Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-12-28 00:00:00

EXTRAORDINARY CHLRGE OF PERJURY.

day. I won't swear one way or the other. We might
have stayed sometimes for an hour and a half alone.
Mr. Serjeant Bytes : What did you do during that
length of time ? Witness : I suppose that I talked to
him as I worked, and he to me, the same as other visitors.
Mr. Serjeant Ryles Have you ever been with him
when the blinds have been down? Witness: I never
noticed them. I never made a note of it. It the sun was
shining, no doubt the blinds were down.
Mr. Serjeant Byles : Will you undertake to say, when
he has come in, you have never pulled down the blind ?
Witness : I don't recollect; I cult not undertake to sneak
for any one but myself. It T found the sun disagreeable,
I might have pulled them down.
Mr. Sergeant B, les : Can you undertake to say that
you have not pulled the blinds down when he came in ?
Witness : No ; I cannot say one way or the other. If
the sun was eisagreeable, no doubt I did it. I recollect
visiting at Miss Maxwell's once. Ido not remember
going into the garden. I. had a sprained ankle at the
time, and could hardly go from the earriege to the
drawing-room. I know nothing about the locality. My
sister walked in the g rden, ,e) far as I can remember.
She was between eleven and t ,eelee year,' of roe at that
time. I had three sisters, Finny, Emma, and Clara.
Emma is married. Fenny din in 1846. Clara is un-
married. In AtlqU3t, when me sister was in Dublin, I
and Mr. Robinson were in Che:„enlem. When at Edge-
ware-road T did not go with the defendant to Hampton
Court. I did in 1852.
Re-examined : The defendant was one of my 'father's
oldest friends. Since my husbend has deserted me he has
never called upon me in London. In my rides with the
defendant I invariably started from my father's house. I
never pulled down the blinds for an improper purpose,
neither has the defendant.
Lord Campbell : D you recellect your father having a
servant named Crest ? Witness : No.
Lord Camehell : DJ you remember at any time when
he was in your father's service your leaving the room
with your little brother ? Wienese I don't remember.
had a little brother, and no doubt 'I left the room with
him.

REV. J. K. GLAZEBROOK TO TUE REV

coußr OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

J. MACNAUGHT.

THE QUEEN V. ROBINSON.

