calico. The three night-dresses in the basket belonged to Mrs. Kent, Miss Elizabeth, and Miss Mary Ann. In consequence of there being no night-dress of Miss Constance's among the clothes witness went down to Mr. Kent's to inquire about it.—(The result of this inquiry was not elicited.) Police-sergeant Jas. Watts deposed—ln consequence of information received by me I proceeded to Mr. Kent's house in June, 1860, to search therein... Ton the course of my search I found in the fire-hole in the scullery a chemise wrapped in thick brown paper. I took it into the stable in the yard to examine it, and while so employed Superinten dent Foley came and I showed it to him. There was blood on it. Mr. Foley took it away, saying he would hand it to a medical gentleman, and I have not seen it since. The blood was on the lower part of the chemise. There was a good bit of blood about it. The blood was on both the fore part and the hinder part as well. I don't think there was any blood on the garment about the shoulder part. The marks of blood and smears would nearly cover the lower part of the dress. It was both before and behind. I found this chemise on the Saturday afternoon about 4 o'clock. By Mr. Rodway—l don't know of my own knowledge whether the chemise was ever shown to a medical man. I have never seen it since. Jonathan Richard Whicher, late chief inspector of the Metropolitan detective force, was next called. He said—On Sunday, the 15th July, 1860, in consequence of a communi cation that was made to the Home Secretary . by the magis trates of Trowbridge, I received directions from Sirßicharu Mayne to proceed to Road to assist the local police in in vestigating this case. On my arrival there Mr. Stanton, one of the magistrates, put me in communication with the late Police Superintendent Foley, and I commenced my in quiries in conjunction with him. On the 16th July (next day), while making inquiries at Road Hill House, I found in a chest of drawers, in a bedroom occupied by Miss Con stance, the list of linen which I holdin my hand. I sent for her, and showing the list to her said, "Is this the list of your linen ?" She said " Yes," and that it was in her hand writing. I said, " There are three night dresses mentioned in it; where are they ?" She replied, "I have only two. The other was lost at the wash the week after the murder." I asked her for the two, and she brought me the two night dresses which I now produce. On the 20th July a warrant (produced) was issued for her apprehension, and I proceeded to Road Hill House about 2 o'clock on the same day to exe cute it. I sent for the prisoner into the drawing room and said, " I am a police officer and hold a warrant for your ap prehension, charging you with the murder of your brother, Francis Saville Kent." She cried, and said she was not guilty. She was taken before the magistrates at Road, and remanded for a week. At the next examination she was discharged, her father entering into sureties of £2OO to pro duce her subsequently, if necessary. I made every search, assisted by Mr. Foley and his men, of the grounds and pre mises at Road for the missing night-dress, but was unsuc cessful. By the Chairman—l was engaged in the investigation for some weeks, but never heard a word from Mr. Foley or any one else of a blood-stained night-dress being found on the day after the murder, and knew nothing of it until I saw it in the newspapers. The Chairman—lt is right to say that nothing of this came to the knowledge of the magistrates until November. The appearance of the next witness, habited in a long black cloak, with a peculiar white frill up to the neck, created some sensation. Being sworn, she stated her name to be Catherine Ann Grtem, and that Constance Kent from the first came to her as a daughter, and she wished that the Court in questioning her should have respect to the confi dence naturally arising between mother and daughter. She deposed—l am Lady Superior of St. Mary's Hospital, 2, Queen-square, Brighton. I had not known the prisoner before she came to me in August, 1863. She did not say anything to me about the Road murder herself before the statement made public that she wished to give herself up. I had questioned her about it. The first time was in Holy Week. On the Wednesday in Holy Week I said to her that I knew of it (her -connection with the murder), and asked her if she fully realised what it involved. By this I meant the giving herself up to justice for the Road mur der. The Road murder was not mentioned, but it was un derstood between us. The prisoner, in answer to my question, said she did not realise it. I think I said to her that Mr. Wagner had spoken to me about it. This was all that passed. The rest of the conversation was entirely on religious subjects. I saw her again