The Sun.
London, England, 1855-11-22 00:00:00

J. MARTIN'S CASE.

Tho wounded sailor's story is a bad one, and was told in
a simple honest manner, but the police sergeant accused
dixelai toed striking him with great appearance of sincerity;
and, looking to the evidence, we think Martin may have
fixed on the wrong man.

—J. T. KING'S CASE.
It is clear that Leach, 147 A, had a boy in custody, who
was rescued about the same time when King was pushed
against him. Leach may have attacked and struck him,
under the impression that he was assisting in the rescue.
Leach gives a different account from Charles James, and
describes an encounter in which he got possesfion of two
sticks, and struck a lad who had got possession of his trun-
cheon. There is no evidence to corroborate Leach as to the
encounter he speaks of, and we have no doubt that Leach
struck the complainant. The most favourable interpreta-
tion is, that he struck King supposing him to have been
engaged in the rescue; but if so, he struck him with unne-
cessary and reckless violence. The rescue and excitement
may in some degree palliate this offence; but Leach's want
of candour and misrepresentation are bad features in the
Case.

B. L. SMITH'S CASE.
Complaint was also made against Charles Leach, 147 A,
for apprehending Mr. B. L. Smith, a barrister, who was
confined all night in one of the cells at Vine-street sta-
tion. Originally there was a charge made by Leach against
Mr. Smith, the hearing of which the magistrate adjourned
for a week, and the charge was ultimately withdrawn by
Leach, but under what circumstances, or why, is not very
clear. Leach, however, stated on oath before us that Mr.
Smith assaulted him, and that his conduct was riotous. Mr.
Smith did not appear before us, and no evidence was given
to affect the statement of Leach on this point, and under
these circumstances we cannot hold that Leach exceeded his
duty in making this arrest.
R. WOODWARD'S CASE.
We entertain no doubt that Woodward was struck and
injured by some policeman, but policeman 593 A was in
Westminster Hospital ill of typhus fever when we sat to
take evidence, and we have since ascertained that he died
in the hospital on the 10th of August.
G. B. COUCHES'S CASE.
As to the charge against policeman 229 A, the witness
Coukher did not appear when 229 A was produced in the
court to identify him, and it was proved by this policeman,
confirmed by the testimony of his landlord, that 229 A was
at home and not on duty on the Ist of July. As to the con-
duct of Superintendent Martin, we consider that the remo-
val of the complainant out of the carriage-way was proper,
and that the superintendent could hardly be expected to dis-
cuss the point under the pressure of duties which required
his attention. The pmc3edings to remove the complain-
ant were rough, but if he would not quit the carriage-way
voluntarily he exposed himself to some degree of compul-
sion, and it does not appear that he was hurt. If Mr.
Coulcher bad a right to remain, other foot passengers had
also a right to remain in the carriage-way, and it would be
impossible to clear it for carriages.
W. STEPHENS'S CASE.
There is no doubt that the savage attack on Stephens
was unjustifiable, and that he was seriously injured. The
only question is as to the identity of the policeman 81 C as
a party concerned in the attack.
Stephens is almost certain that Charles Madgett, 81 C, is
the wan who struck him on the mouth. Nightingale and
Humphries both swore positively as to identity of Madgett,
and as to his taking part in the violence done to Stephens.
We consider that there is sufficient proof that Charles
Madgett took part in the illegal violence in this case.
R. F. SANDALL'S CASE.
Mr. Sandall does not speak with any well grounded con-
fidence as to Inspector Lester being the man who struck
him, and after Lester's denial on oath it would be wrong
to hold him to be the offender.
J. STAPLES'S CASE.
It is certain the policeman was not the man of whose
conduct Mr. Staples complained. Mr. Staples said he was
not the man, though it is difficult to account for his mis-
take in taking the number.
T. M'LEOWNAN'S CASE.
Thomas Prowse did not appear before us; if he had come
forward as a witness this case might have been cleared of
doubt. The evidence, as It stands, is conflicting, and we
do not consider the alleged misconduct and improper lan-
guage to be proved with certainty against the policeman
John Bray.