TO THE EDITOR or TIES NORTHERN TIMES,
Sin—Punctuation is an art not to be trifled with,
for, if you are not punctilious in all points, you
may heat of it afterwards. I was amusing myself
ore day with a comma of Mr. Macneught's, not
that I intended to take it away, but only thinking
what might happen if it were removed, and you
see what a storm I have raised. Sad is the condi-
tion of your compositors, Mr. Editor. to be daly
in danger of encountering auehors infuriated in
these sore points. Now, sir, Pll just tell you how
the matter occurred. tin that ill-fated day, 2nd of
December last, I quoted Mr. M.'s words, " I trust
Mr. G. will henceforth remember that I aril, like him-.
self, in position, though not in opinion, a clergyman
cif the Established Church of England." The gram-
matical meaning of theso words, I venture to affirm,
ir, that Mr. M. is " not in opinion, a clergyman, &
However, I did not suppose he was candid enough
to acknowledge this, and I took it to be an error
in the mode of expressing himsslf, and I said,—
" And it is remarkable that his own words may he
understood to confess his deliequency on this
point." Now, having only stated the possibility
of attaching this meaning to these words, and
marked the word may in italics, I cannot perceive
what grave offence 1 committed. I did not insist
upon what is evidently the grammatical meaning,
and in this case I was studious to Observe the laws
of honourable antagonism, for I hold that every
anent of the intellectual gladiator which is not
made " secundum artem:' ought to recoil upon
himself.
Now, Sir, see the return which I have received
for what I fondly conceived to be the c,)urtesy
of a true knight. After ellareieg me with (36n-
fesseil artifice," Mr. M. says—" 1 am bound to
say that the moral—not to say religious—con-
dition of mind which is indicated by etteh a ' con•
fession' as this, is deplorable indeed.'' This great
crime is charged upon me in various ways, in the
course of Mr. M.'s letter of the 12th December.
It gives me trouble enough to deal with the cool
perversions of Mr. M., but it is a still harder task
to deal with the misrepresentations and falsehoods
of blind rage. Alas! Mr. Editor, not charity itself,
but the cant of charity, is characteristic of that
infidel school to which Mr. M. belongs. A boasting
pretence to the chief Christian grates, is part of
the simulated fo:m of an Angel of Light, which
Satan arid his ministers wear, in order to deceive,
if it were possible, the very elect. The counterfeit
grace, however, cannot, like that which is true,
exercise long enduring patience A slight pro-
vocation destroys all the illusion, and removes
the mask, and the counterfeit avenges herself
for past self-restraint, and indulges in all manner
of misrepresentation, perversion, falsehood, and
bitter revilings. But Mr. M. goes on to say, "Mr
G.'s letter of this morning, like the rest of his
epistles, is remarkable for the way in which he
ignores the arguments I have advanced." I assure
Mr. M , that I have not willingly evaded any
argument that required an answer. Some of Mr.
M.'s arguments fortunately answer themselves.
But even with this involuntary help from Mr. M.,
I am still made deeply sensible of a saying
attributed, if I remember rightly, to Dr. S. Johnson
" Plus negabit," said the amazed Dr., " plus negabit
unas asinus in una Nora, quaa centunt philosophi
proboverint in centum mints." "An unwise man
will deny more in one hour, than a hundred
philosophers have proved in a hundred years."
Mr. M. will observe that I have' used the word
" unwise' in my translation, as being nearer the
truth, and because I do not wish to be uncourteous,
even in a quotation, when necessity does not
require it, wishing, as I do, to have some of " that
wisdom that is from above, which is first pure, and
then peaceable," &e,—James iii., 17. In future,
then, if I am obliged, through the cress of matter,
to leave some points untoualsed, I would beg to
plead, on bar of judgment, "Plus negabit." And
this reminds me, Mr. Editor, of that long letter of
Mr. M.'s of December B—you cannot but remember
it—about the Sicilian Vespers and Socrates. This
was in reply to mine of December 5. Iu order to
show how impossible it is that reason can be the
rule of faith, I ralerred to the testimony afforded by
the past and present history of heathen supersti-
tions and abominations, and the " credulity,
contradiction and absurdity of an infidel's creed."
I quoted from 1 Cor., 21, the inspired declaration
that " the world by wisdom knew not." Thie
unequivocal testimony, we might expect, would
settle the matter at once. But no, tho " inner
light " must be followed, as superior to Scripture ;
and as to the facts, " so much the worse for them?'
Mr. M., with undaunted courage, sets himself to
work out a " very curious argument " to contradict
the oracle of God, and to render the facts of no
avail. In conclusion, he says, as it were, in triumph,
on contemplating the perfection of his Q. E. D :
" This appeal was of his own choosing. His argu
ment was, I trow, a sadly frail one." "And if this
be so, said I not rightly, at the first, that Reason
had been appointed by God the sovereign judge
over all rules of Faith—yea, over all judges, save
God himself alone." Now, sir, you will probably
remember the story of an advocate who
having made a long and elaborate speech,
and who secretly congratulated himself on
his success and the evident certainty of obtain-
ing a verdict in his favour, finding, on sitting
down, that to the mortification and horror of his
amazed client, he had been all along arguing on
the wrong side. To the credit of that advocate it
is said, you remember, that, "changing hie side as
a lawyer knows how," ho rose and said, " such,
gentlemen of the jury, is the sophistical and
flimsy argument with which my learned brother
will endeavour to mislead you, and then went on
very dexterously refuting himself?' Now, sir, when
I first received that monster argument, in reply to