in the same week and the conversation was then again entirely on religious sub jects. Shortly after, about the beginning of the next week after, she spoke more fully to me. • I had her up first of all to speak to her upon religious subjects, and something in the conversation made her tell me that she had carried the child downstairs while it was sleeping, that she had left the house through the drawing-room window, and that she had used a razor "for the purpose." (Sensation.) She said nothing else about the actual deed. She said she obtained the razor from her father's dressing-case. She spoke afterwards of the night-dress that had been lost. I think she said that she had taken it out of the basket again. I don't think anything else passed. Nothing passed on the day I brought her to town: She said it was not from any dislike to the child, but that it was revenge on her step-mother. (Sensation.) The Chairman—When did she say this to you ? Witness—The third tithe, when she told me the other— that it was no dislike to the child, but in revenge on her step-mother. I am quite sure about the words "dislike to the child," but as to the "revenge on her step-mother," I am not sure she used those words or words to that effect. I cannot recollect that she said anything more about the missing night-dress. Referring to the first part of her evi dence, the witness said she told the prisoner soon after she came to the hospital that she had heard from Mr. Wagner about "it," but she never used the word murder. She was talking to her about it, and asked her if the child had not cried to her for mercy, to which she replied that it was asleep, and that she had carried it downstairs asleep. She did not say what she did with the razor. I tried to point out to her (speaking of this murder) how the sin would be aggravated in God's sight, and was pointing out to her what would do so, when she made the statement about carrying the child asleep downstairs. When talking on this subject to her there was no occasion for me to mention the word " murder "to her, because she knew what I meant. The " sin " referred to was of course the murder. I think I have now stated all the conversation that has taken place be tween me and the prisoner about the murder. Ido not think the prisoner has made any request to me about her confession being made public. When I spoke to her about what aggravated sin, and about realising, she' said she wished to give herself up. The Chairman—After all the conversation that took place between you, did you at any time offer her any inducement to give herself up ? Witness—No. The Rev. Arthur Douglas Wagner, perpetual curate of St. Paul's Church, Brighton, was next called. On entering the witness-box he said ho wished, before the Court took his evidence, to read a brief statement which he had committed to writing, and which he thought essential. The Chairman said he had better not read anything until after he had given his evidence. The deposition of this witness, taken at Bow-street before Sir Thomas Henry, was then read, and the witness pro ceeded—l had not known the prisoner before she came to the hospital. She came in the name of Emily Kent, in order that people might not know who she was. She was there about 21 months. All the communication I have had with Miss Constance Kent was made to me under the seal of confession, and therefore I must decline to answer any question that would involve a breach of the secrecy. (Hisses.) The Chairman—You have sworn to God to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Witness—My duty to God forbids me to divulge anything received in confession. She authorised me to communicate with Sir Geo. Grey three or four weeks ago on the subject of this investigation. I had not said anything to her to induce her to do so. I do not recollect the words used, but she requested me to communicate to Sir George Grey that she was guilty of the Road murder, and that she was willing to give herself up to justice, or to do anything that he told her to do. She did not say anything more at that time that I recollect. She spoke to me first about it. I am unable to state anything further than I have done al ready. I could not do so without a breach of the seal of con fession. (More hisses.) I do not recollect that she gave any reasons. She spoke to me first about giving herself up. It was entirely her own voluntary act. _ . No further question was put to this witness, who then retired. During his examination he kept his hands folded across his breast. Frederick Williamson, Inspector of the Metropolitan Detective Police, was next called, and his depositions taken at Trowbridge on the 26th ult., containing the prisoner's confession, were read over to him. He made no addition to his testimony, and added that