The Sun.
London, England, 1839-09-16 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 1839.

coming their position in the country and worthy of 1
former recollections, to stand before that country—with-
out blushing at those recollections to stand—upon a
Bedchamber difference, and hold their offices in the
teeth of Parliament and the country, relying for all their
support upon the favour of" the good young Queen ;"
and fatiguing the weary country, rousing the flagging party,
with cries of "Stand by your Sovereign.—" Don't let
her Bedchamber women be changed." What portion
of this speech, about to be cited, except perhaps the last
member of the enumeration, is inapplicable to the pre-
sent moment? But what portion of it could her sup-
porter of the Whig Ministry read without shuddering
at the present position of his party ?
" While 1 possess the power of speech," said Lord
Howick (Grey), 23d June, 1807, " I must ever protest
against anything so fatal as introducing the Monarch's
name into discussion. If such a practice is permitted,
farewell to the freedom of deliberation ; but farewell
also to the personal security of the Monarch himself.
Arraying him as personally opposed to the Whig party,
and calling on the country to decide between them,
endangers the King's personal security. If I am an
enemy of an Administration engendered in Court in-
trigue—if I am an enemy of an Administration composed
of men differing from one another upon the most
important questions—if lam an enemy of an Administra-
tion which does not possess the confidence of the coun-
try—if I am an enemy of an Administration, of the first
man of whom I will say nothing—it is because I am
convinced that such an Administration is pregnant with
the greatest dangers to the King and to the Constitu-
tion."

Lord Brougham, a few years latter, after enumerat-
ing the acts of misgovernment chargeable upon the To-
ries, above all, their mismanagement of the war, and
their Walcheren, expedition says—
" After all these confessions, their (Tories) only
excuse, the only attempt they make to regain the
confidence of the people, is to tell us ' that the King
has reigned fifty years.' They have ruined our allies ;
they have failed in every plan ; they have brought us
through slaughter and danger, wedded with misery, and
weighed down with almost intolerable burthens, to the
very brink of destruction. But the King is very
old,' and ' he has reigned above half a century.'"
Such are the words which Lord Grey and Lord
Brougham are impudently expected impudently to eat
up for the sake of supporting a set of Whigs,
the remnant of the party, who, having separated
themselves from their fast and faithful friends,
joined some of their bitterest enemies, and cast off
their oftentimes avowed principles, are following
the very worst of the bad practices of their adver-
saries, and erecting the standard of mere office
upon the sole ground of Royal favour, in obsequious
subserviency to the Court, and in open defiance of the
country. It is a pitch of impudence, yet more extrava-
gant and astonishing, to charge men with abandoning
their party, who have only refused to be guilty of the
gross apostacy which has been exacted from all adherents
to the Whig standard !
The same agents of the Government have, on the
same ground, charged those who refused to sanc-
tion Lord Normanby's Irish Administration, espe-
cially his use of the judicial powers vested in the
Executive Government, with factious and personal
motives. If any thing of a personal kind had been
felt or acted upon, the evidence afforded free scope
to indulge in a strain of remark very different from
that which will be found in the following speeches.
Some topics are omitted, and some heads of charge
are entirely passed from, which an enemy might have
really dwelt upon with satisfaction. The employment,
by the Crown, of counsel to defend murderers prose-
cuted by the Crown, is not once alluded to. The re-
ception of persons at the Caistle, after official represen-
tations made of speeches exc ting to acts of bloodshed—
speeches themselves gross infractions of the law—is not
even hinted at. The tone and temper of all the ob-
servations is as utterly free from all personal rancour,
or disrespect, or even unkindness, as can well be ima-
gined—and the whole blame imputed is excess of ami-
able feelings—and a casual indiscretion.
Whence then, it may be asked, all the fierceness of
the very injudicious advocates, who have undertaken to
repel attacks so measured and so abstinent ? Fron.
this, that the Irish Administration had hitherto bee!
the only ground whereon the Government conceived
it had any thing like a firm footing—and the Irish suc-
cesses were held up as a perpetual set-off against
the constant failures in England. When, therefore,
this only and favourite spot of ground was invaded,
and invaded by the force always most formidable it.
English political warfare—the supporters of the law
marching under the standard of Justice, and whoa
rallying cry is the preservation of judicial purity—
no wonder that great uneasiness was felt at the attack.
and ill-concealed anxiety betrayed during the whole o,
the operation, and a bitter mortification shown at its
triumphant success. The defence was feeble beyond
all former example ; but the spirit of acrimony whicl,
had evaporated in the conflict without stimulating to ;
blow, was concentrated afterwards, and exhausted it,
petty efforts to harrass the Victorious party, instead. ol
administering to the vanquished the consolation of re
venge. It is necessary to note two things for the sakt-
of edification in matters political—and as being mall)
curiosities of a rare description, and of some relish to
lovers of new and strange sights.
Lord Brougham was not at all answered, nor ever.
attacked, in Parliament, except upon one ground ;
and this wholly unprecedented. He had once, it seems,
praised Lord Normanby ; and Lord Melbourne, wit"
much sarcastic contempt for the praise so bestowed, i!
not for its object, cited a passage from a work published
under Lord Brougham's sanction, namely, his Speeches.
He might have found much unretracted praise of Lord Nor-
manby's Jamaica administration ; nay, not a little even in
the Irish debate of April last. One of these speeches
was accompanied by a note, which, after giving much
well-earned commendation to Lords Wellesley ant.
Anglesey for their wise and liberal conduct towards
the Catholics, eulogises Lord Normanby for follow-
ing in their footsteps, and bestows a panegyric in
passing upon his private and literary character, a pane-
gyric which excited Lord Melbourne's great merriment.
whether justly or not, could be no fault of its author.
Perhaps of all ridiculous subjects of attack, this was the
most ludicrous. The passage, although it speaks of
holding even the balance between the two religions
plainly means and indeed in terms says, that this trim-
ming process consisted in giving all the favours to the
Catholics which the law allowed ; and that Lord
Brougham, or any one else, has ever since cast blame or.
Lord Normanby for not doing so, or could have cast
such blame, is quite a new view of the case. But even it it
were as true as it is false that he had ever stated an opi-
nion in favour of Lord Normanby's whole Irish adminis-
tration in May, 1838, how could he predict what came out
in Committee, during forty-eight days' examination of
witnesses, in May and June, 1839 ? Did he in 1838
know—could he believe—the things which only came
out when the Lord Chief Justice was examined this
year ? Was Gahan's case known ? Was Sly's ? Was
the treatment of the Chief Justice ? Was the refer-
ence of cases to attornies ? Was the delegation of par-
doning to turnkeys? Were the details of wholesale gaol
deliveries ever dreamt of before 1839 ? Assuredly public
men out of office are placed in a somewhat strange posi-
tion when they are called upon to piss judgment upon
public men in office, if the moment any praise is be-
stowed by the former upon one portion of the conduct
pursued by the latter, a perpetual estoppel is created,
and no change of conduct, no new facts brought to light,
are ever to justify a change of opinion or of tone. But
happy above all things are men in office if such a canon
of criticism is adopted ; for they have only to do some
one thing deserving commendation, to be secure against
censure for ever after. One matter, however, is quite
clear. Whoever hereafter shall utter a word in appro-
bation of Lord Normanby, does it at his peril ; for
once the irrevocable word flies forth, he must ever
after hold his peace what conduct soever the Noble
Marquis may pursue, upon pain of beimg assailed by
himself and his friends as inconsistent, and malignant,
and factious, and false. But another thing may
also be safely predicted ; no such apprehension will
ever deter Lord Brougham from warmly praising his
former friend, as often as he shall honestly think that
friend deservesit.

