The Sun.
London, England, 1864-07-28 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING, JULY 28, 1864.

Uan.Gor. 6 p.c.J &J ul)
1877-81 .
Do. n p. c. Feb. & Aug.
Do. a p. c. Mar. & Sept.
Do. E p. o. Jan.&July.
Do. 5 Inscribed stock
Cape G.Hope, 6 p 0,1873
Do.Ap & Oct. 1880
Do. 1891
Do. Jan. & July, 1891
Ceylon, N0v.1878, 8 p c
IMauritius 6 per cent
Natal Gov. 6 per cont
N.B.Gov. 6 p.o.J a.&July
Do. dp. o.Ap. & Oot.
N. S.W. G ov. 5 p z., 186 t
Du. 5 p. c.,18/1 to lt:7(
Do. d0.,1888 &upwds
New Zealand 6 p cent.
Nova Sootia Gov. 6 p. c
sterling, 1875
,Queensland Gcv. 6 p. e
IS. Aus G6p.0.1878.& up
Vio.Gov. 6 p.o. Ja.&July
Do. 10 6 p.o. An.&Oot..

100
100
100
100
100

BRITISH MI:

,Jambrian Consol. Gold
Afford Amalgamated
Devon G. Cone. (Tavist )
East Bassett (Illogan)
East Clogau Gold Ltd
East Caradon ......
East Cara Brea...
IE. W'l Russel (Tavistk.)
Gam& St. Aubyn(o wen ,
Great South trolgus
;G. Wheal Vor (Lielston;
!Grenville
Remd'is-Foot . .
i ilim-,,ston Downs
iLady Bertha
t llargaret (tiny Lelant
II rake Valley..
,
' Myndy Iron Ore (Lim )
New Beton
North Downs
,N.Wli'l Basset (Illogan,
N;orth Wheal Crotty
Par Consols (st. Blaze)
Providence (Uny Lelnt.;
South Car3.don(StCleer,
S. Carte Brea (Illogan)..
IS.Wheal Fran. (Illogan,
',Stray Park
i gams/ Silv.& Lead Min
gin Crott
West Basset (Illogan)
1W CF radon (Liskeard)
West Seton
Wheal Basset (Illogan)
Wheal Buller (Redrutli)
Wheal Kitty (U.Lelant)
WhealLuduott
Wheal Mary Ann ;Men )
Wheal Teton
Wheal Trelawney (Lis )
Wheal Union

ISION S.

Closing
Price.

58 60
1001 10111

part p
at 51
8 9
75 80
M £0
75 80
97 99
94 93
102 104
lcli 102}
par 4p
par 4 P
19i 20.
72 74
61 63
66 68
55 57
48 5!,
43 45
28 30
26 28
102 103
par ip

gg 101
9i 91
1419 V
8) 01
82 81
d ff.
98i 994
Y 3 95
81 91

58 CO

3 5
82 84
1011 10t1
100 101
pr fp
100 101

OS 95

Business done

101

103
10 ii

103

ssi
li
91

T S U RIVES.

99 101
100 103
100 103
87 8)
87 3)
104 100
107 109
109 111
107 109
111 113
105 107
106 108
99 101

3.14.8
3.4.0
8.13.0
581
17s

6.16. t.
8.12
4.18.0
2.8.6

3.f.0
2.6.9

97 09
97 9S I
97i 98k

100 102
103 105
[O6 108

10.0.7

10 111

jd
33 84
675 685
66 68

27i 28}
7 7i
4i 5
6 8
2} 24
28 30
fit 7}
88 40
31 4i

118.1R.01
130.17.61

8 10
4t 5
1} I d

lj 75 85
32 ft

2.0.6
3.5.8

ion

PREFERENCE SHARES.
Great Northern, 5 per cent.. 113 k
Great Western, 5 per cent. rd. pref.. 1004 1]
G t. Western, South Wales, gua. 5 per cent., 1021

PREFERENCE SHARES AND STOCKS.
Great Northern, 51
LINES LEASED AT FIXED RENTALS.
Chester and Holyhead,
Ditto, 5 per cent., 1148
Shrew bury and Hereiord,.l34

FOREIGN RAILWAY&
Ban Paulo (Um.), gua. 7 per cent., 10i
FOREIGN MINES.
Bt. John del Rey (lim.), 39
BANKS.,