This was a criminal proceeding against the defendant,
a gentleman of property, residing at Cheltenham, for
perjury, arising out of the celebrated crim. con. case of
Evans v. Robinson, tried at Liverpool.
Ms. Serjeant Byles, Mr. Huddlestone, Q C , and Mn
Hawkins and Mr. Harrison were counsel for the prosecu.
thin; Sir F. Tiresiger, Mr. James, Q.C., and Mr. Hodgson
were counsel for the defendant,
The perjury eomplained of arose out of a suit in the
Ecclesiastical Court, for adultery with Mrs. Evans, the
wife of a gentleman of property residing its Gloucester.
shire. The perjury had reference to the defendant's
conduct in having had improper intimacy with the
prosecu'or's wife, both belere and after their marriage.
The unfortunate lady was a Miss Carrington, daughter of
Mr. Carrington, a gentleman residing in Lansdowne-
terrace, Cheltenham, aed occupying a respectable position
in society. The defendant was a person of res,pectsbiliry,
and was a magistrate for the borough of Cheltenham. The
defendant, who was a married man, lived separa'e from
his wile, on the ground, a, represented, of incompatibility
of temper. At Cheltenham, the defendant became
acquainted wit h Mr. Carringten's family, which, it was
alleged, was abused by him in taking an opportunity
of ingratiating himself with Miss Carrington, who
was tnen about t cventy-three years of ate, which
led to his kissing her, and other acts of familiarity which,
it was :sneered, left no doubt. of the character of the inti-
macy between them, and which had been repeated en
several occasions after rearriaee, and after the separation
of Mrs, Evans, both in London and in the country. The
action for crim. con. had been twice tried. In the first
case the verdict was for the defendant, but on the second
occasion it etas for the plaintiff, 500 t daraistes.
Mr. Serjeant Byles, i-i stating the case to the jury,
observed that some little diffieultv woul I arise in proving
the perjury, because in the Ecclesiastical Court the-
evidence was taken in private, in " a little dark room,"
and sworn to after. The perjury complained of was that
the defendant in that court had srsern that —n I am now
prepared solemnly to swear that neither before nor atter
the marriage did I take indecent or improper liberties
with her" In consequence of that affidavit, the prose-
cutor could not obtain a decree to proceed with his
application for divorce, and these proceedings had been
rendered necessary for the accomplishment of that object.
Mr. Serjeant Byles having fully stated the case,
The deposition was read at full length. In it he denied
having said at the club, at Cheltenham, in neference to
Evans' marriage whh Miss Carrington% " Evans is a
slippery fish, but I think I've hooked him at last." The
deposition also stated that he had not taken improper
liberties with Mrs. Evans, either before or after her
marriage with the prosecutor.
A great number of witnesses were examined, who
deposed to certain acts of familiarity between the defend-
ant and Mrs. Evans, but the following evidence was
given for the defence :
Mrs. Evans, a lady-like person. She was dressed in
black, and appeared at first very nervous. She deposed ;
I was married to-Mr. Evans in 1850. The defendant has
known the family since 1342, arid was a most intimate
friend of the family. lam turned 32 years of age. Mr.
Robinson'e mother resides in Cumberland—street, where he
lives part of the year, and the other at Cheltenham, The
defendant called at my father's whenever he liked. He
was accustomed to rife with me and the family.
Lord Campbell: What is the age_ of the defendant?:
Mr. Janses : About 49.
Witness continued : My father did not keep a riding
horse for use, and I always rode the defendant's black
mare. I was about 17 when I first knew him. I was
married Nov. 14, 1850. I became engaged to him in Sept.
of the same year. Mr. Robinson had no hand whatever
in that engagement. He resided at the time at Cheltenham
with Ws wife. After the marriage I resided with my
husband in Leicester, who is fond of hunting, and kept.
hunters: He deserted me in March, 1851, and the deed
of separation was made in May. We disagreed about
living with his mother, and when I found he would not
give in, I wrote to say I would give way, but he declined
to live with me. I wrote him a letter, which has never
been produced. lie never assigned any other cause for
leaving me. My father died en the 10th of this month,
and my mother on the same day. My father gave his
evidence in the Arches Court, and if he had lived he
would have given evidence here. We were in the habit of
corning to London, and Mr. Robinson was in the habit of
taking lodgings for us—he did it on several occasions.
was never in a fly with Mr. Robinson at Cheltenham. in
July, 1e49. Was in Norfolk at the time, staying at Hel-
stead Rectory. I was never at any time in a fiy alone with
Mr. Robinson, at Cheltenham, or any other place. I never
left a party at Lansdowne-crescent, or any other place,
with Mr. Robinson. I was always on such occasions seen
home by my parents. In 18531 came to London, and
lodged in the Edgeware-road with my servant. My
parents knew of it. and all my movements. I asked the
defendant to take lodgings for me, because my usual
lodgings were occupied. I arrived at Edgeware-road on
the 23rd of June, and remained there for a fortnight and a
day. The defendant used to call there, and I used some-
times to go out with him. I never saw the defendant in
possession of a latch-key whilst I was there. I never
heard of it till my maid had her deposition taken. 'never
knew of his coming into the house without knocking, or
being announced by my maid, or Mrs. Phillips's servant.
When I have gone out with him, we have walked to the
parks and the Royal Academy Exhibition. He never, on
such occasions, let himself in with a latch-key—he always
knocked. I have read the proceedings in this case.
By Mr. James : Were you ever guilty of any act of
adultery with Mr. Robinson? Witness: Never.
Mr. James : At any time in the evening of August 4,
1853? Witness : Never.
Mr. James : Were you ever guilty of any indecency or
adultery with Mr. Robinson, as deposed to by Munn ?
Witness : It is utterly false. The story is utterly false
from beginning 'to end. My sister Fanny was with me
in Dublin in August, 1853. My father kept a memorandum
book, which I was in the habit of seeing.
Mr. James proposed to put in the book.
Mr. Serjeant Byles objected.
Lord Campbell refused to admit if.
Witness : I can do Yeey well without it. My father
took my sister to Dublin on the 2nd of August. There
was no other sister at home then. She remained till the
end of October, but my father left about the 15th August,
• and my sister went on a visit to my brother-in-law, Dr,
Wood, 16th Lancers, then quartered in Dublin, in 1854.
I went to Bsyanstormesquare. My father and mother
came up after Ina. I arrived on the 19;..11 of June.
accompanied by my cousin, Mr. Mellins, a gentleman
reading for the church, who had been i t the army. I
think I wrote to the defendant to take apartments for Mr.
Mellins and myself. My father and mother arrived on the
sth July, about 5 o'clock in the afternoon.
Mr. James: I will ask you this question. Dnring the
time you wero in Bryanstone-square, did Mr. Robinson
take any improper fausiliafities with you, or, to put the
question plainly, did you commit adultery with him there ?
Witness : I never did.
Lord Campbell : Or take improper familiarities ?
Witness : N•ver.