H. B. MAXWELL'S CASE.
Mr. Mitchell afterwards stated that he did not press the
charge against this policeman, and we exonerate policeman
345 A from this charge, but there is no doubt unwarrant-
able violence was used towards Mr. Maxwell by some po-
liceman on duty.
T. CANNON'S CASE.
The witness Cannon was maltreated, but his evidence is
insufficient to prove who was the offender.

The Second Class of these cases consists of those in which
witnesses complained of misconduct on the part of known
policemen; but the persons alleged to have been injured or
aggrieved were not examined or known.
CASE OF A BOY HURT.
The policeman's explanation seems satisfactory, and con-
sistent with the witness Blanchard's evidence.
CASE OF A. MAN STRUCK.
If the time of the transaction in question had been dis-
tinctly fixed as at 5 o'clock, the policeman 375 A would
took place about 6 o'clock. The ge which makes it pro-
have disproved the charge by showing that he was then at
Vine-street, but, the time is not so fixed ; and Blanchard
mentions that 10 minutes after the transaction he saw the
h policemanb that
wtihteh
tarabnosyacitniont
hisooc
injured person does not appear, but Blanchard and Berry
speak so distinctly to the facts, and also to the person and
number of James Teasdale, that, notwithstanding his de-
nial, we think this charge of violence is sufficiently proved
against him.
CASE OP A BOY KNOCKED DOWN.
It is impossible to reconcile the account which this wit-
ness gives with his guilt, yet the witness Daniel took down
the number, A 344, at the time. The witness Daniel does
not identify the person of the policeman, and the boy stated
to have been hurt does not appear. Under these circum-
stances we give the policeman the benefit of the doubt.

CASE OF VIOLENCE IN THE DRIVE.
The young gentleman alleged to have bees ill-treated
does not appear. The facts admit of the explanation given,
and we cannot fix blame on the police, who were engaged
in clearing the carriage-way at the time.

CASE OF THREATENING.
The explanation given in this case is probably correct;
:heroforo we see no reason to censure the policeman.
CASE OF ♦ MAN STRUCK, SUPPOSED TO BE BINCROFT.
We Ma 310 person to whom Olives evidence ifs appli•

cable except Bincroft, and, assuming tiara, he was the per-
son, we think the policeman has answered the charge.

CASE OF VICLENCE IN PARK-STREET.

We find that Vincent Gummer, police-sergeant C,
acted with unjustifiable violence in dispersing the crowd in
Park-street.
In a number of other cases the Commissioners find that
either the case was explained, not proved, or the particular
policeman not identified ; and as regards six others they
state—We see no reason to doubt that in all there cares
the violence spoken to was committed ; and in the absence
of any explanation it appears to have been wholly unwar-
ranted.

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
character 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 mem-
bers of the same body on the same occasion ' • and what-
ever blame may attach to individuals, it was through the
exertions of the police 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 ground for les-
sening the confidence of the public—a confidence founded
on the experience of six-and-twenty years—in the general
good conduct and efficiency of the Metropolitan Police.
All which we humbly submit to your Majesty's most
gracious consideration.
10th November, 1855.
(L. S.) JAMES STUART WORTLEY.
(L. S.) ROBERT BAYNES ARMSTRONG.
(L. S.) GILBERT HENDERSON.

COPY OF A LETTER TO SIR RICHARD MAYNE, K.C.8.,
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE OF THE METROPOLIS.
Whitehall, November Li, 1855.
I am directed by Secretary Sir George Grey to transmit
to you a copy of the Report of the Commissioners ap-
pointed to inquire into the disturbance of the public peace
in Hyde-park on Sunday, the Ist July, and into the con-
duct of the Metropolitan Police on that occasion. This
Report, which was delivered to Sir George Grey on the
10th instant, has received his serious attention.

