The Press.
London, England, 1855-11-24 00:00:00

NOVEMBER 24, 1855.

If the attempt had been made by an adequate force, it
seems to us that the people might have been moved with.
out resorting to the use of staves, and a line might have
been formed and kept at a suitable distance from the rail ;
but the attempts made with inadequate force produced
much of the violence which cannot be justified. It might
indeed be difficult to know, before the experiment was made,
how far it would be practicable to remove and keep back the
crowd from the rail; but prudence required that this ex-
periment should have been abandoned immediately the
collisions attending it were percived.
In conclusion, a censure is passed upon the con-
duct of Superintendent Hughes :
- - -

On a review of all the facts in evidence, we think that
Superintendent Hughes, in endeavouring to discharge •
difficult and embarrassing duty, gave too much sanction to
the use of the staves, and exercised less control over his
men, than a due regard for the safety of nnoffending indi-
viduals required. We believe that, by a more calm and
forbearing course on his part, much angry excitement at
the time, and complaints afterwards, would have been
avoided.

Of the conduct of the police in Park-street, the
commissioners consider that " a discreditable exer
cise of violence" was then maintained; that the
refusal of Sir Richard Mayne to take bail was justifi-
able according to the act; that the complaints of the
prisoners of the state of the cells in Vine-street were
fully borne out by the disgusting state of those cells,
and the insufficient measures taken by Sir Richard
Mayne to afford relief to the prisoners.
The commissioners report especially against four
policemen of the A division, one of the D and one of
the C divisions, for unnecessary violence, and on the
whole come to a conclusion generally favorable to
the police :
After full inquiry into the complaints submitted to our
consideration, we have deemed it our duty to report mis
conduct on the part of various members of the police—a
result the more to be regretted on account of the high cha-
racter of that body; but if excesses were shown to have
been committed by some, ample testimony was also borne
to the moderation and forbearance of other members of the
same body on the same occasion, and, whatever blame may
attach to individuals, that accidents were prevented in the
park, and property in that vicinity protected from damage.
When the events of the day are properly appreciated, we
think they will not be found to afford any just ground for
lessening the confidence of the public—a confidence founded
on the experience of six and twenty years—in the general
g )od conduct and efficiency of the metropolitan police.
Upon this report Sir George Grey has addressed
a letter to Sir Richard Mayne. The Home Secre-
tary first deals with the conduct of Superintendent
Hughes:—
After taking into account all the circumstances as de-
tailed by the commissioners, and after considering the
long service of Superintendent Hughes in the force, and
the general approval with which lie had during such ser-
vice discharged duties requiring great judgment and dis-
cretion, Sir George Grey is of opinion that, while it is ne-
cessary to mark with censure the conduct which the com-
missioners have thought justly liable to blame, his dis-
missal from his office would be harsh and uncalled for.
You will convey to him the disapproval of the Secre-
tary of State of his want of forbearance and judgment on
this occasion, and enjoin upon him, in the strongest
terms, the necessity of maintaining perfect self-control in
the performance of his highly-responsible duties, and of
checking, both by his example and his orders, any unne-
cessary violence on the part of those under his command.
With iegard to the conduct of the six policemen
especially reported against, the Chief Commissioner
is desired to award such punishment to three of
them, by suspension or dismissal, as each case may
call for, but the other three cases are deemed
deserving of heavier punishment:—
In the three cases, however, of Gearing, Bewley, and
Madgett, the acts of violence deposed to before the com-
missioners appear to have been so gross and unprovoked,
that if they are satisfactorily proved, the mere dismissal
from the force would be an inadequate punishment for the
offence; and as the description of the witnesses against
them renders it probable that the same evidence which was
given before the commissioners will be available on a
trial, Sir George Grey thinks it right that an indictment
should be preferred against each of these men.
The attention of Sir Richard Mayne is specially
called to the state of the cells in Vine-street, but Sir
George Grey adds that from late communications he
is convinced that no such mismanagement will in
future occur. Sir George in conclusion insists on the
necessity of the police using great discretion in the
discharge of their duties :
The police will receive the full support of the Govern•
went in the execution of the important duties they have
to perform, but those duties can only be usefully or
efficiently performed by a cautions abstinence from
.any
abuse of power, and from all acts which, if not strictly
illegal, indicate a want of the temper and discretion
which are peculiarly requisite in persons charged with the
preservation of the public peace, and which Sir G. Grey
is happy to know generally characterise the metropolitan
police.

THE BOMBARDMENT OF ODES°A, according to the
Sebastopol correspondent of the Times, was resolutely
opposed by "the highest person in France," when
the allied fleets were recently off Odessa, and instruc-
tions were asked by the admirals of their respective
Governments•

THE PRESS.