Agra and 31 tsterman's (11111.).
Ditto (Z 5), 2
Anglo Austrian, 7
Bank of British Columbia, 11
British and Californian, 11111.,
European Bank, Ern., 14f
limmpneerril aal Boatntokmoaf Ohina, and Japan, 7 131
n, 17
London and Colonial (lim), 21
London Joint Stock, 11
London and Westminster, 97 ;
National of Liverpool, limited,
Ditto, new, 184
Scinde, Punjab, and Delhi, UM.,
Union of London, 58,01
MISCELLANEOUS.
I Berlin Water Works, lim.,
Credit Fonder of Mauritius, lim., 4
English and Scottish Marine, 111 Th, 54
Gen. Credit and Finance of London, Um., ei 7
Hudson's Bay, 17
Joint Stock Discount, lim.. 71 I
M idras Irrigation and Canal, 1
Royal Mail Stearn, COi

A DELIGHTFUL STORY TOLD BY CHARLES LAMB
ABOUT COLERIDGE (now delightfully told by the
Spectator).—Chas. Lamb paid a visit to the philosopher at
Highgate, and, as usual, was detained in the garden by an
eloquent peroration on sonic obscure point in metaphysics.
To make sure of his friend, Coleridge seized him by the
coat button, delivering his grand monologue with closed
eyes, legs firmly set, and his head thrown backwards u if
addressing the clouds. There seemed no escaping the
terrible flow of eloquence, but Charles Lamb's ready wit
suggested a means. He quietly took a penknife from his
pocket, cut the fatal button, and then made off in great
haste to visit another friend at Highgate. Returning the
same way, some hours after, he peeped in at Coleridge's
gate, and—there stood the great metaphysician, exactly as
he had left him, the button between his fingers, and the
head th• own up into the sky. The soft flow of his silvery
speech was pouring forth as melodiously as ever, without
stop and without break. Si non e vero, e hen tremolo.
By advices from Hamburg the price of gold is 425 per mar
and the short exchanv on London is 13.5 i per £1 sterling.
standard gold at the English Mint price is, therefore, about
3-10ths per cent, dearer in London than in Hamburg.

THE YELVERTON MARRIAGE CASE,

JUDGMENT.
HOUSE OF LORDS-(THIS DAY).
TELVERTON V. TELVERTON (OR LONGWORTII)•

This morning their lordships assembled to deliver judg-
ment in the long litigated case of Yelverton v. Yelverton
(or Longworth). It was an appeal against the decision of
the Courts below that the marriage of tho Hon. Major
Yelverton with Miss Teresa Longworth was a valid one,
The case was sl regularly reported in this journal during
its progress that no abstract of the proceedings is necessary.
There were present this morning the Lord Chancellor,
Lord Kingsdown, Lord Wensleydale, and Lord Chelms •
ford. Lord Brougham was absent. Mr Bolt, Q.C., the
Lord Advocate, the Attorney-General, Sir H. Cairns, Q.C.,
Mr Whiteside, Q.C., and the other counsel in the case,

