The Express.
London, England, 1862-11-13 00:00:00

THE EntESS, THURSDAY EVENING, NOVEMBER 13, 1862.

tributing, stimulate their zeal, 4 thin diffies
the burden with approximate fairiseHrs over the
whole community. It will take a long and a
strong pull to get our unemployed factory opera-
tives through this winter. The nation is cer-
tainly more than equal to the work, if only
the labour is not thrown exclusively upon the
few. Nothing could so well prevent this unfair
distribution as a National Central Committee. Some
are asking, But is it possible to sustain a vigorous
effort for a long period, and would it not be better
at once to appeal to the national exchequer 4 Well,
it is truly the national exchequer, though not
the treasury of the State, which is now appealed
to, and we shall soon see whether the English
people, so rich in self-help, will be driven on this
occasion to confess its impotence and resort to the
machinery of taxation. For our part, we shall
not believe it until we see it, and we believe we
shall not see it. Only the greatest mismanagement
on the part of those who have undertaken to be
leaders could render such a course necessary. A
million sterling could be raised for Lancashire this
winter without anybody feeling the poorer, if only
the contributions be anything like general ;
and if they should not prove so, it will be
principally for want of an organization adapted
to call them forth. A Nonconformist clergy-
man writes to a contemporary :—" A domestic
" servant was observed to place gold in the plate
"in my church on Sunday last." And so it
will be; the frugal, industrious, and willing will do
the work if nobody else will, rather than it shall go
undone. But it will be disgraceful if it is cast
upon them. At present the public hes no satis-
factory account of what the wealthy classes of
Lancashire are doing. We hear of millovrners
giving month by month to their operatives larger
sums than the single subscription which the greatest
territorial magnates think a sufficient contribution
in aid of the distress. And yet the employers are
the very class selected for attack by some of our
public writers. But what of the great speculators
in cotton and cotton goods who have lately been
making more by sitting still with folded
bands than they ever made in their lives by ac-
tivity ? The Mayor of MsiCHffirEa, on retiring
from office, confesses that this class have not done
what they ought. " The manufacturers had done
" nobly, but warehousemen, merchants, and
" others had not done what might have been ex-
" pected—some of them bad done nothing." And
what of Liverpool, where, it is said, more carri-
ages have been built within the last twelve months
than in five years previously ? Surely, when our
maid-servants are fetching half sovereigns out of
their savings to give to poor people whom they
never saw, rich men will put their hands into their
pockets to help their neighbours.

ON the 15th of last September there was living
in Northumberland-alley a sweep named SAMUEL
GARDNER. In the same house lived his wife and
child, and a servant-maid named HUMBLER.
GARDNER had been married seven years. But
about five years ago the girl HUMBLER came to live
in the house, and GARDNER had undoubtedly
carried on an improper intimacy with her. How-
ever, about a year ago, HUMBLES married, being
then only 18, but in about six weeks after that
event she returned to GARDNER'S house, and the
improper intimacy was renewed. There is evidence,
and it is by no means improbable, that this girl
was in the habit of annoying and insulting GARD-
NER'S wife. Indeed, according to GARDNER'S
statement, corroborated by another witness, the
girl had notice to leave the service. There is
nothing to prove that GARDNER was in the habit
of using violence to his wife, although the evidence
is ample to show that the girl was very fond of
Guernqu, jealous of the wife, and distracted at
the idea of leaving her paramour.
It appears that on Sunday, the 14th of Sep-
tember, this man GARDNER went to bed u usual
with his wife. HUMBLER also slept in the house
that night. At a quarter-past 3 a.m. a police-
constable awoke GARDNER, and from that hour
until about 8 o'clock he was seen by various per-
sons at various places pursuing his ordinary avoca-
tions. About eight he returned home, and found
the woman HUMBLER, the doctor, and his wife dead
upon the floor. The body lay near the bed. The
throat was cut ; the left hand was placed across
the chest leaning towards the throat, and the right
hand was also across the chest feebly grasping a
knife. When the woman HUMBLER went to fetch
the doctor she said that Mrs. GARDNER had com-
mitted suicide. But when GARDNER came in and
saw his wife on the floor, he said, "What is
" thief" then stooped down and took tho
table knife from the hand. Presently GARDNER
looked towards the woman HUMBLER, and
said, " You wretch ! you have done this."
HUMBLER fell on her knees and protested her inno-

mice. That the woman was murdered there
seems to be no manner of doubt. Both surgeons
agree that the wounds could not have been in-
flicted by the deceased, and that if she " had died
" with the knife in her hand it would have been
" grasped or clenched tightly. " Nor, indeed, in
the subsequent trial was any attempt made to set
up a case of suicide. If the deceased did in fact
commit suicide, the Judge, the Jury, and the
Counsel on both sides have made the grossest mis-
take—for GARDNER now lies under sentence of
death. A foul murder was, therefore, undoubtedly
committed, and the only question is, who was the
perpetrator of it.
Both GARDNER and IlEsinsa were jointly in-
dicted. This course was adopted in order that
" certain statements made by one of the prisoners