From the description given by the Commissioners of the
nature and character of the assemblage in the park on the
day in question, of the noisy and riotous proceedings
which took place, and of the danger caused by them to
persons in carriages and on horseback, as well as from the
statement of the Commissioners that the crowd contained
a sprinkling of bad and dangerous persons who required
the control of the police, and who, but for such control,
might have led the way and been followed by the thought-
less and inconsiderate to misAief and damage to property,
the extent of which would only ha-re been limited by the
resistance they met with, there can be no doubt that the
interference of the police was indispensably necessary ; and
Sir George Grey is happy to find that, in the opinion of
the Commissioners, the presence and acts of the police en
the Ist July had the effect of preventing any such result,
and that it was through their exertions that accidents were
prevented in the park, and property in that vicinity pro-
tected from damage. It is also satisfactory to know that
there was no evidnce before the Commissioners of any
loss of life or bone broken, or of any limb seriously hurt,
or permanent injury of any kind inflicted. It is, however,
with great regret that Sir George Grey finds that the result
of the inquiry has been to establish, in the opinion of the
Commissioners, charges of serious misconduct on the part
of some members of the force, while they report that
ample testimony was borne to the moderation and for-
bearance of other members of the body on the same occa-
sion, and that when the events of the day are properly
appreciated, they would not, in their judgment, be found
to afford any just grounds for lessening the confidence of
the public in the general good conduct and efficiency of the
Metropolitan Police.
This high character which the force has acquired, and
which is highly creditable ,to it as a body, and to those
under whose immediate directions it has been placed,
renders it the more important that every precaution should
be taken to prevent its reputation being compromised and
its efficiency impaired by misconduct on the part of any
of its members. With this view lam to call your parti-
cular attention both to the general statements of miscon-
duct contained in this Report, and to the particular in-
stances in which the Commissioners have recorded their
opinion that such misconduct has been proved against in-
dividual members of the police force.
The latter cases are not numerous, and may properly be
dealt with in the first instance.

The first to which Sir George Grey feels it his duty to
advert is, the case of Superintendent Hughes, who was
charged with the general direction of the police in Hyde-
park on the Ist July. The Commissioners state him
to have been accused of undue excitement, of using impro-
per language, of having been personally guilty of many as •
sanits with his horsewhip, of issuing to the police without
sufficient grounds orders to use their staves, and of failing
to control many excesses on the part of the police under
his command. The evidence in support of the first three
of these charges was insufficient. to satisfy the Commission-
ers of their being well founded ; but even after making
allowance for the circumstances in which ho was placed,
for the obstruction of the road, for the obstinacy of what
they term the "rough people" in the carriage-way and at
the railings, and the fact of stones being thrown at himself
and Superintendent Martin, the Commissioners think that
Superintendent Hughes was not warranted in the order he
gave the men to use their staves at the time that order was
given, and that, although if the use of the staves had been
strictly limited to the clearance of the carriage-road, they
might have considered it justifiable, there was not the same
necessity to drive the crowd from the railings, and still
less to clear the space between the rails and the water of
the Serpentine. They also think that prudence required
that the experiment of removing and keeping back the
crowd from the rail should have been abandoned immedi-
ately the collisions attending it were perceived. The Com-
missioners further advert in this part of their Report to
the conduct of parties of the police in dispersing at a late
hour in the evening groups collected at a distance from the
drive, though it does not appear that any riotous or other
illegal proceedings were going on in these groups.
They do not, however, state that tlrse parties of police
were under the immediate orders of Superintendent
Hughes.
The opinion of the Commissioners with regard to him,
on a review of all facts in evidence, is, that in endeavour-
ing to discharge) a difficult and embarrassing duty he 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 unoffending individuals required ; and they believe
that by a more calm and forbearing course on his part,
much angry excitement at the time and complaint
afterwards would have been avoided. It is right, how-
ever, to notice the opinion of the Commissioners that,
to remove and keep the people back at some distance from
the rails, BO that the noises and gestures of the crowd
might produce less effect, was the measuie most likely to be
effectual for the protection of persons using the drive, and
keeping the carriage-way clear, and that it was expressly
directed by you, though under the circumstances detailed
in the report, they state it to have been a task of great
difficulty. They intimate, moreover, that it was attempted
with an inadequate force, and that to this cause is to be
attributed much of the violence which cannot be justified.
Sir George Grey presumes that Superintendent Hughes was
not responsible for the amount of the force at first employed,
which must have been determined by the Commissioners
of Police, and that the strong reinforcements which arrived
between half-past 3 and half-past 5 o'clock were sent upon
his application. With respect to the order for the use of
the staves, Superintendent Hughes says that he gave it on
his own responsibility, and that he gave it considering
that the critical moment was come when, unless controlled,
the dangerous elements of the crowd would become un-
manageable, and serious mischief ensue.
There can be no question but that calmness and forbear-
hfp
the
a theseu
factsb position.l i public
opeace, t
qualitiesh
scar ands
owe aus thatlsdt
lance are as essential as firmness and resolution in an officer
placed in command of a body of men engaged in reserv-
igmarkedraend e
ra
moarn habitual
wholly
unfitab
for e-
nGeorgeata Greyein
thehas
report,caref
ullyandth;
consi-
dered
opinion of the Commissioners, in order to determine whe-
ther n
cs:ab-
sence
:
ther the conduct of Superintendent Hughes, under the
circumstances in which he was placed on the Ist of July,
was such as to disqualify him from holding the office of a
Superintendent of Police. After taking into account all
the circumstances as detailed by the Commissioners, and
after considering the long service of Superintendent
Hughes in the force, and the general approval with which
he had during such service discharged duties requiring
great judgment and discretion, Sir George Grey is of opi-
nion that while it is necessary to mark with ()ensure the
conduct which the Commissioners have thought justly
liable to blame, his dismissal from his office would be harsh
and uncalled for.