Lord Campbell : Do you- recollectron any occasion the
defendant fol'owing you? Witness: Indeed Ido not.
Lord Campbell : Now, I must ask you, did the defen-
dant at any time upon the stairs kiss you: Witness:
Indeed. not.
Lord Campbell :He never did ? Witness No.
The ease was resumed on Wednesday.
Mr. Serjeant Bytes, in addressing the jury on the whole
of the evidence, entered into a minute analysis of the
evidence, urging that it was not necessary in actions for
trim. con. to prove actual intercourse between the parties,
but such conduct only as led to a fair and reasonable
inference that it had taken place, there was abundant
proof in the defendant's case to substantiate such a charge.
In the course of the learned serjeent's address, he ob-
served, in aristocratic circles, men felt they were bound in
honour not to admit that they had enjoyed the least favour
of a married woman, and on that subject he feared the
public mind was somewhat lax. It was perfectly clear,
from eve: y day observation, that a man denied such con-
duct both in public and in private. He concluded by
urging that the prosecution had been clearly made out.
Lord Campbell, in summing up, said : This is a case
that must create the greatest anxiety in all who are con-
nected with it, and, I may say, almost as great in the
judge and jury as the parties who are interested in it.
You have to decide this case on conflicting evidence upon
a variety of questions, conflicting to an extent that can
in no respect be reconcile and you are to say whether
there has been perjury committed on one side or the other.
The defendant is indicted that he committed wilful and
corrupt perjury when examined as a witness in the
Ecclesiastical Court in a divorce suit brought by Mr.
Evans against his wife, and there are various assignments
of perjutn separate and distinct from each other, which
will require your special attention, and I must ask your
opinion separately upon the main quesion upon which
your verdict will ultimately be given. There are six
questions to be decided, which I have reduced to writing
for your guidance, and will leave them to you. They are,
first, did the illicit intercourse, as alleged, take place
between the defendant and Mrs. Evans in the fly on the
Charlton-road in February, 1849 ? Second, did the defen-
dant speak the words in the club at Cheltenham, in 1850,
imputed to him, respecting the marriage of Mr. Evans with
Miss Carrington ? Third, had the defendant a latchkey
while Mrs. Evans was lodging in the Edzeware-road, in
JWv, 1853 ? Fourthly, did the illicit intercourse
take place between the defendant and Mrs. Evans,
as stated by Munn, in August, 1853? Fifth, did
the illicit intercourse take place between the de-
ftntlant :and Mrs. Evens on the 4th and sth of July ?
1854, in Heyanstone-square; and sixth, did the defendant
attempt to tamper with Mrs. King, as a witness in Aug.,
1851, before the first trial at Liverpool, as stated by her ?
It would be for them to answer these questions of fact.
Happily, in cases of cenflictine evidence, they have to be
decided by a jury, the best tribunal for such a purpose
that ever was invented by the wisdom of man ; and I
entreat you, in answering these questions, to be entirely
guided by your own opinions formed on the evidence you
have heard on both sides, bearing in mind the very able
discussion the case has undergone, and the powerful
speeches you have heard from the learned counsel who
h-ave addressed you. It is not my habit to read over the
whole of the evidence in cases tried before me, because its
general tendency was to perplex rather than assist in
arriving at a conclusion, bat in this case I feel it my
bounden duty to do EO, drawing your attention to it, aud,
so far as I flan, to assist you by any observations I might
make in seeing its bearing and f fr.ct ; but not to influence
you in any respect. The fearer] Judge then read over the
evidence, which occupied several ..ours.
The jury retired at 23 minutes past three o'clock to
consider their verdict. At a quarter to six o'clock Lord
Campbell informed the learned counsel that he had
received a message from the jury, staring that they
could net agree, and asked them if they would consent to
the jury being discharged.
'rho learned Counsel said they could net assent to the
proposition, but were willing to leave it to his lordship.
Lord Campbell then sent for the jery, and on their
arrival in court, asked them if they were likely to agree.
He had given them six questions on matters of fact,
which it was necessary they should find in the affirmative
or negative.
The Foreman said they were not likely to agree on the
whole either way.
Lord Campbell informed them they must agree, and
must be locked up until they did so.
The Foreman of the jury asked for tile indictment,
which was handed to him, awl they again retired.
About seven o'clock Lord Campbell again returned into
court, and said he had received another message from the
jury, to the effect that they could not agree.
Tney were again sent for, and asked by .Lord Campbell
if they thought there was any probability of coming to a
decision.
The Foreman said there was not. They were about
equally divided oa the indictment, but could not agree on
the questions.
Lord Campbell said they must find a verdict on the
questions of fact he had submitted to them, which con-
tained the assignments of perjery. If they found in the
affirmative, that. would be a verdict of guilty ; but, if in
the negative, it would be an acquittal.
A Jeror said they were not likely to find a verdict in
the affirmative.. They were, however, agreed on two of
them, in the negative. (Applause.)
Lord Campbell said he did not ask them for such an
expression of opinion.
Ultimately, finding there Teas no chance of their agreeing,
Lord Campbell, on his own responsibility, discharged
them, intimating that the case would have to be tried again
by another jury.
The jury were accordingly discharged, and thus ended
thia.extraordinary trial, virtually in a verdict for the
defdlidant.