were present.
The Lord Chancellor first delivered his judgment. He
said that on this painful case he desired to make no obser-
vation which was not absolutely necessary to define the legal
position of the parties to the suit. The respondent sought
in the court below to establish the fact of a marriage be-
tween herself and the appellant, first, on the ground of a
mutual promise made when in Scotland, and, secondly, on
the alternative of the evidence not being sufficient to prove
an immediate contract; the respondent pleaded that there
was a performance of marriage followed by cohabitation on
the faith of that promise. The respondent affirmed on
the record that a religious ceremony took place between the
parties in Ireland which amounted to a marriage if there
had been none before, but she was content in the Court be,
low to say that this ceremony did not constitute a valid
marriage, and having submitted so far it was not compe-
tent for her to take a different view of the case in that
Court of Appeal. He should therefore give no opinion
of what passed between the parties in Ireland, or whether
that was sufficient to constitute marriage, it being
plain that that point had been withdrawn. The case
of the respondent is reduced to the two proposi-
tions, the first being that there was an immediate present
contract of marriage by the exchange of mutual consent
made at Edinburgh, on the 20th April, 1857. As to the
nature of the consent which is to constitute marriage, I
acoept the observations of the Lord President, that it must
be given mutually with a view and for the purpose of creat-
ing henceforth the relations of husband and wife. It is
not necessary that the contract made should be followed by
cohabitation. •With respect to the evidence which shall be
sufficient to prove that a marriage was so constituted great
latitude is allowed by the law of Scotland. But I cannot
agree with the Lord President in what seems to have been
his opinion that if the respondent fail to substantiate an
exchange of present consent at the particular time and
place which are assigned, the Court is not warranted in
declaring that a marriage was contracted between the
parties. In my judgment, when the marriage is pleaded
as having been contracted by parties in Scotland by
means of an interchange of deliberate consent, it is not
necessary to prove the particular place in Scotland, or tiee
exact date when and where such consent was exchanged.
The case of the respondent is that on Sunday, April 27,
1857, at a house in Scotland, a form of marriage was
gone through, the form being the reading aloud by the
appellant from the Prayer-book of the marriage service
used by the Church of England. The Lord President
insists that persons in a humble sphere of life, when
contracting marriage in such a manner, seek to pre-
serve evidence of it by interchange of writings or by the
presence and confirmation of witnesses. The respondent's
case rests upon her statement, because it is neither said nor
proved by the respondent that there was any writing inter-
changed or that there was any person present at this
alleged interchange of consent. It is true that this
admission has very much weakened the respondent's
power and means of proving her case. But the omission
itself is entirely in accordance with the truth and con-
sistency of that case. Her case is, and it is proved by
various parts of the correspondence that the marriage took
place between herself and the appellant, was to be kept
secret, and not even answered in their mutualletters for fear
of question, a caution which seems to have been observed
until 1853, when we find the appellant for the first time
writing to the respondent as " Madame Yelverton." But
this occurs in the subsequent correspondence, and is a re-
markable confirmation of the respondent's statement that
some engagement or promise relative to marriage took place
upon the 13th of April. In a letter written on the 12th
of July, the respondent reminds the appellant that his right
to call her his own commenced exactly three months ago,
namely, on the 12th of April. Her words are, "My ears
ache to hear the mitt, though I am convinced you might say
it with perfect truth now and for exactly three months
past." I regard this letter of the 12th July as a full proof
of the truth of the respondent's chief allegation, namely,
that there had been a marriage by mutual consent entered
into at Edinburgh on the 12th April, 1857, but that there
had not been cohabitation in consequence of the refusal of
the respondent to consent to cohabitation until a religious
ceremony had been performed. The appellantindeed affirmed
that there was sexual intercourse between himself and the
respondent before in Edinburgh, 's7—an allegation which
the judges in the court below refuse to give credence to, and
contains to me a strong proof of the truth and honour of the
respondent that she has denied that which the appellant
affirms, for it was plainly her interest in one view of the case
to have admitted that cohabitation did take place before
she left Scotland in April, 1857, inasmuch as it appears
to me, and such I infer from his judgment would have been
the opinien of the Lord President, that there would then
have been no difficulty in arriving at the conclusion upon
the evidence of the appellant subsequent that there had
been a promise to marry given in Scotland, on the faith of
which cohabitation, also, in Scotland had taken place be-
tween the parties. But before proceeding further respect-
ing the evidence, it is necessary to advert to the arguments
so much pressed on the part of the appellant that it is in
'the highest degree improbable that any matrimonial con,
nection would be followed between the respondent and
the appellant, inasmuch as there is evidence from the corre-
spondence which took place between himself and the respon-
dent for three or four years previous to the respondent's
arrival in Edinburgh, that the respondent had made the
most indelicate advances to the appellant and was willing
to be his mistress without a promise or ceremony of mar-
riage. Many hours were spent by the appellant's counsel
in the attempt to give this colour to the correspondence. I
abstain from making any other observation upon this most
laboured part of the appellant's contention, than that it is
in my deliberate judgment most unwarranted and unjust.
An amatory character is first given to the correspondence
by the appellant. He addresses her as dear Theresa. When
the lady proposes that the correspondence should terminate
the appellant insists that it should be continued. The noble
and learned lord hero read several extracts from the corre-
spondence to show that the respondent's view of the posi-
tion was other than that alleged by the appellant in the part
of his counsel's argument. He proceeded thereupon to say
--I concur with the judgment of Lord Curriehill that it was
at the request or from the encouragement of the appellant
that the respondent came to Edinburgh in Feb., 1857; that
there had not then been any promise to marry, but that there
had been pending for years an honourable courtship. There-
fore in my judgment there is nothing in the case to render
it impossible ; but, on the contrary, much to render possible
the allegation of a secret marriage having taken place, sr at
all events that the promise to marry had been mutually
given. I return to the inquiry whether the respondent has
given sufficient legal evidence of the marriage in Scotland
by the exchange of present consent. The version of the
appellant is that an illicit intercourse took place shortly
after her arrival in Edinburgh in February. The appellant
has not even attempted to sustain his charge. It was,
as I have already stated, disbelieved by the judges,
and it appears to me to be wholly unjustified. The
evidence showed that the appellant was a constant visitor in
the house where the respondent resided, and he was regarded
by the persons who lived there as the respondent's accepted
suitor. Evidence of a marriage must, therefore, be looked
for subsequent to this, and must, if it exists, be found on
the subsequent acts and correspondence between the time
the respondent Vas in Edinburgh about the 15th or 16th of
April, 1857, and her joining the appellant in the month
following. In considering these letters it is most important
to bear in mind that fact of which I am fully convinced in
common with the judges of the Court below, namely, that
no sexual intercourse had taken place between the appellant
a Roman Catholic place et worship, which was to be satis •
factory to her conscience. This, with the fact, that there '
had hitherto been no consummation appear to me to in-
terpret the whole of the subsequent correspondence up
to the time of their meeting in Ireland in accordance with
the version of the respondent. It is difficult rightly to draw
conclusions from the correspondence subsequent to this,
because many letters have been destroyed or at least have
not been produced; and also the letters being expressed in
general terms, it is difficult to say that particular expres-