You will convey to him the disapproval of the Secretary
of State of his want of forbearance and judgment on this
occasion, and enjoin upon him, in the strongest terms, the
of maintaining perfect self-control in the highlyperform-
responsible duties, and of checking,
perfoth rm-
ance
bosifytyhhiiss
ex
example and his orders, any unnecessary vio-
lence on the part of those under his command.
In connection with this part of the report, I am to direct
your attention to the recommendation of the Commis-
sioners, in which Sir G. Grey entirely concurs, that on oc-
casions similar to that of the Ist July, a superior officer of
the police ought to be on the spot. He is aware that this
course has been adopted on the occasions on which, since
the Ist of July, the attendance of large numbers of police
has been required for the preservation of the peace, and it
is obviously one which ought in all such cases to be taken.
Sir G. Grey has also already directed you to ensure on all
such occasions the presence of a force fully adequate for the
duty it may be called on to perform. The amount of force
requisite for any particular duty must be decided by the
judgment and experience of the Commissioners of Police.
But it is obvious that the presence of an adequate force at
any spot which is likely to be the scene of tumult or
disorder, is not only the best precaution against a breach
of the public peace, but the surest means for the prompt
and effectual suppression of any outbreak which may oc-
cur. He is happy to know that the amount of force em-
ployed by you, and the measures taken for its distribution
and employment on the recant occasions on which the ex-
traordinary services of police have been required, have
been such as completely to effect the object in view.
misconduct specified by the Commissioners in which
theirey
have named individual constables against whom, in
I am next to advert to the particular instancesh of
judgment, charges of such misconduct have been .
estab-
lished. Sir George Grey has felt some difficulty inn decid-
ing ing on the course which it is his duty to take h
• •offence, and it has been a
these, amounts to an indictable
matter for consideration whether indictments shonl4l not
• t all of these policemen for their alleged
be preferred against cases. The misconduct imputed in most, if not in all of
illegal conduct ; but considering the length of time which
llas elapsed between the occurrences in question and the
date of the report, the probability that some of the wit-
nesses who appeared before the Commissioners may not
now be forthcoming, and the fact that in some of these
cases the persons alleged to have been injured or aggrieved
were not known or ascertained, it appears to Sir George
Grey that the better course is to leave the majority of
these cases to be dealt with upon
i the report by the exer-
cise of the power vested by law n the Commissioners of
Police. The cases themselves are few in number, and Sir
George Grey is of opinion that, with the exceptions to be
presently mentioned, the ends of justice and the object
with which the inquiry was instituted, can be satisftic-
torily obtained by this means.