Mr. James : Is it true that, on the 4th Jelv, you were
in an indecent position with him on the sofa Witnese :
That story is a perfect fabrication.
Mr. James: Or on the sth? Were you in an indecent
posture on the sofa ? Witness : I say I swear to that
day. I went to the theatre twice with the defendant, who
left me at the door. I went once to the opera with him
and his sister, Mrs. Thackeray. They both saw me
home and left. Oa the 4th, Mrs. Thackeray called with
her little boy, about three years old. They came
with Mr. Robinson about eleven o'clock. Mr. Medias
came oat of his room and jiined them. I went with Mrs.
Thackeray and the chi'd for a walk. The defendant left
the house with us, and after accompanying us a short
distance we separated. I went with Mrs. Thackeray and
her little boy into the park, returning to Bryanstone-
square about one o'clock. I there found my cousin
waitint for me. I generally took lunch about one o'clock.
My cousin only took lunch with me that day. After the
defendant left the house in the morning I saw nothing
more of him that day. On that day Mrs. M•Donald and
her daughter called on me about three o'clock- She is
the wife of General M`Donald, and my mother's sister.
Thy remained about haifau hour or three quarters of an
hour. When my father and mother came I took the whole
of the house. My cousin went out about three o'clock,
and my aunt came in his absence. They just missed them.
They left before his return. I generally dined about seven
o'clock. My cousin, after Mrs. M‘Danald left, went out
with me before dinner for a walk in the park. We re-
turned but a short time before dinner. I am quite
positive tho defendant did not call after, that morning.
The defendant called on the following morning, the stn,
about eleven or half-past eleven o'clock. My cousin was
then at home, and reading in the room adjoining. Mrs.
Thackeray and her son called again that day with Mr.
Robinson. They remained about half an hour, and we
all went out together. We walked in the Park, the
defendant leaving us at the Marble Arch. A shower of
rain came on, and we got very wet. I returned home by
myself. Mrs. Thackeray and her son were staying
at
Mr,. Robinson's, in Cumberland-street, and they left me in
Little Quebec-street. I gat home to luncheon a little after
one. I found my cousin there. The defendant did not lunch
with inn that day. My father and mother arrived about
five o'clock. I have no recollection of the defendant
caking afterwards, or seeing him after the morning viit.
lam positive he did not. The 'defendant has a sous in
the Treasury. He called with his father two or three
times in Bryanstone-square. I was in the habit of going
with my father and mother to church. He never on any
occasion called and saw me on a Sunday after my parents
had gone to church.

a mere billet doux of my own, imagine theeiree

produced upon a country parson. Could such a
one ever hope to cope with a hydra-headed beast
_ _

like that. However, on a near inspection I found
that it was its own mortal enemy, and that
it had killed itself. Let any one read
Mr. Maonaug,ht's letter, December 8, to which
I refer, and see whether I am not quite eorrect in
saying that from the " Scene in Modern History to
the conclusion of the teaching of Socrates, as it is
represented to us in the dialogues of Plato:" every
fact proves, as it was likely to prove, tha unim-
peachable truth of God's Holy Word, that " The
world by wisdom knew not God;" and, conse-
quently, that Reason has in no instance whatovor