this would be all the evi dence. The depositions of the witnesses were then read over by the magistrate's clerk, and signed. When this formal matter had been completed, the prisoner was requested to stand up, and the usual caution having been given to her in the formal words of the act of Parlia ment, she was asked if she had anything to say. The prisoner slightly shook her head, but no audible re ply was heard from her lips. She was then fully committed for trial at the next Wilts assizes. On the conclusion of the case the prisoner walked quietly from the dock. During the whole of the investigation she hold down her head, and rarely raised it to look at the wit nesses as they came up. The inquiry was concluded about 6 o'clock. The prisoner remained at the police station, which adjoins the court-house, for about an hour, and was then driven off in a carriage and pair to Devizes. The wit nesses on passing from the Court-house were followed by a large mob. The populace, however, both on this occasion and during the inquiry, behaved in an orderly manner, only giving vent to their feelings during the examination of the Rev. Mr. Wagner. The written statement of the rev. gentleman was not read in court, but it is said to have been obtained privately from him by one of the reporters. SCENE IN A COURT OF LAW.—At the Leeds Town hall, on Monday, Joseph Padgett, clerk, was charged at the instance of the official liquidator of the Leeds Bank ing Company with forgery and fraud. During the case a "scone" occurred between Mr. Bond, the prosecuting at torney, and Mr. Blackburn, a barrister, who represented the prisoner. The latter had characterised something in which Mr. Bond was concerned as scandalous, whereupon that gentleman interposed with the following burst of in dignation :—" I will not submit to hear any young jack anapes who appears hero say that anything that takes place in my office is scandalous. Because a man wears a wig and gown, does he think he is to talk in that manner to me, a man old enough to be his father? If he was out of court I would wrench his head off."—Mr. Blackburn told Mr. Bond his age protected him, to which the latter retorted, " Your insolence does not protect you," and it was some time before the mayor could restore the quiet of the court. The prisoner was ultimately committed for trial, but allowed bail. ADvEßTisEmENT—Holloway's Ointment and Pills. — Security against Ba Health.—Wiih the warm sunny days of spring, maladies will be made manifest unless tho blood be pure and the skin active. Eruptions, blotches, and more formidable skin affections may be successfully subjugated by the use of Holloway's detergent ointment, when it is aaded by moderate doses of his purifying pills. Hoarseness, ore throat, chronic cough, enlarged glands, and stiff neck will be at once relieved by rubbing this cooling ointment upon the skin over lyi ng or a djacent to the afflicted part. Holloway's remedies have for many years been recom mended in preference to all other means for healing sores, Wounds, and all varieties of ulceration; and for giving smoothness and elasticity to the skin. SPIRIT OP THE PUBLIC JOURNALS. TIMM—The reception of Sir Frederick Bruce by President Johnson augurs well for our future rela tions with the United States. It was a formal act, but it was accompanied with cordial expressions on both sides, which divested it of formality and jus tify us in regarding it as a fresh earnest of amity between the two Anglo-Saxon nations. The occa sion was singularly favourable to the exchange of those kindly feelings which, in spite of temporary misunderstandings, have never been extinguished. For the first time since the great Civil War broke out, we have been enabled, without any sacrifice of principle, to show an unqualified sympathy with the American people. The tragical end of President Lin coln, in the very hour of triumph, and when he had earned by his ',moderate counsels the respect of this country, has been the means of bringing us face to face under the influence of a common sentiment. It has gone far to break down the ice of reserve and suspicion which embittered every difference of opinion on subjects that had already divided America against herself, enabling us to appreciate the devo tion of the Northerners to a cause which they be-. lieved to be high and holy, and the Northerners to recognise the true nature of the motives which dic tated our neutrality. If this only had been the effect of Mr. Lincoln's murder, he would not have died in vain. It was in this spirit that Sir F. Bruce spoke in presenting his credentials, and it was in this spirit, as we hasten to acknowledge, that President John son replied to him. The first duty of the new Mi nister was, of course, to offer condolences on the death of