The policemen against whom the Commissioners have
especially reported are

- - •
398 A, since ascertained to be William Gearing,
charged with the apprehension, without sufficient ground,
of J. J. White, and of inexcusable violence to him while
in custody.
George Thorpe, 363 A, charged with the unjustifiable
apprehension of Henry Austin.
William Bewlay, 20 D, charged with unnecessary
violence towards Wiliiam Floyd and James Vassie.
Charles Leach, 147 A, charged with unnecessary arid
reckless violence towards John Thomas Kin...
Charles Madgett, 84 C, charged with taking part in
illegal violence against William Stephens.
amos T! 19, 375 A, and Thomas Wade, 385 A,

charged with violence towards persons who were not
known or examined.

And Sergeant Vincent Gurnmer, 21 C, charged with
unjustifiable violence in dispersing the crowd in Park-
street.

Of these men Sir G. Grey is informed that all are still
serving in the police, with the exception of Charles Leach,
who quitted the force in August last, and is therefore no
longer subject to the authority of the Commissioners of
Police. With regard to all these cases, with the excep-
tion of those of Wm. Gearing, Wm. Bewlay, and Charles
Madgett, lam to desire that you will take into considera-
tion the facts stated in th 3 report, as affecting each of the
policemen, and the finding of the Commissioners, and that
in the exercise of the power vested in you by law, you will
award in each case such punishment, either by suspension
or dismissal, as 3 on shall think right, having regard to the
ordinary course adopted by the Commissioners in the case
of constables who are proved to have committed illegal or
unjustifiable acts in the performance of their duty. In the
three cases, however, of Gearing, Bewlay, and bladgett,
the acts of violence deposed to before the Commissioners
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 pre-
ferred against each of these men. Sir George Grey
has not included Policeman Joseph Butcher, 109 .B, in
the list of those against whom the Commissioners\ have re-
ported, because, although they record their opinion that
the arrest of James Bousted, who was taken into custody
by him and other policemen who are not named, was not
warranted by anything he had done, the constable appears
to have acted in obedience to the orders of Superintendent.
Hughes, and no complaint is made against Butcher per-
sonally. The apprehension, moreover, of Bousted, after
the caution he is said to have received, may reasonably be
supposed to have been sanctioned by your written order,
quoted in the report (p. 7) directing that any persons
shouting or making any noise, or acting in any way cal-
culated to cause disturbance or frighten horses, were to be
cautioned as to the consequences and required to desist,
and that if they did not immediately do so they were to be
removed, and, if necessary, taken into custody.
In addition to these cases, in which the policemen were
identified, there are others of a similar character, in some
of which no evidence affecting particular constables was
given, while in others the evidence of identity was not
satisfactory. Some r f these occurred in Hyde-park, but
itr Park-street especially the Commissioners state that
there were several cases of serious injury to unoffending
individuAls, which proved a discreditable exercise of vio-
lence..

It is impossible not to regret that persons of the charac-
ter described by the Commissioners should have been
mixed up with a crowd such as that which is stated in the
report to have been collected in Hyde-park, and at a later
hour in front of Lord Robert Grosvenor's house in Park-
street, as it cannot be always easy to distinguish between
persons mingling in such a crowd accidentally or without
any bad intention, and those taking a part in its illegal
proceedings. The Commissioners, however, have not
been unmindful of the difficulties with which the police
had to contend. In Hyde-park they say the police were
engaged in efforts to check disorder and tumult during
several hours, exposed to annoyance and insult, and often
obliged to act under circumstances where it was difficult
to discover the exact line of duty, and although surrounded
by a vast multitudethey received little or no support in
their exertions to maintain order. The Commissioners'
opinion theriffore, ou the several cases they have detailed
is entitled to the greater weight, as having been formed
after taking all circumstances into account, and I am to
direct your particular attention to it, and to desire that
injunctions may be given to all the officers of the police to
exercise a strict control over their men, and carefully to
restrain them from any acts of needless violence. The
police will receive the full support of the Government in
the execution of the important duties they have to per-
form, but those duties can only be usefully or efficiently
performed by a cautious abstinence from any abuse of
power, and from all acts which, if not strictly illegal, indi-
cate a want of the temper and discretion which are pecu-
liarly requisite in persons charged with the preservation
of the public peace, and which Sir George Grey is happy
to know generally characterise the Metropolitan police.
I have now to turn to some other portions of the report,
affecting some of the general arrangements connected with
the occurrences of the lstiof July. The first relates to the
confinement of the persons taken into custody at the Vine-
street station. The remarks of the Commissioners on the
defective nature of the arrangements with regard to the
numbers sent to that station, and the inadequate provi-
sion made for their accommodation, appear to Sir George
Grey-to be fully warranted by the facts ; and although he
has been informed that the want of any provision for send-
ing a portion of the prisoners, in the first instance, to other
stations, arose from the number having greatly exceeded
what was anticipated, he is not aware of any satisfactory
reason for a larger number not having been removed from
Vine-street to other stations after the insufficiency of the
accommodation in Vine-street had been ascertained. From
communications, however, which he has had with you
since these occurrences took place, he is glad to know that
arrangements have been made by your directions for pre-
venting, on any future occasion, the recurrence of mis-
management attended with such serious results.

