The Express.
London, England, 1853-10-19 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, WEDNESDAY EVENING. OCTOBER 19, 1853.

this period, which was only nominal, it h.•ing undent•wd
that Meant Calvert would be allowed the tull period of
two years to make the contemplated alterations.

THZ cnottua.
The following is an eztract from the weekly report of the
medical officer : " I append my usual tabular statement of
City mortality fur the past week, and am sorry to observe
that the register contsins a death by cholera in George-
court, Bennett's-hill, and I have further to report to y.•ur
bun. court as follows: In three several places where pre-
mises are in a filthy and poisonous rmsditiue, and where
the orders at your hon. court for their improvement or ills-
occupation have been utterly set at nought, death has at
length occurred in one ease from laser, and in two other
case. from diorama. It is scarcely necessary to .pacify the
names of On se places as Plunatree-court, Fire-ball-court,
and Windsor-meet. cult is what might have been
foretold, and requires no comment. I would simply recom-
mend to your hon. court that instructions be given to your
solicitor forthwith to proceed attoinst these three several
offenders before the L:rd Mayor, in order to r, cover the
utmost penalties their homicidal negligence has incurred."
(Hear, hear.)
The court t►en adjourned.

NORTHUMBERLAND BEWSTR.I7IO.V.

.-

BENEDICTINE MONKS ASKING F. R VOTES.

A case of considerable interest came before Mr. T.
J. Hogg, the revising barrister for Northumberland, at
Morpeth, on Monday last, in which the question arose
whether a mock of the order of St. Benedict, who had
taken the ordii.aly religi.ius vows of poverty sad chastity,
could hold proper; which could entitle him to vote for a
member of parliament. The Bey. Thomas Almond. of 12,
St. Paul's square, Liverpool, and sixteen other Iti.man
catholic priest!, monks of the order of St. Benedict, claimed
to vote in respect of each having a ehare of a freehold
house and garden sitaate in Oldgate, Morpetb.
The claimants were objected to by Mr. George Brumell,
on the part of the conservaives, and detenued by Mr.
Charlton, in the liberal interest.
The Rev. 0. A. Lowe, a Boman catholic priest in Mor-
peth, and one of the claimants, was called by Mr. Charl-
ton, and stated that Mr. Almond held the seventeenth part
a the house in question, formerly in the occupation of
Lord Coiling.oed, which seventeenth part was of the value
of 40e. a year. Tie witness also produced a deed showing
that the property had been regularly conveyed to Mr.
Alumni! and ;he other sixteen claimants in equal shares.
In cross-examination by Mr. Brumell, he said Mr.
Almond was a Roman catholic priest, residing in Liverpool,
and a monk of the order of St. Benedict, of which witness
himself was also a member. All the 17, in fact, were
monks of that order. Ile (witness) wu well acquainted
with the rules and orders of the Benedictine monks.

Mr. Brennen—Will you tell us what vows a musk takes
on his admission to the order?
Witness—l have nothing to do with any vows here. I
did not come here to make a confession of my religious
creed. I stand here as a subject, and to claim for Mr.
Almond and the rest the right to vote on this deed, which I
produce. The question you put is wholly irrelevant.
The Barrister asked it the queettou Lad anything to do
with the matter in issue, and Mr. Brumell, aeswering
that it was a material point in his examination of the
witness, the learned gentleman ruled that it was reasonable
that it should be answered. The question hamig been
repeated,
The witness said he could not say that he would submit
to answer it, because it appeared to him perfectly irrelevant
to the point. He came there fur the purpose of defending
his vote, and not to state the vows that were solemnly
made by religious men. Being further pressed, he stated
that he had no hesitation in stymie that he had taken a vow
of poverty. and of chastity also. lie declined to state what
was the effect of the vow of poverty. lie had as much
right to the property in question as the Duke of Northum-
berland had to his landed estates. So tar as related to the
property fur which they claimed, he and the other liiteolll
persons had full power to sell or du what they pleased with
it. notwithstanding their yew of poverty.
The Barrister—What is the effect at the vow of poverty
with respect to property ?
Witness—it means this, that we make use of our property
he the benefit of our religion, and fur the general good of
Mar. Brumell—Am I to understand from you that so far
. _ _

4 ►*pests property the Is, et penny has no effect what-
evir ?

Witneas—With regard to the law, the law has nothing to
do with our vow of poverty.
Mr. Brumell—l ma speaking with respect to the rules
of the order.