CLXVER CAPTURE.—" Two glasses of your beat ale, land-
bold," exclaimed Mr. Choop to a burly red-headed man
with a villanous countenance, who came forward scowling
suspiciously. The landlord's back was hardly turned
before a quick whisper was exchanged between Timothy
and Mr. Choop. We ware lighting our cigars when the
landlord returned with the ale. He showed us into a
small room, and we left the countryman still smoking at
the door. He seemed to be a thirsty soul, this countryman,
for he called for glass ait;r glass rapidly, as if fully deter-
mined on getting drunk in the shortest possible time. He
drank so much that the landlord's bfg jug was at last ex-
hausted, and he lighted a candle to ge down into the
cellar to draw more ale. Hardly had the landlord reached
the bottom of the cellar steps before the door was quietly
locked behind him. Mr. Choop's apathy vanished in a
moment. Hie eyes flashed, his teeth glistened, he looked
dangerous. "Go you into the garden," he whispered to
me, " and take your stand blow the v indoor on the left.
If Jim Riley jump) out—though I don't think he'll have
time—lay hold of him, and stick to him till 1 c -me. Now,
Tim, quick and si!ent !" Mr. Choop and Timothy,
,each
pulling out an ugly looking staff, crept upstairs as
stealthily as two burglars, while I hastened into the
garden. A. mingled noise of shouting and ca'hs,
crowned by a woman's wild shriek, the crash of a falling
table, and then the window was flung up, and Mr. Darke
dashed madly through, followed closely by Choop. They
came to the ground almost together, and rolled over in a
fierce struggle. But Mr. Darke, twice as strong as his
opponent, was uppermost, sitting astride of Mr. Choop—
only for one moment, for the next my arms were round
his neck. I gave him a sudden pull back, with all my
strength. Choop, now on his feet, whipped out his hand-
cuffs, and had Mr. Darke safe and fast before that individ-
ual could recover his breath. At this moment Timothy
appeared, escorting Mrs. Riley—as I suppose she ought to
be called—and carrying with much care the small black
portmanteau. Mr. Choop opened it, and I perceived it
to be half fell of watches, rings, pins, and jewellery of
various kinds. The woman's veil, now thrown back,
showed me the midnight traveller, minus the moustache;
a bold, forward-looking good featured woman, bearing her
misfortune with a haughty indifference that excited
Timothy's adrairalion. The landlord, kicking at hie cellar
door and calling to be let out long before this, was released
by Timothy ; and very blank he looked when ho beheld
how his guests bad suddenly come to grief.—Dirkesee
Household Words.

...-
_•estanashed its supposed right to be superior to
every other rule." In confirmation of this conclu-

sion, Imust refer to an authority which is great with
Mr. M., though it is looked upon, I fear, by many as
a sort of second Book of Mormon—l mean Mac-

naught on Inspiration—p. 175 in which he shews
the very imporant blemishes and the religious and
philosophic system of Socrates. What Mr. M.'s
clients will say to him for this " making a
speech on the wrong side, I do not know, but for
my part I thank him for his help, and congratulate
him on having become, in this instance, a true
philosopher in spite of himself. It is almost the
first occasion on which I have been able to agree
with him, so different are my opinions from his.
I have sometimes wondered how Mr. M. would

reconcile the infinite variety of men's opinions with
the chimerical notion that " Reason is the Word of

God within mau"—Mac Insp ,p. 2. " Qlot honzines
tot sententice,"—" Many men many minds " This

is in our ♦ery primers—this truth our libraries
teach—this truth is proclaimed by our disputes on
all questions—this truth every day, every
hour confirms ; and yet, in spite of all this

unquestionable testimony, the visionary spritu-
aligt maintains that the light of nature
is "superior to all other rules of faith."

But, why should I say more. No reasoning, no
factg, no declarations of Scripture can remove
cherished notion. It is rather a sort of mono-
mania, or a punishment inflicted on those who

By Mr. James : Either before or after your marriage,
is it true that the defendant ever took any improper
familiarities or indecent liberties with you? Witness:
N(ver.

perversely turn away from the light of heaven, and
refuse to listen to the oracles of God, where-

Cross-examined by Mr.Serjeant Byles : The defendant's
mother r: sides in town He has two sis' ers. -- No lady
called upon me in the Edgeware-road. The defendant
did net call upon them every day. One day he did not
call, but I can't account for it, perhaps he can. I never
remember his calling on me three times a day. I kept no
notes of it. I have read the defendant's evidence in the
Arches Court. I don't recollect his calling three times a

fore God " has sent them stron3 delusions to
believe a lie." I intended to go on ht Cher with my
apology cr defence, but I must be allowed to write

again to-morrow, as I de not like to defer it longer,
and you will observe that I have shown no wish or
intention to retract or modify my as sertions. I
have endeavoured in all my letters :rot to cast

THE NORTHERN TIMES.-=LIVERPOOL, LION DAY, DECEMBER QB, 1857.