sions indicate, and the respondent during the residence
of the respondent in Edinburgh. She left Edinburgh to
avoid the importunities of the appellant to accede to a
consummation of the marriage. She appears to have
been resolved that this should not take place until they
had gone through some religious ceremony in more than a
solemn engagement or a promise to marry. In reference
to the letter written by the appellant on the subject of
the respondent's supposed marriage with Mr. Shears, the
noble lord said I consider the words indicate that a promise
had been given in relation to marriage, and that it must
have been either a promise of marriage or else a promise
to meet the wishes of the respondent by consenting to a re-
ligious ceremony in a Roman Catholic place of worship. It
is argued by the appellant that the answer to this letter is
not such as would have been written by the respondent if
there had been a marriage. I cannot concur in that re-
mark. Remembering that the respondent had refused co-
habitation, that in the language of one of her letters she was
shrinking from the end she yearns for, it may well be thouht
she did not know or believe that what had passed was in
law a binding final marriage. The same thing has occured
in several important cases. From the subsequent acts of the
parties I have drawn this con elusion that the respondent after
a struggle consented to cohabit with the appellant as as his
wife and to meet him in Ireland for that purpose, depending
upon the promise of the appellant that the religious cere-
mony should be had in a Roman Catholic chapel. In con-
firmation of this I may refer to the fact that the appellant
purchased a wedding ring at Dublin when on his way to
meet her. This brings us to the most important part of the
case—namely, as to what was said and done at Rostrevor,in
Ireland. I cannot give credit to the respondent when she
affirms that no intercourse took place between them pre-
viously to this, because, I think, the reault of the evidence
is that immediately on their meeting at Rosfrovor they
ci as m
be hadiannaaßnoamwainfeC. aitnhrealiy judgment the ceremony
c chapel. In confirma-
cshohouabldite
tion of this I may refer to the fact that the appellant pur-
chased a wedding ring at Dublin when on his way to meet
her. This brings us to the most important part of the case
—namely, as to what was said and done at Rostrevor, in
Ireland. I cannot give credit to the respondent when she
affirms that no intercourse took place between them previ-
ously to this, because, I think, the result of the evidence is
at Rostrevor they co•
judgment the respondent
thhaabtaiemd ma
as
dmi as tne l
synod nw
the e. i r
In meetingm y
ju d
instead of denying the fact, had a right to say she had con-
sented to their cohabitation on the faith of the contract in
promise of marriage that took place in Edinburgh, and of the
appellant's assurance that he would no longer object to a cere-
mony in the Roman Catholic place of worship. On the in-
quiry whether the respondent in cohabiting with the appel-
lant relied on the Scotch contract or promise or on the Irish
ceremony, the respondent is entitled to the effect of this fact,
that she stated to the bishop what had passed between her
and the appellant in Scotland, and was toldbythe
marriagebishop
that this was a valid marriage in the sight of the Catholic
Church,eerrae ony. and
Buthe soanwbnetongadpvraensstaegd by theeina lady, the bishopny other
consented that a religious ceremony should be gone through,
considering it would be a renewal of the marriage consent.
The evidence of Mr Mooney corroborates this. At this
point the noble and learned lord condemned the practices of
the priest Mooney in sending a copy of a supposed entry on
the registry of marriages, and for this reason unless he were
corroborated no dependence could be placed upon his evi-
dence. In the case referred to, the bishop and he confirmed
each other, The marriage had been contrasted, and to
satisfy the lady's cousin the ceremony was proceeded with.
After this they lived openly as husband and wife. The
various acknowledgments of the appellant that the respon-
dent was his wife are carefully renumerated by Lord
Curriehill in hill in his judgment. In reference to the
argument of the appellant that both parties knew them to
be necessary only to con and illicit intercourse, the answer
seems to be furnished by aome of Major Yelverton's letters,
and it is a significant fact that the appellant has not pro-
duced a single letter of the respondent's addressed to him
since the ceremony at Rotrevor in Ireland. The Roble and
learned lord was proceeding to give the opinion of an absent
peer, supposed to be Lord Brougham's, who had desired
him to state that after a voluminous examination he was
satisfied that there had been in Scotland that exchange of
consent which constituted marriage.
Lord Chelmsford objected to any reference to the opinion
of the noble and learned lord who was then absent.
The Lord Chancellor said he was not aware that ho was