the late President, wilh whom he was to have had his first interview on the previous Satur day. Sir Frederick assured Mr. Johnson with per fect truth that the event would call forth an unani mous burst of horror throughout Great Britain. He then proceeded to express her Majesty's earnest de sire to maintain friendly intercourse withthe United States, and her ",hearty good wishes for their peace, prosperity, and welfare." He declared, on behalf of his Sovereign, whose letter to Mrs. Lincoln will touch the Americans more than any official declara tion, that she had nothing more at heart than to re main on the most amicable terms with the Federal Government, and pledged himself to carry out this intention to the utmost of his ability. President Johnson not only accepted these assurances most graciously, but entered somewhat fully into the principles which should govern the two nations in their dealings with each other. He pointed out that Great Britain and the United States are " exposed to frequent occasions of misunderstanding" by the very fact that their mercantile connexions are so in timate, their territories in one direction conter minous, their language the same, and their laws similar. Hence the need of greater " mutual for bearance." If we look, says the President, to the numerous sources of discord engendered by these circumstances, we might be tempted to despair of peace, or at least of permanent goodwill, between two such rivals. If, on the other hand, we look to their common heritage of freedom, to the " prin ciples of civil rights and constitutional liberty" esta blished throughout their dominions, we might be led to expect an identity of policy, if not an inti ' mate alliance. Experience shows that neither atti tude is inevitable, but if Great Britain and the United States must pursue respectively: an indepen dent course, they may at least continue to be good friends. " Each is charged with the development of the progress and liberty of a considerable portion of the American race. Each, in its sphere, is sub jected to difficulties and trials not participated in by the other. The interests of civilization and humanity require that the two should be friends. I have al ways known, and accepted it as a fact honourable to both countries, that the Queen of England is a sincere and honest well-wisher to the United States. I have been equally frank and explicit in the - opinion that the friendship of the United States towards Great Britain is enjoined by all the considerations of interest and sentiment affecting the character of both." This is pacific and statesmanlike language, and our American brethren may feel sure that it will meet with a response ou this side of the Atlantic. There never was a grosser calumny against Eng lish public opinion than the statement that any class in this country, at any period of the war, desired a rupture with the United States. There were those who thought that it would be forced upon us; there were a very few who were so far carried away by Southern partisanship as to clamour for recognition with little regard to consequences. But we confi dently assert that no political section, and we firmly believe that no organ of English sentiment, has ever advocated a hostile bearing towards the Federal Government. A great deal of latitude in speaking and writing must be condoned in times of excite ment, and especially in two countries where the freedom of the press is unlimited. If all the sharp criticisms and harsh judgments of the last four years were carefully culled from the columns of the British and American press by some male volent person, they would doubtless present a very aggravating appearance. H all the facts and mis apprehensions which gave occasion to them were treasured up with a fidelity equally unsparing, they would perhaps cause as much irritation as before. Happily for the harmony of States, as well as for the peace of families and individuals, bygones soon pass into byegones.. Time, which, in the words of Washington, " changes men as well as things," is ever busy in erasing the records of past animosities, and a benevolent natural law works a perpetual am nesty of that which is best forgotten. The truth is that many of those sayings which have given most pain to the English or the_American public ought never to have been repeated beyond the audience to which they were originally addressed, still less to have been telegraphed in a mutilated form, without their context, to those who would least relish them. Great as the advantages of modern publicity are, it has some drawbacks, and one of them is the uni versal currency which it gives to a hasty expression. Everything that an American Minister or General may say to a boisterous crowd of patriotic sere naders reaches our ears