December 24, 1857.

unfounded imputations, but to draw honest con-
clusions, and to follow strict truth wherever it leads
and whomsoever it may offend.

K G LAZ E BROOK.
Lower Darwen, December 23, 1857.

THE M A.O bTA UOH r CONTROVERSY.

TO THE EDITOR OP TIIE NORTHERN TIMES.
Sir,—Your paper of this day contains a column of
vague observations and personal remarks sub-
scribed by Mr. W. Wynne. I believe I only
express the opinion of many of your readers, when
I stigmatize Mr. Wynne's intrusion on the discus-
sion as silly and invidious. It is a pity he is so
little sensitive as not to take the hints of one or
two correspondents, who but speak the sentiments
of many others in desiring him to refrain. His
attacks upon Mr. Macnaught to day are most
unfounded and absurd ; and his logic is -as un-
meaning and pointless, as that in which Mr.
Maencught's opponent sometimes indulges. Not
but what 'so vague a style is a capital resource,
when the logician has no powers of argument,
because tho reasoning is unanswerable. If
you demonstrate geologically and cosmographioslly
the impossibility of the moon's comppsition being
green cheese, in order to prove the death of Queen
Anne, no one can specially reruto your arguments,
so long as you keep them sufficiently abstruse and
uninteili.ible. And of this kind are the reasonings
of Mr. Wynne, to whom I beg to. refer to a noted
prototype of his—the talented Captain Bunsby, in
Donzb(y and Son, whose mode of illation was
generally as follows :—" Whereby, why not ? If so,
what odds? Can any man say otherwise ? No.
Avast then !"

I
would also advise Mr. Wynne to a.bstain fnm
personal attacks on a gentleman or gentlemen—
singular or plural—of greater knowledge, greater
standing, greater talent and better sense than
himself. Let him remember, others can be personal;
and others satirical, as well as he ; and the
alliteration of "Mr. Macnaught's Master Mind" can
be equalled in that of the " Wilful Witlessness of
TV. Wynne' Let him likewise remember,
that his aid is neither desired nor admired in
the discussion, and that Kr. Glezebrook
cannot be in great need of his assistance, that
he should requil e Wynne to wia his cause.
Or, if he is subject to typomania, and cannot keep
out of print, why, then, let Mr. Wynno know how
to winnow his thoughts before ho commits them
to paper, so that, if the public be not impressed
with their lucidity, they may, at least, be spared
the shock of an exhibition of irrelevancy and
childishness.—l are, sir, yours very truly,
L. H. STANHOPE.

TO THE EDITOR OF MR NORTHERI TIME!.

Sir,—The subjects for discussion between Mr
Maclanght and Mr. Glazebrook, were all gloss
mentioned in Mr. Macnaughes first replies to Mr.
Glazebrook's letters.

Mr. Glaa.Arook nunaberod the paragraphs, with
the view of answering them in order, and Mr.
M2tenitught expressed his approval of their being
so numbered. Therefore inspiration is not the sole
question at issue.

Mr. Macnsught wants to avoid questions of
doctrine, as he knows he does not hold, the
Catholic faith. Mr. M. says, in his short note to
the NORTHERN TIMES of December 18, that he will
not reply to Mr. G.'s letter before he sees what
apology will be made. However, the dialogue sent
by a clergyman of the Church of England, bears
strong evidence of being written by him, and it will
be judged of accordingly. Ho disguises himself, in
order to cast unfounded imputations.
Mr. Wynne's powerful and discriminating letters
seems to annoy the heterodox party very much.
He has endeavoured to draw Mr. M. out on the
Atonement, but Mr. M. •' holds this only as an
article of peace," that is, not at all; he is known to
deny it. "Holding articles of peace" is another
name for shamelsss hypocrisy.—l am. sir, your
obedient servant. 7ERITAS.
December 23, 1857.

DIALOGUE 111.,
BETWEEN ROBERT AND THOMAS.