taking an unusual course. The noble and learned lord, to
whose opinion he had referred, had beard the whole of the
arguments,
and it was in consequence of his noble and
learned friend being compelled to leave the house that had
led him to do so. The noble and learned lord then resumed
his judgment, and was of opinion that the consent to cohabit
in Ireland, and the respondent relied upon what had taken
place in Scotland, although it was to be followed by a reli-
gious ceremony. He believed that the Roman Catholic
ceremony was a legal solemnisation of marriage, and that
there was and is a legal marriage between the appellant and
respondent, and that they are now legally man and wife.
Lord Wensleydale, who spoke in so low a tone of voice
as to be scarcely audible in the gallery, was understood to
say that, in order to decide whether there had been a
legal marriage, they must enquire what was neces-
sary to constitute a marriage in Scotland. He
thought it was clear that there was no marriage in
Scotland either per verbs do presenti or in future. The
noble and learned lord then examined at some length the
evidence, and considered that the evidence of Mr Mooney
was quite insufficient to prove that Major Yelverton
acknowledged it, and that was the only evidence of an
acknowledgment on his part. There was no evidence of a
marriage anywhere, especially in Scotland, and he was
clearly of opinion that the propositions of the respondent
had not been maintained. He did not consider that there
had been any promise of marriage, although there were
many ambiguous statements, They were, however, too
ambiguous to be construed into a promise of marriage. He
was of opinion that the decision of the court below ought
to be reversed.
Lord Chelmsford next delivered his judgment. The onus
of proofs he said was upon the respondent. The whole of
the voluminous evidence had been thrown loosely before
their lordships in order apparently that they might extract
from it a marriage on either one of the grounds alleged by
the respondent. It appeared to him that there had been a
great deal of preliminary ma ter imported into the inquiry.
For instance it was hardly necessary
to occupy the time of
their
of the respondent. If the fact was
proved, the antecedent probability
or improbability was
of no use, and all other convictions might be set aside.
lordships
of the parents in ascertaining the position in life
Neither to inquire into the
conduct
of was t
these transactions.
the
necessary,
It was clear that there had been a dangerous correspondence
between the parties, but he would not stop to inquire what
hit
respondente
prior thought,
to these
was the motive of the appellant in continuing that corre-
spondence. The conclusion he drew from the early corre-
pondence was, that the interviews at Galata and in
the Crimea raised an assurance in the mind of
the respondent that the appellant would marry
her if certain obstacles were removed, and her expectations
were no doubt heightened by what took place. He believed
that up to this time there had been no promise of marriage
between the parties. The noble and learned lord proceeded
to consider the modes in which marriages might be con-
tracted in Scotland ; Ist, by a mutual promise in presenti;
and 2d, by a written promise of marriage, followed by a
copula as a result of the protein. He then examined the
allegations of the respondent, in one or other of these ways
she became the wife of the respondent.lt was to be ob-
served that in none of their letters they spoke of each other
as husband and wife, indeed, the whole of the correspond-
ence seemed strongly opposed to any marriage
or promise
of marriage. It was not necessary for him to dwell on the
remainder of this correspondence, which was not in the
usual style of epistolary intercourse between husband and
wife. With regard to the visit to Manchester ho
believed that Manchester was merely a rendezvous to
arrange their continental trip, and that the object
of the respondent in visiting the cathedral was merely to
clothe their intercourse with the appearance of a religious
ceremony, and that she had nothing in view of a more
binding nature. Returning to the visit to Ireland, the
noble lord contended that the respondent had taken everystep
to baffle and perplex the witnesses in reference to the co-
habitation, which had a most important bearing on the
respondent's case. It showed that the meeting in Ire-
land was not with a view to the celebration of a marriage,
but that the ceremony at Rostrevor was the result
of an afterthought between the parties. He thought it
was abundantly proved that the appellant was a Protestant
within the meaning of the act of Parliament, for they
proved that whenever he attended a place of religious wor-
ship it was in connection with the Protestant Church. He
looked upon Father Mooney's evidence with regard to the
declaration of the appellant as to a former marriage with
much euspicion ; but, aeenruing its correctueee, and that the