Another subject very properly noticed by the Commis-
sioners is, the delay in bringing the persons in custody
before the magistrate. The utmost diligence ought
undoubtedly to be used in taking before a magistrate
persons arrested without the authority of a warrant; but
as the delay in this instance was inquired into at the time,
and its cause explained, and as directions have been given
which will prevent the occurrence of any such delay o❑
any future occasion, it is unnecessary further to advert to
it here.

Sir George Grey does not understand the Commissioners
to impute blame in any quarter owing to the refusal to
admit the prisoners to bail. With regard, indeed, to those
charged with riot, they correctly state that the constable
at the station was not authorised by law to take bail, and
that you could not properly have advised him to trans-
gress the limit of his legal authority. With regard to the
others, although the Commissioners think that they might
have been lawfully admitted to bail by the constable in
charge of the station, if application for that purpose had
been made, they decline to censure the advice given not to
exercise the power, and the refusal to do so, and they alto-
gether acquit you of any blame for not having personally
interfered for the purpose as was suggested.
There is one other remark of the Commissioners which
Sir George Grey thinks it right to notice. They advert
to the difficulty of identifying policemen, and they give the
statement of several witnesses, that the scroll or border of
the number round the letter on the coat confused their
sight, and was a great impediment in ascertaining the
number. Sir George Grey is not aware that any better
means of identification can be provided than the use of the
numbers and divisional letters, but these ought to be made
as distinct as possible ; and I am to desire that you will
consider whether any alteration can be made in the man-
ner of affixing these numbers and letters in order to afford
greater facility for prompt and easy identification.—
I am,'&c.;

(Signed) W. MASSEY.

THE ALLEGED MURDER OF A MILD

BY ITS MOTHER.

Yesterday Mr. Bedford, coroner for the city of West-
minster, held an inquest at the Prince of Orange, Ro-
chester row, on the body of Wm. G. Allen, age 1 six,
wlio was found in the Thames, near Vauxhall-bridge, on
Sunday last, under circumstances already fully reported
in The Sun.

In addition to the evidence given at the Westminster
Police-court.

John M&zey deposed that he met Mrs. Allen and the
three children on Thursday evening, about 10 minutes
past five. The mother had one child in her arms and
one on each side of her. Mrs. Allen said to witni.ss,
"It is very foggy," and went on towards the river.
She spoke rationally, and seemed as usual, but he had
known her three years, and she always appeared to have
something on her mind.

John Reynolds, Waterman, having spoken to the
rescue of the two children, by him-elf and another man,
said that the children might have fallen into the river
from the pathway, but nit %ery easily. There were
railings by the river side. They might all 11..ve gone
down the steps to the water, as the gate was open, but
they could not thence have floated to where he found
them.

Groves, 55, Thames Police, recalled—Thought tho
children might have fallen through the railings, and
floated to the spot where two of them were rescued.
John Goddy, pierman at the Cadogan Pier, picked up
a child, aged 11 months, under circumstances similar to
the above. There was a post and chain along the path-
way by the river side. Children c3uld get under it pur-
posely, but not accidentally.

The Coroner having summed up, the jury without
hesitation returned a verdict of "Found drowned, with-
out evidence to show how deceased came into the
water."