7 hemas : Well, Robert, my char fellow, I'm very happy
to see you once more.
Robert : Same to you, or " shalom lechz," as tba Hebrews
would say; you see I have been getting up a little
Hebrew, which I find quite necessary, in order to prose-
cute fully my theological studies.
T.: I quite agree with you ; read as much as you can ;
don't confine yourself to one side of a que.tion ; shut not
up yourself in a theological prison-house; rise above the
narrow systems of dogmatism, and breathe the air of
freedom.

R.: In talking'about freedom, don't you think we are
sometimes apt, through selfishness or same kindred spirit,
to make it a ore-s'ded freedom
T. : Yes, I do; and therefore, I say, let this principle of
freedom extend to others—to all ; and let others extend it
to one another, we cannot be true Christians without it;
for the very essence of Christianity is love, charity, and
freedom. I see you are glancing at my Greek Testament ;
I was just reading it when you came in. Turn to the third
chapter of Titus, second vers, and you will find the English
version of the text I was reading.
R.: Yes, here it is. " To speak evil of no man."
T.: That will do ; sub was the order given by Paul to
a bishop of his own appointing, that he should watch over
the interests of the people, and see that they spoke evil of
no man; so that Paul thought it the duty of a bishop to see
that th 3 members of his 11'Nek " spoke evil of no man ; " but
what I wish more particularly to notice, is the correspond-
ing text in the Greek Testim'nr, "medeits blasphemein,"
to blaspheme or tpeak evil of no one. Now, just turn to
" Liddle and Scott.''

R.: Here's the word, blasphemed, to hurt a man's good
name, to speak ill (o-) to the prejudice of one, to defame.
Well, I never noticed th t before, I always attached a
cliffl-en! meaning to the word ; in fact, I always translated
it " blasnLeme."
T.: You see hot.w that our word "bl tspheme " is
purely Greek, and carinq bear any other meaning than
that which belongs to it in the Greek ; in this passtge
it is rightly translated in our own vernacular, and so
again in 1 Cora iv. 13, " Being defamed," Ice., the
same word again in the original, you perceive ; so also
in Ephesians iv., 31, " Let all bitterne;s, and wrath, and
anger, and clamour, and evil speaking (blasphentia), be
put away from you, with all malice." I could not forbear
reading the whole passage, as I think the advice contained
in it well worthy of adoption, and cannot be thought of
too often ; it is negative certainly, but read the following,
and then you will see hew Paul states it positively.
R. " And 'l)2 ye kind one to another, tenderhearted,
&c." I think, entre notes, we might recommend this pass-
age to Mr. G.'s consideration ; if be feel unable to act up
to the positive instructions of Paul, he might surely try
and begin with the negative, and then he would abatsin
from making such a liberal and uncalled for use of his
favourite word braspheinia."
T.: You see this word which has been knocked about
so much of late could stand it no longer, and so has
turned out a regular Scpoy. Blasphemy really, and in the
Greek Testament, means " defamation," or " speaking evil
of," and who is the " blasphemer" let facts and conscience
alone decide. But Mr. G. is not satisfied with trying to
bl-cken the character of the living, but he also, as you see
from this letter iu the NORTHERN Theme of the 18th, does
his beg, or rather his worst, to calumniate the deed, when
they differ from him.

R.: That seems to me the more cruel and cowardly,
inasmuch as they cannot now speak for themselves, and
yet their works speak for them ; of course we are at
liberty to (mote a man's works, and even show that his
statements and acquirements are false, if need be ; but it
is transgressing the bounds of liberty, honour, and Chris.
din charity, to wander from the work to the writer, and
take occasion thereby to speak evil of him. Speak well of
a man if you can, but if you canu(.4 do that, say nothing,
that's my maxim.
T.: A very go>d maxim, indeed • but I cannot see whlt
all this has to do with the subject of controversy; it taxes
all my powers of perspicuity to see any hing at all rele-
vant in this letter or the last from Mr. G. It may be a
source of amusement or a literary exercise for Mr. G. to
bear testimony to Dr. Arnold. when he says, "as a learned
man and ax acknowledged scholar, few would hesitate to
yield to his opinion as to the correctness of a translation of
the New Testament ;" and then, in the same letter, to be
at the trouble of represetvirg the Doctor, in the words of
another clergyman, as one whose" ignorance in theology is
really great, which, with all his claims t study and know-
ledge, begat a rashness and presumption of judgnunt, full
of conceit, and imagined superiority." He quotes Dr.
Arnola, as an authority, on a theological guidon, viz, the
Trinity ; as an authority, remember, to support himself,
and then, after a quotation from Biekoistetb, says, " having
canuot
nen .how low Dr. Arnstid ranks as a theologian