a close.

appellant referred to a Scotch marriage, it could only mean
that the ceremony was to satisfy the conscientious scruples
of the respondent, and that it would not be regarded as such
an acknowledgment as the law required. The noble and
learned lord then proceeded to consider whether the latter
correspondence oould be fairly applied to any other relation
between the parties than that which occurred in Ireland.
The respondent contended that after the ceremony at Roe-
trevor she returned to the appellant and cohabited with
him, and that this copula, coupled with the preceding
promise in Scotland, constituted marriage. But there
was no evidence of a promise in Scotland. A promise
in Scotland was moreover merely local, and to prove a mar-
riage the copula must be distinctly referable to the promise.
He thought it was impossible to connect this copula with
any promise of marriage which took place in Edinburgh.
He (Lord Chelmsford) had examined. the evidence with the
greatest care and anxiety, as well as the arguments of
counsel on both sides, knowing that most serious issues
were involved. He had no wish to favour either
party. There was much to regret, much to condemn
in the conduct of both, but it was not his duty to adjust the
balance between them. All he had to do was to announce
his decision judicially, and that was that the respondent
had entirely failed,to establish her marriage.
Lord Kingsdown said the matter had been so fully con-
sidered that he would occupy the time of their lordships
but for a few minutes. The question was not one of honour
or morals, but whether the court below had rightly decided
the validity of the marriage. It was clear from the letters
of the respondent that she had pressed the appellant very
warmly for a marriage, but he apparently saw the error of
the step he had taken, and had determined not to trust
himself to further temptation. The purport of his letters ap-.
peared to be this " If we meet again the result will be your
ruin." The Irish marriage did not make them husband and
wile. The respondent's own impression seemed to be that the
marriage would make them husband and wife in the eye of
God, although it might not in the eye of man, It was
urged that the appellant had said to Father Mooney that
the marriage was unnecessary as it had all been done before,
but that he would do it again in order to satisfy the
lady's conscience. These terms were very ansbigu-
ous, and he thought too much reliance ought not to
be placed upon them. On the whole, he thought the
judgment of the Court below ought to be reversed.

. -
The Attorney-General suggested that, in consequence of
the views of their lordships, the interlocutory of the Court
below should be reversed, but without prejudice to the
respondent, and that the matter be remitted on oath.
The Lord Chancellor declined to advise to adopt that

course.
The question was then put that the interlocutory of the
Court below be reversed.
Contents—Lord Wensleydale, Lord Chelmsford, and
Lord Kingsdown.
Non-Content—The Lord Chancellor.
The motion was then agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor then put the question, that the
decree should be made in accordance with the appeal.

Agreed to.
Thns this long and celebrated case is finally brought to

POLICE INTELLIGENCE—This Day.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

BREATING OPEN A TILL AT MESSRS. SAVORY AND
MOORE'S —Henry Camins, errand-boy in the employ of
Messrs. Savory and Moore, chemists, 220, Regent-street,
was charged before Mr Knox with breaking open a till and
stealing the sum of £8 Bs. Sc!., the moneys of his
employers.
Mr Foster Blades, assistant, in the employ of Messrs.
Savory and Moore, said that about half-past 11 on the 13th
of July, while sitting in a room at the back of the shop the
prisoner asked him whether he should turn off the gas. He
told the prisoner to do so. Shortly after the porter made
a communication to him, and on going into the shop he
found a till, which he had seen safe up to half-past 10, and
the key of which he had in his pocket, had been broken
open, and some money abstracted, and from a till which
had not been locked, some more money had been taken.
George South, porter, in the employ of Messrs. Savory
and Moors, said that shortly before 12 o'clock, on the night
of the 13th of July, hearing the prisoner going down stairs
he called to him, but received no answer. As the prisoner
did not again come upstairs, he went down and asked Mr
Blades if he had sent the prisoner out. Mr Blades said he
had not, and then went into the shop and found the till had
been broken open. On making a further search he (witness)
found that the prisoner had left the house by the back doer)
two doors which he (witness) had locked at half-past 11