with cruel precision of de tail, every loose idea of an English member of Parliament respecting the origin and objects of the war is reported without explanation at New York. A great deal of mischief has been done in this way, and the well-considered despatches of the two Go vernments have for that reason received less their due share of attention. It would be too much to say that nothing will be found in those of our own Foreign-office which we could now wish to modify, for the same marvellous course of events which carried President Lincoln with it, and of which President Johnson owns himself the passive instrument, has deeply influenced the views of European observers. Upon the whole, however, we have no reason to be ashamed of the tone in which Lord Russell has conducted the correspond ence, and no reason to complain of that in which Mr. Seward has represented the interests of Ame rica on trying and critical occasions. We earnestly trust that a like dignity and courtesy may continue to characterise all communications between the two Governments, and as for what " Historicus" calls " idle words of provocation employed by irrespon sible persons," let us take his wise advice, and suffer them to be buried in the grave of President Lincoln. POST.—Yesterday the investigation of the Road murder was advanced one further stage, and Con stance Kent was committ e d f or trial at the eusuing a-ssizes. The evidence b r ought forward substantially confirms the prisoner's own confession, and leaves less and less reason to suppose that she is under any insane delusion in owning her guilt. Under what ever maniacal frenzy she may have acted, there can be no reasonable doubt that she did the deed. At a later stage it will be proper to inquire into her state of mind in 1860, since then, and now. But the pre sent is not the time for entertaining that question. She has made a voluntary and formal declaration that she murdered her half-brother with her own hand ; and a less formal acknowledgment that she used her father's razor as the instrument ; that she concealed and destroyed a night-dress which, from its stains of blood, might have led to her detection ; that she was not incited to this crime by any per sonal malignity towards the poor child, but by a desire to revenge herself upon h er s t epmo th er . Si nce that period she has seen the heinousness of her offence, and, from a sense of duty, gives herself up to justice, as the only reparation now in her power to make, and the only practical pledge of the since rity of her repentance. The evidence adduced yes terday is virtually the same as that brought forward when the prisoner was arraigned four years ago. Some slight variations in the medical evidence are the only things at all noticeable, but they do not touch the question as to whether the prisoner com mitted the murder, but only as to some details in its perpetration. All the rest is repetition, but with a circumstantiality which proves all that was needful when taken in connection with the prisoner's own statement. The case for sending her for trial was so complete that the solicitor acting for the family declined to cross-examine witnesses or take any steps at the present stage. A reluctant admission was drawn from Miss Graem, the sister superior of the Home at Brighton, that Miss Kent had acknowledged the murder to her, and Mr. Wagner has already said that she made a similar statement to him. And so the matter stands until next month, when, at the Salisbury Assizes, the trial will be proceeded with. In the present inquiry, as in the previous one, the want of a public prosecutor is painfully demonstrated. Strictly speaking, there is no one to conduct the case on behalf of justice and the Crown. There are, in fact, three parties concerned—the girl herself, who is her own prosecutor—the girl's friends as represented by Mr. Rodway—and the police. The object of the girl is to fix the guilt upon her self ; the object of Mr. Rodway is said to be to dis credit her confession by evidence on the unsound state of her mind ; while the object of the police is to confirm the charge which the prisoner has made against herself. We cannot but think that in a case of such complexity it would have been wise for the satisfaction of the public, fair for the Ba ds : faction of justice, and merciful to the self-accuse d girl, if the Home-office had appointed one of her Majesty's counsel to conduct the prosecution. The clerk of the magistrates at Trowbridge is reported to have had an interview with the Under-Secrets/ at the Home Department, with the object of elt pressing the wish of the Trowbridge Bench that no one should represent the Crown at the investigatio n held yesterday, in order that every chance of escar should be given to the unhappy young woman yin.