Xitiv aub Volta.

CAN A CLERGYMAN MARRY HIMSELF? is the title
given to a suit in the Law Courts of Dublin. In
November, 1831, the Rev. John S. S. Beamish, of
Cork, went to the house of a woman named Anne
Lewis, in the city of Cork, and there performed a
ceremony of marriage between himself and a lady
named Isabella Frazer. The marriage was celebrated
after the ceremonial prescribed in the Book of Com-
mon Prayer, the Rev. J. S. S. Beamish declaring
that be took Isabella Frazer to be his wife, Isabella
Frazer declaring that she took the Rev. J. S. S. Bea-
mish to be ber wedded husband, he then placing the
ring on her finger, and concluding by pronouncing
a blessing according to the form appointed in the
Book of Common Prayer. No person was present
at the celebration of the marriage save the contracting
parties, but the ceremony was witnessed from a yard
adjoining the room in which it took place by a woman
named Catherine Coffey, who, however, could not
hear what passed. On the death of Mr. Beamish,
the succession of his son by this marriage to his fa-
ther's property was disputed by the next heir, on the
ground of the invalidity of the marriage. At the
full Court of Queen's Bench, on the 16th instant,
Judge Crampton delivered the unanimous judgment
of the court. As the marriage was performed by a
clergyman in holy orders its validity must be afiirined,
though the ceremony was clandestine and irregular,
and some parts of the service, especially the re-
sponses, were strained, by the celebrant being himself
the bridegroom. The judgment of the court, there-
fore, was that the son of Mr. Beamish was legitimate.
IN THE CASE OF MR. WILLIAM HENRY BARBER,
the Court of Queen's Bench, on Wednesday last,
made the rule absolute in his favour, directing his
certificate to be issued forthwith. The decision
appears to have given great satisfaction in West-
minster-hall. The friends of Mr. Barber, and
especially the newspaper press advocating his cause,
have reason to congratulate themselves on the ulti-
mate attainment of a result long since anticipated by
public opinion. The length of time the case has
been before the public—the various legal arguments
upon it having given rise for editoral comment in
upwards of one hundred London and provincial
newspapers, the law journals and legal press in-
cluded—the unanimous expression (without, we
believe, a single dissentientvoice) being a declaration
of belief in the justness of Mr. Barber's cause, and
of his right to complete social and professional
restitution.
MERCHANT SEAMEN, engaged in the transport
of Government stores to the seat of war, if wrecked
and taken prisoners by the enemy, cannot claim
compensation from the Government, according to the
decision of Mr. Yardley, at the Thames Police-court,
on Tuesday last. It appeared from the case in
point that three seamen of the Culloden, a hired
transport vessel, lost off Balaklava in the gale of the
14th Noven.ber, 1854, had been captured by the Rus-
sians, and, at the recent exchange of prisoners at
Odessa, had only then obtained their liberty, and
having lost wages and clothes, they were desirous
of preferring a claim against the Government for
compensation. Mr. Yardley, in reply, stated as his
opinion that, as the men were not in the service of
the Government, but in the employ of the owner of
the ship, and had been aware previous to the ship
sailing that they were bound to the seat of war, he
considered the capture of the men under the circum-
stances as " the fortune of war," and that, therefore,
they could hold no legal claim against the Govern-
ment for compensation. Whether her Majesty's
Government, continued Mr. Yardley, would think it
right to compensate the mariners for their long
detention in Russia was another matter. The seamen
thanked the magistrate and retired. They said they
were well treated by the Russian authorities as pri-
soners of war, but the long travelling was bad, and
the "holy Russians," as they were paraded through
the country, occasional], insulted and ill-used them.
A CASE OF ILL•TREATMENT OF A WIFE, as brutal
as any lately made public, was proved on Tuesday
against Samuel King, a dock labourer, at the Thames
l'olice-court. It appeared from the evidence of the
complainant that for two years since her marriage
her life had been one of continued ill-treatment, that
her husband has been fined on one occasion and
imprisoned for a month on another for ill-using her,
and each time on returning home he commenced a
more brutal system of ill-treatment than previously.
For the last eight weeks, out of good earnings from
his business, he had allowed her but 345. for the
maintenance of herself and two children, while he
spent the remainder in drunkenness and debauchery.
On Monday, her children being nearly starved, she
went in search of her husband, and, on finding him
at Mile-end and entreating him to come home, he
beat her about the head and body with his clenched
fists, and knocked her down, with the baby in her
arms. He then ran away, but soon afterwards re-
turned to the publichouse, struck her a severe blow
on the side with his fist, and got away again. He
returned a third time, and beat her again about the