being open.
William Richardson, 212 C, said the prisoner was given
into his custody last night in Carnaby-street, and on telling
him that he was charged with breaking open a till at Messrs
Savory and Moore's, he said he knew nothing about it, and
that they would not get anything out of him.
Mr Blades said he heard a noise in the shop, but thought
it was the prisoner putting down his bed, as he slept there-
Mr Joseph Walker, another assistant, gave evidence
which showed that £6 8s 9d had been abstracted from one
till (the sum of £9 12s being wrapped in paper in the same
till and left untouched), and 19s 6d from the other.
The prisoner, who made no answer to the charge, was
remanded for a week.

The Wimbledon Meeting,

1.4

COMPETITION FOR THE MARQUIS OP
TWEEDDALE'S PRIZES.
This interesting competition was continued yes-
terday at the London Scottish ranges at Wimble-
don. No new competitor fired yesterday, the pro-
ceedings being eonfined to carrying on the trials or
guns which had made targets on previous days, and
to firing second guns where the competitors have
entered more than one of the same kind. The first
of the muzzle loaders to fire was Mr Rigby, who
fired his second 100 rounds. Though an excellent
shot, this gentleman has not had the training to
qualify him for shining in a match where rapid
loading forms an essential element. Profiting by
the experience of the first day he discarded the
powder-flask, and had his ammunition made up in
paper tubes, but the end stopped with a felt wad.
In loading the wad was withdrawn, the powder
poured in, and the ramrod passed through the tube
to ram home the bullet. Though inferior to the
Whitworth plan of cartridge, inasmuch as it in-
volved loss of time in pouring in the powder, it
enabled Mr Rigby to get through his 100 rounds in
381 minutes, as against 60 minutes with the flask.
Very gcod shooting was made; but, from the fact
of the shots "grouping," owing to the wind, on the
right plate of the target, the score was not so good
as it otherwise would have been. The same cause
led to a similar result in the case of the Whitworth,
suggesting to the observer how much better it would
be, in such a competition, to fire at a large experi-
mental target, to find the centre of the group of
shots in the usual way, and obtain the absolute value
of each rifle's performance. Mr Rigby used the
plain horizontal bar backsight, which would be so
great an improvement on service rifles, and a bead
foresight ; but as the bend had got broken off he was
obliged to make shift with the stem. The following
was the result of his practice : 100 rounds, 500
yards, 38 min. 31 sec. time, 17 bull's-eyes, 30 centres,
31 outers, no ricos., 22 misses, no tnissfires—making
a score of 220 marks. The ten accuracy shots made
23 marks. The rifle kept perfectly clean, the last
round loading as easily as the first. Mr. Rigby
used the shell bullets, which are found to give much
more accurate practice than the solid-fronted ser-
vice projectile.
The Whitworth large-bore was fired for the third
time, but from the circumstance referred to, and
from more misses being made, the score did not
equal the first and second days' performance. Mr.
Leece got through his 100 rounds in 24 min, 56
see., making 20 bull's-eyes, 42 centres, 25 outers,
and 13 misses, no ricochets, no missfires, making a
score of 256 marks. The ten shots for accuracy
produced 27 marks. Not a shot struck the left
plate of the target, and bat for the " grouping"
being too much to the right, a much higher score
would have been made. The competition as re-
gards muzzle-loaders may be considered as decided
in favour of Mr. Whitworth's large-bore, Mr.
Rigby making a good second. Indeed, eliminat-
ing from the calculation the difference due to the
skill of the men, it would probably be found that
the difference in the accuracy of the arms is very
small indeed. The present trial is as much a trial
of the skill in shooting of gun-makers, as of the
merits of different kinds of guns.
Mr. Cooper's breech-loader was the first fired.
This was the second course of 100 rounds. The rifle
worked well and rapidly, and there were no miss-
fires. The practice was not good, but it would be
unfair to condemn this or any other rifle for what
was, in all probability, more the fault of the man
behind it than of the arm itself. The time taken
in firing the 100 rounds was 13 min 19 sec. There
were no bull's-eyes ; 11 centres, 10 outers, 6 rico-
chets, and 73 misses, all pattered round the target
in a way that would have been as unpleasant to a
body of men stationed there as if every shot had
been a bull's-eye. In the ten shots for accuracy
only one hit was made, and that a bull's-eye.
Mr. Brown, as skilful an operator with the breech-