-- ----..
Witness—You have nothing to do with the rules of our
order. But those rules don't concern this property.
Mr. Brumell—Well, but I wan: to know what is the
street of the vow of poverty with respect to property in
general ?
' Witness—l have come to defend my vote for this pro
perty, and not to go into the minutia of my convent. It
is ungenerous to ask me such a question.
The Banister—This rather affects the credibility of the
witness, because in making the vow of poverty he says he
has no property whatever.
Witness—No; we must have property, or we cannot
exist. We all have property; we have what is called
"a peculiam," which lea separais thing from the vow of

overt,.
The Barrister—What makes it a " pecaliarn " ?
Witaese—Our own private fortunes, and any exertions of
cur own during our litr•titaes.
The Banister—Then I don'tsee what the vow of poverty

Witness—lt come to this, that whatever we have will be
left to our convent at our deaths, or to some good purpcwie ;
we 'scoot 1. are it to our friends or others.
The Barrister—Then you have only a life estate, and that
upon your own account of the matter.
Witeen—lt frequently happens that when • gentleman
becomes a monk, with • fortune, he reserves a certain
portion of it, and that he can distribute as he pleases by his
own will. On being farther interrogited the witness said
the proceed. of the property, which was the subject of the
claim to vote, went at present to the support of the English
mission, which was under the spiritual control of the
superior. He added that the money with which the pro-
perty was bought was partly borrowed, but he could not
say howonsch of it, it any, came from Mr. Almond, the
first claimant, nor that he bad as yet paid that gentleman
directly any pert of the rents or proceeds.
In re-esemination, by Mr. Charlton, witness said that
Mr. Arnold and the other claimants named in the deed
could dispose of the property as they thought proper.
Mr. Bruised said he apprehended it was not necessary for
him to take up the time of the court on this subject. It
appeared that under the vow of poverty taken by religious
persons, such persons could not possess any property in
land whatever. Any property which was conveyed to
them went to the benefit of the order to which they be-
longed, and they bad it in evidence that this parti-
cular property was conveyed to the claimants as
trustees fur the benefit of the English Xiasion.
Mr. Lowe had stated that it would go to that mission at
the death of the parties, and supposing that were eo the
present claimants had clearly only a lite interest Lin the
property, and instead of an interest of 40e. • year each
being requisite to give them • qualification, it was necessary
that the property should be of the annual value of 17W.,
at the least, which was not the case. He took it that the
vow of poverty was something consonant with the vow of
chastity. Theyknew that the vow of chastity was perfectly
binding on the consciences of those who took it, and pre-
cluded all poseibilty of marriage; and the court might
therefore adopt that as • rule in considering the vow of
poverty. But, independently of that, it did not appear
that the chairman had been in the receipt of the rent, of
the property for six months previous to the present time, a
fact which was of itself an insurmountable bar to the pre-
sent claim.
The Barrister said the question was as to the beneficial
interest. The claimants had received anything from
the property. The evidence entirely failed upon that point,
and he should strike the names of the claimants out on that
account. Claim disallowed accordingly.

ALARMING RAILWAY ACCIDENT.—On Sunday last,
on the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway, a luggage train,
running from Horniest= to Liverpool, consisting of 23
waggons and a guard van, reached a point at Haney Lever,
about mile from Bolton, at seven minutes past ten
o'clock in the morning, when the azletree broke of the
eighth waggon from the engine. The guard having become
aware of the circumstance applied tie break, and leaped off
the train, which continued its course down an incline
plane of a somewhat considerable gradient. Presently the
train passed over a shunt, and the whole of the waggons
behind the injured one were thrown off the rails, and
brought into violent contact with a number of loaded
coal trucks on a siding. This had the effect of re-
tarding the train's progress, but it dragged on to the
Ducey Lever viaduct, placing in imminent danger the
inhabitants of fifteen or twenty houses lying underneath.
The viaduct is a structure of iron latticework, 200 yards
long, resting on massive piers of stone, and extending
across a valley at an altitude of 86 feet. The engine was
brought to a stand when it had passed about half way over,
having run 600 or 700 yards titer the breaking of the wag.
gon's axle. Fortunately no portion of the train was thrown
into the valley, aced no personal injury was sustained. A
scene of deeruction, however, presented itself, in the
shape of broken waggons and their freight (principally
pain) !manned upon the line. Many of the wood steepen
had also been split, and one of the planks forming the
roadway of the viaduct was broken through. Men were
set to work, who were occupitd till five o'clock in removing
the debris. Six of the waggons were smuhei, and six
other' were slightly damaged. Three of the coal trucks on
the siding wore also broken. A similar accident happened
at the same place in February last.
ROBBER. IN UNIFORM.—The Opinione of Turin
states that the police of Sassari, in the island of Sardinia,
having received information that several peasants of the
surrounding villages had formed a plot for an extensive
rubbery, under the di-guise of light cavalry soldiers, took
every necessary precaution to prevent the execution, at the
same time letting the persons engaged in the plot make
their preparations, which occupied them several days. On
the 27th ult., matters being ripe, six of the culprits were
arrested at their homes, proof being had of their guilt,
from the confession of one of the party.
ELOPEMEN r.—An elopement took place from the
banks of the Tay on Monday, the 3rd curt —a subaltern of
a Highland regiment having carried off a young lady of
fortune from her father's mansion. He was accompanied
by a clergyman, and it is understood they fi :6 to Edinburgh,
where the knot was tied.—Edinburgh Witntu.