° has given herself up to justice. Sir George Gre ha y IS said to have acceded to that proposal, and to have left the case entirely in the hands of the police. 11 e cannot think that either the Trowbridge Bench or the Home Secretary has been well advised. Wh at mercy, or what chance of escape, or what conside ration, consistent with the interests of truth and justice, is the accused likely to obtain at the han ds , of the magistrates or the police w hich she would n ° " have received at the hands of a Queen's counsel of high standing, of practised judicial mind, and charged with no mission but that of operating vo."'„,, all parties in eliciting the real facts of the case ? is a new thing in the administration of justice to ask the Crown not to employ counsel in order that a prisoner —even though pleading guilty--may b a) a greater chance of life. The questions which re main for the decision of the jury are siroll these three—Did Constance Kent com mi t the murder ? what was the state of her inind, d the time ? and what the state of her mu' now ? Out of these questions great difficulti es and complications may arise. If the evidence, now produced be not more complete than it was four years ago, the prisoner cannot be conviete. °, except upon her own confession. She alone supP heg the missing link. If the solicitor for the family n._ 511 discredit the confession by any proof of present It' d ' sanity, the whole case must again break down, Bu t the prisoner cannot be again placed upon trial. r d if no proof of present or recent unsoundness of m in d can be sustained, the confession must stand, a!; the evidence—incomplete without it--receives ° l ` the confirmation required. In that case there ca n be no doubt that Miss Kent was the murderess; But then will arise the question as to her state., e ' mind at the time. This is best known to the Ear n and they only can supply, the required evidence. 1; the task of proving insanity at one or both of thel periods it is said Mr. Rodway will apply himse . „ . and he is entitled to every latitide in its prosect, tion ; but we beg to urge that even if Constanc7t Kent be of unsound mind now, yet her stateine44 may in its main facts be true. And although t u 4t might not be sufficient to justify her conviction: would go far to fix the culpability on the right p o, son, and by consequence to vindicate all sv' t. though more or less suspected, were really inne c b eil yo It is perfectly possible that Miss Kent may '' 5 4, 0 been under irresistible maniacal influence whe il ~o e committed the murder, and under no such infhtp, now when she confesses it. Or she may have perfectly mistress of her own actions then: t he under unsound influence now. In either case, 64 .. evidence of insanity must be strictly scrutinise u, e dit pecially that which is brought forward to disl t he the confession. We ought to be told in dettw ea ro history •of Constance Kent for the last four J t ing and a half ; and instances of conduct indic i . a , 1 ,0 unsoundness of mind ought to be produced. .-t) 0 not do to jump to the conclusion that she is InT or because .she has made this confession, nor to be dude on mere a priori grounds that she ha a ,a o of brought to a morbid state of mind by the 0 0 religious restraint which she has recently led• proofs of recent insanity are forthcoming, th e the dente produced by the police, since it confirt ne ,,, A confession, must pro Canto be taken as true. state o f quiry may then properly arise as to her st a , o o mind when the deed was committed ; and it 7,, of this inquiry, and not on that of her present 4%1 mind, that her con v iction or ac q uittal on the gr ° of insanity must ultimately turn. COUNTRY MARKETS BIRMINGHAM—TnunsDAY. _hest, a t - At this day's market there was a fair supply which sold slowly at an advance of 6d to is per c i' sc ose e ' ley barely maintained' its value. Oats and beans - but no dearer. Peas neglected. red , 364 Currencies :—English wheat, 'white, 40s to 44e to 42s per 36 stone. Malting barley, 28s to 34s ; g r lo per 22s to 25s per qr. Oats, 24s to 30s ; Irish, 2 0 s t o ' rc ir• 30 stone. Beans, 38s to 42s ; and peas, 38s to 40$ Pe BURY ST. EDMUND'S—WmucEsDAY• t tcr illq There was a good supply of wheat at this t e g iacc l ' day, and the prices of last week were barely M ai-„ OO The supply of barley was good, at last week's rates• beTals, an and peas without alteration. r n lei' • avera wheat, 43s to 475; red ditto, 36s to 3 05, 30s to 325; secondary ditto, 27s to 29s per qr. 57 0 Averages : Wheat, 7671 qrs., 40s 4d ; barley' qrs., 29s 8d; oats, qrs., —s Od. MANCHE S TER—TriunsDAY. ra iag• :„, T ao There was a fair attendance at our market till.' „, of f English wheat met a tolerably free sale at an advar'tes per qr., and foreign brought 2d per cental over the '-" re oct this day se'nnight. Flour must be quoted 6d to 11 0 ,., higher. Oats realised an improvement of ld pe r " s , deare r ' oatmeal Gd to is per load. Beans were is per ' l ' • Indian corn was in less request at previous prices. BRISTOL—THURSDAY. „ mi ll suer On our market this afternoon there was a —ait forte e of English wheat, which met a slow sale at abo prices. Other articles inactive. EDINBURGH—WEDNESDAY. 