" might be given in evidence against the other."
No one seems to have thought that both were
guilty. One certainly did the deed. Which of
them was it Y The prosecuting counsel, however,
upon the suggestion of Chief Baron Poxxocw, think-
ing that the evidence against the woman was
weaker than that against the man, let her off—
but called her as a witness against GARDNER. If
indeed the law of England had allowed the accused
to be examined, this difficulty would not have oc-
curred, for then the evidence of both prisoners
might have been obtained, and both might have
been tried separately if necessary.
But GARDNER was tried, and has been found
guilty, upon what evidence, however, it is difficult
to discern. If indeed the woman HUMBLER, who
was undoubtedly present in the house at the
moment when the murder was committed, had
given distinct evidence of his guilt, there might
have been some reason for the verdict. But
she insists that it was a case of suicide, even after
GARDNER accused her of the crime. Moreover,
according to her statement, there was no noise
during the night, although it is tolerably clear
that there must have been something at least of
a struggle ; and there is evidence to show that
cries were heard proceeding from the bedroom of
GARDNER about 6 o'clock, whilst GARDNER was
out, and his wife was alone in the house with
HURDLER. So far, therefore, as the evidence of
HUMBLER goes, there is nothing to show that any
murder took place at all.
The only evidence against GARDNER was, that
the murder must have been done some three or
four hours before 8 o'clock, and that some blood

marks were absent from the shutters opened by
HUMBLER en the morning of the murder which
were found there some days later. As •to the
first argument, the doctors examined wore not
positive as to how long Mrs. GARDNER bad been
dead. Three hours would not be long enough,
for Gianrcut had left the house before four. And
although those who can perpetrate such a crime as
that of which GARDNER is said to have been guilty
are not wanting in coolnesa, still the calmness with
which he pursued his avocations during that morn-
ing, and the fact that he desired the police-con-
stable to call him at the very moment when he
must have been about the deed, are facto deserving
of grave consideration. Indeed, they tend
strongly in GARDNER'S favour. As to the marks
of blood which were pointed out by GARDNER to
the pollee-constable upon the shutter which
Houma opened on the morning of the murder,
it is difficult to rely on this as con-
clusive proof of guilt. If it had been proved that
these marks were placed there by GARDNER, or
if there had been any other circumstances to show
the guilt of GARDNZE,such a fact would have been
most material. As things at present stand it proves
little. No one saw GARDNER commit the murder
—no one seems to have imagined it probable that
he would do violence to his wife—there was no
object in his perpetrating the crime—his whole
conduct both before and after it was much more
consistent with his innocence than with his guilt.
But it is very different with the woman Ent-
BLIP. She was in the house during the whole
night, until eight in the morning. She waa pas-
sionately fond of GARDNER, and jealous of his
wife. For four years she had been his paramour,
and, after spending six weeks with her newly-
married husband, she had returned to the
embraces of GARDNER. That very Sunday she
had been exasperating the wife. She had re-
ceived warning. She had retired early to brood
over her wrongs. When she came back for the
last time she declared her resolution never toleave
the house again. And if this wretched woman did
perpetrate the crime with which she was charged,
it would not be so very inconsistent with human
nature ; for it must be remembered that when
MOBBR, the police-constable, asked GARDNER why
he thought that his wife had been murdered, he
replied, " Because the girl HUMBLER was to have
" left his house on the same day," and he
added, " that he had gone to HUMBLER'S
" bedroom one morning before she was up,
" and saw a knife sticking in her door, and
" when he asked her what that meant, she
" said that she did not intend he should have
" found her alive ; moreover, he said that he had
" frequently seen her sharpening knives on the
" sinkstone, and when he asked her what she was
" doing that for, she sometimes said they were for
" herself, and sometimes for him." These ex-
pressions ought not, of course, to be construed too
literally, but they certainly tend to show the
passion the girl had for GARDNER, and the jealous
feeling she must have entertained towards his wile.
There are no doubt difficulties in this case. But,
like that of Jugs's M`Lsciii.AN, it shows the im-
perative necessity of some Court of. Criminal
Appeal, instead of continuing the jurisdiction
which such a court ought to exercise in the hands
of a Secretary of State.

For Inspector of State
of Niagara.
For Clerk of Court of Appeals—Frederick A. Tall-
madge, of New York.
The Republican State ticket is as follows :
For Governor—James S. Wadsworth.
For Lieut.-Governor—Lyman Tremain.
For Canal Commissioner—Oliver L►due.
For Inspector of State Prisons--Andreas Willman.
For Clerk of the Court of Appeals—Charles
Hughes.

tylord J. Clarke,

THE PRINCE OF WALES AT ROME.
NONE, Nov. 12.
Their Royal Highnesses the Prince of Wales, and
the Crown Prince and Princess of Prussia, arrived
here this morning, on board the royal yacht
Osborne.