loader as Mr. Leece with the muzzle-loader, fired
the Henry rifle, and showed himself, under circum-
stances of considerable difficulty, to be the right
man in the right place. Two mishaps occurred to
his rifle while he was firing, either of which would
have been sufficient to spoil the shooting of most
men. Mr. Brown, however, lost only a few minutes
in remedying the accidents (4/ minutes according
to Captain Knight, 19th Regiment, who had charge
of the trials), and finished up by making the best
score of the day. Early in the 100 rounds the
little spring for jerking out the cartridge cases
broke, and jammed the breech-piece ; extricating
this at the expense of a gash on the back of the
forefinger, Mr. Brown got on the target the
very next shot, and kept on until a cartridge
breaking, the ramrod had to be used to drive out
the bullet, and the loose powder wiped clean out of
the chamber. The ramrod, on the principle that
misfortunes never come singly, of course had stuck
fast. Grasping the burning hot barrel to draw this,
he severely blistered all the fingers of his left hand.
Notwithstanding this complication of misfortunes,
Mr. Brown got his next shot well on to the target,
finishing up his 100 rounds in 18 minutes 36 seconds,
and making the excellent target of 25 bull's-eyes,
47 centres, 50 outers, and 8 misses, or a total score
of 281 marks. The ten shots for accuracy gave a
score of 26 marks, This, and his first day's shoot-
ing of 259 marks in 17 minutes 12 seconds, placed
the Henry so far ahead of all other competitors as
to leave no doubt of his taking the prize for breech
loaders.
Sergeant Gray, R.A., fired a navy rifle converted
to a breech loader on Messrs Green's plan, and made
a very fair target. The time taken was 24 minutes
50 seconds for the 100 rounds. The total score was
207 marks, made up of 15 eyes, 31. centres, 27
enters, 9 ricochets, Ricochets not being counted,
the missee of course amounted to 27.
The Montatorm rifle fired was a converted long
Enfield, which had seen considerable service, both
as muzzle loader and as breech loader, the object
being to show that hard work did not impair the
efficiency of these arms. The "shooter," however,
was not forthcoming, and the competition as re-
gards the Montstorm would have come to an end
by the rifle being withdrawn, had not Mr.
Braendlin, the representative of the proprietors,
been desirous of refuting some absurd statements
that the rifle heated so much by rapid firing as to
explode the cartridge. He therefore fired himself,
satisfactorily accomplishing his object of showing
that the rifle did not heat more than any other, bat
making a score very inferior to the performance of
all the volunteers who tried it for the first time in
the late competition at Wimbledon. The 100 rounds
took 19 minutes 26 seconds. The score was only 36
marks, being two bull's-eyes, six centres, and five
enters. There were no missfires, if the mistake of
placing an exploded cap on a nipple be not taken
into account. The ammunition used with the Mont-
storm is Gladstone's skin cartridge, the invention of
Capt. M. Hayes, R.N. This excellent cartridge is
used exclusively in the navy for muzzle-loading small
arms. There may be some valid objection to its being
adopted for the army; but it is certain that by the
use of this, or some other " whole"cartridge in which
ballet and powder are inserted together and rammed
down by one operation, the rapidity of fire of the En-
field could be nearly doubled, and many advantages
of the breech-loader secured. The nets vellous rapidity
of the Whitworth, four shots per minute, is due to a
groat extent to the superiority of the cartridge.
Instead of the two simple operations of inserting
and ramming home, which are all that are re-
quired with a ";whole" cartridge, the service cart-
ridge for the land service requires no less
otha.nneleiss
and obliges the operator to be erect and m
to load at all. First, the top has to be
ntvidsted
o
o
and torn off. It the marksman is not exceedingly
powder in this
ti.
ins
careful, he loses a few gra of
Without care a little
poured down the barrel.
has to be carefully
operation. Next, the powder
if any haste is employed the
chances are that a
more is spilt, and
few grains more are left in the
' •
the inserted in
the barrel; fifthly, the cartridge-case broken
off
powder case. Thirdly, the cartridge has to be re-
versed; fourthly, the end of
away; and, lastly, the bullet rammed
home. This complicated performance is difficult
and thrown
and slow when the soldier is standing erect, and is
almost impossible when lying down or when on the
move. It will probably be three or four years before
a breech-losdiug rifle for the army is decided on,