1 collil irl At our market there was a small supply 0. ~„ 0,0 wheat, which sold quietly at about 6d advanc e on of last week. Os 2cl PO' Wheat on the top, Os 6d up Barley on the top, is Od down average , avera ge, ~c i up Os ci. u p. Oats on the top, is 3d down average, 9 s a d doll ?* Beans on the top, Os Gd down average , Os " Average prices. o icl A Wheat, 41s 4d i Oats, .•••..•.• 24s Barley, 29s id 1 Beans , ...39s '''' Total supply and sales. 9:2 1 Wh ea t 1122 qrs ............ s old Barley 485 qrs sold 2 9 , Oats ...........:............. 2222 qrs sold 14 0 ' 4 Beans ....................... 205 qrs sold 12 . e ti...... T own - ma de flour sells as follows :—White, 365 Od, su p er fine, 34s 6d ; superfine, 335 Od ; fine, 31s a GLAS GOW—WEDIEsDAY. The market was well attended. A fair con - , d to -° b us i n ess was done in wheat during the week ates v ta . per qr. advance ; but holders were asking more 1 11 ° 1 ' a t itit° day, which checked business. All spring corn films rates. Flour was is per sack higher. Foreign Mail Packet List. • it. Australia and New Zealand, via Southampton ..... ..,. 11 519. Ditto, via Marseilles .......................... " . 1• 1 0 If s Brazil and Cape Verde. by British paox et ......... er sy 0. Ditto, by French packet ..... DI 0. ...... „ c o Cape of Good Hope, Ascension, and St . Helena.• • 6 1 1 9 ' China, Penang, and Singapore, via Southampton ' ' 0 0 13 ' Ditto, via Marseilles ........................... •"' Falkland Islands ................................. 'day 11: . Gibraltar, via Southampton. ............... 1 India (Calcutta), and Ceylon, via Southampto n ' AK 13, Ditto, via Marseilles ...•••• 1 3 * .......... - . 3ts y 15. India (Bombay), via Southampton.. ............... .giti Ditto, via Marseilles .. ..................... ••• ....4 1 "" .. 21 Ch Mauritius, via Southampton .00 0 Ditto, via Marseille 3, ...................... • • • . g a y 1 5 1 Newfoundland .......... J oe Portugal Ditto, by private .. ship to Lisbon • • • ..... • ' - • • . Ott- 10 United States and British North America , by . r i fiti tish packet ......... Ditto. by United States packet, via Southaror ...... .•• ton . ...... .... .• 5 Ditto, via C3rk •• • ' .Ar 13 , Ditto, by Canadian packet, via London derrY• .gay West Coast of Africa, Madeira, and Tenerifie - • ih , 5. West Indies and Pacific (except Bahama s, env. log * l l. and Mexico . ... ............ .' , tv ie _ 10' Bahamas, via New "York. ....................... pos' a p. Bermuda, ditto. ................................. . D fa/ ''' Cuba and Mexico ................................. B irths. ye of O . Binn.—On the 3d inst., a t , thew Bird, Esq., of a son. ,0 Ede. MONCR LouisaurE.— On Moncreiffe,the 3 d Lady Ste''' JORNSON.—On the 2d • Vila, rio, of ai t i te . r ~s, r , , , iii , inst., at Tilbury 1 , Artillef,l the wife of Major Alured Johnson, RoY ai son. 'O, , .____Robinson, o Marriages. 4 . g .fiteosa• gardens,yr.. t FITZPAT inst. arson. .Moncreiffe flousel the RICK—ROBINSON.—On the 4th inst., 8, ,,' -„ I i Cli',,to Paddington, Thomas Fitzpatrick, Esq., 31. v., of 03° - Agnes Esq., L Letitia, L . D y . o , youngest g T e s o t u d e -"A_ , UAVENDISH.—On the 2d inst., at St. 51„erker 0 .. thrigton, Robert Henry, eldest son of Edrad; - ` - ' n - e s Ca.f,,ejr -.,-;!-1., of 15, Prince's-gate, Hyde-park, to 24- 1 De l ' a s i i s i n re ,.daughter of his Grace the late Duke 0 Robert Burroughs, aged D 8. 13 End, jootl3 BunnorGus.—On the Ist inst., at. Pander's e 3 a 7. tlls. -nor -r Acre .• Hamilton, M.D., th Cowie.—On the 2d inst at Tilgate Forest IJO , -.. , 00. min Cowie, Esq. I , HAMILTON.—On Charles le° CIO ' stree t, at 45, owei MARTELL.—On the 33 inst., G .- 1 1 ' Martell, solicitor, aged 48. e ag 3 e d d i s n 2 st . ., at Maida-hill, T rots, ° II. rRICKETT.—On the 2d inst., at Odihaul, -&- Pricl - ett t , Esq., aged 74. i a V )7lel' RYLEy.—On the 3d inst., at Hackney', I tc ' sv ' all • Pe ° Esq., aged 83. , st d ,va,,ite, WHITE.—On the 4th inst., very suddenly, a' "13. '''' House, Vanbrugh Park, Blackheath , Thoraa s ____---- .1 0, E5 " . " 2.: aged 47. .. ......'''.*-.. ---- -- - - ~s fyi t il l, London: Printed and Published by WIL I , lA''' Z. 10 , f of No. 112, Strand, Muter, at Tis Surf doutit, Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the litiddlese4.• —Friday, May 5, 18435.