Before the commencement of the inquest, it was men-
tioned to the coroner that the elder of the two children
rescued from a watery grave had sinne the exa,ninatton
of its mother at the Westminster Police Court, on Thurs-
day, been questioned by its father, in the presence of a
police sergeant, as to whether it fell into the water, and
that it had answered "No ; mother throw me in—
mother throw me in." As the mother was not present
when the question was put to the child, the coroner de-
clined to allow its answer to be put before the jury, but
probably a lull statement upon this point will be made
today, when Mrs. Allen will appear at the Westminster
Police Court for re-examination.

The Independance Beige publiAhes the following
letter,
dated Hamburg, 17th inst. :—" The bay of Kiel present;
a spectacle of great animation, in consequence of the
arrival of the English line-of-battle-ship the Duke of
Wellington, on board of which Admiral Dundas has his
flag, and of the two French liners Duquesne and Toor•
ville, with Relr-Admiral Penaud and the staff of the
French squadron.
[AnvErcrisamisrr.]—lt is ever a pleasing duty of a journalist
to introduce to his readers some new discovery calculated '‘o
benefit that vast portion of our fellow-creatures which has the
strongest claims upon our sympathies. It is with this feeling
that we call the attention of invalids to the following extracts
from Du Barry's interesting report of cures without medicine
of Indigestion (Dyspepsia), Flatulency, Constipation, Nervous,
Bilious, and Liver Complaints, Cough, Asthma, Consurnptioa
and Debility, by Du Barry's Revalenta Arabica Food ;—Cure
No. 52,422.—Bridgehouse, Frimley, 3d April, 1854.—1 have
suffered these 33 years continually from diseased lungs, spit-
ting of blood, liver derangement, deafness, singing in the ears,
constipation, debility, shortness of breath and cough, and
during that period taken so much medicine that I can safely
say I have laid out upwards of a thousand pounds at the
Chemists and doctors. Indeed I was in utter despair and
never expected to get over it, when I was fortunate enough to
become acquainted with your Revalenta Arabica, which, Heaven
be praised, restoredmelto a state of health I long since despair.
ed of attaining. My lungs, liver, stomach, head, and ears are
all right, my hearing perfect, and my recovery is a marvel to
all my acquaintances.—Jaitas ROBERTS, Wood Merchant.—
In canisters, llb. 2s. 9d.; 21b. 4s. 6d.; 51b. I Is. ; 121 b.
The 121 b., carriage free, on receipt of Post-Oflice order. Barry
Du Barr y & Co., 77, Regent-street, London ; also at 152,Piccadill; 60, Gracecliurch-street ; 330, and 451, Strand;
4, Cheapside ; 60 awl 68, Cornhill ; 49, Bishopsgate-street;
55, Charing-cross; 54, Upper Baker-street; 63 and 150,
Oxford-street ; 89, High-street, Camden-town ; 18, pall;
mall. 7, Pall-mall-East • 132, New Bond-street ; 24, Mot.
comb-street ; 13, King iVilliam-street, City ; 30, Conduit
straet; 21, Cockepur-street; 145, Faniugden-street ; 67,5 t.
Two (Amoliyard; Gl Eilwardltreet, Pprtmoz.lvare,

BIRTHS.
OF A SON.
Thou
On the 20th inst., at 7, Kingsland-green, Mrs. Tho—
Ma xwell.
On the 19th inst., at Eton, the wife of the Ref•
Fre wer.

OF A DAUGHTER.
910
On the 21st inst., at Prince's-gate, Hyde-park, the
of Henry Gillett Gridley, Esq., barrister-at-law.
On the 21st inst., at 2, the Terrace, Great Dean's-71!14,0;
Westminster, the wife of the Rev. Henry J. Hose—tifP

MARRIED.
On the 20th inst., at St. Michael's, Queenhithe, Ec4oi
Rsyment, of Broken-wharf, to Mary, eldest danghter_di
Frederic Joyce, Esq., of 57, Upper Thames-street,
Waltham Abbey, Essex.
On the 20th inst., at Brighton Church, Frank 01„;
Wright, Esq
of New West-end, Hampstead, to Eliza,
daughter of 'the late Joseph Billion, Esq., of Notting-11i
square.