But then it is said that Lord Brougham is ready
enough to complain of the ill administration of justice
in Ireland now—he who never, while the Tories were
misgoverning that ill-fated country, opened his mouth
against them on this score. Indeed! Then if he
never opened his mouth, how came he to make a
speech, three hours long, 23d June, 1823, so audibly
that it is fully reported, with a long reply to Sir
Robert Peel, and is to be found in the debates--is
contained in the publication cited by Lord Melbourne—
nay, is the very identical speech, a note to which
Lord Melbourne read in order to laugh at it ? Look
at the Minute-books of the two Houses—that of the
Commons for June, 1823, and of the Lords for July,
1839 ; and the identical notice stands in both, given
by the same identical individual, for a motion on the
same identical subject, " The Administration of Jus-
tice in Ireland !" The difference is that the Whigs
all voted with Lord Brougham's motion in 1823, and
all voted and all bellowed against this motion in 1839,
when the case was ten thousand times stronger.

Nor is this the only gross and most scandalous false-
hood circulated by the conductors of the Ministerial
press. They have charged Lord Brougham with vo-
lunteering needlessly his motion. They have, in order
to support this silly charge, suppressed all mention of
the fact, twice over stated by him, that he never had
thought of making any motion this Session, and was, on
the contrary, against such a course being pursued, until
the Ministerial defenders of Lord Normanby in the
Committee took such a course as prevented the possi-
bility of a Report being made, containing such an ab-
stract of the mass of evidence as would enable the
House and the country to read and understand it.
Then it was that he said he should feel obliged to
undertake the task of making that portion of it known
to the House, which alone he had deemed worthy
of general attention, and to obtain which portion had
been his only ground of supporting the motion for a
Committee.
But other tricks to cover other falsehoods and to

excite astonishment by their audacity, remain to be I
mentioned. The whole proceedieg against Lord Nor-
manby was to be resented as merely factious. It
was stated that not one person in the Lords had blamed
his Lordship's conduct except enemies to the Govern-
ment, and personal or alitical advers Aries of them and
Lord Normanby. Lord Hatherton and the Duke
of Richmond belt ng not to this class. What then was
to be done ? 80. ,af these Noble Lords had joined
in strong disapproval of the only part of Lord Norman-
by's conduct which Lord Brougham's motion seriously
assailed. The one, Lord Hatherton, was the Noble
Marquis's avowed and very able defender, both in the
Committee and In the House. No mention therefore
was made of his having, when he came to the important
subject of the gaol deliveries, declared that for this
there could be no defence, and that he could tiot " com-
pliment away his conscientious conviction," on this head,
to gratify his noble friend. The Duke of Richmond
even voted with Lord Brougham, he who is known
almost always to support the Goverment, and never to
leave them when he can help it. Nay, the very night
after the debate, that truly noble and honourable
person, in solemn and impressive terms, declared
that, acting as a juryman upon the charges against
his Noble Friend, Lord Normanby, he was compelled
to condemn him for this important part of his adminis-
tration. And yet the Government writers say, none
but the factious and the personal are found to blame
the Marquis! Nay, some of the Government papers
had actually the effrontery to cut out of their report of
the Noble Duke's speech the above most remarkable
part of it, for the manifest purpose of enabling them, in
the other parts of the same publication, to propagate the
falsehood that no friend of the Government had taken
part against Lord Normanby !
This is truly and happily a thing unheard of in
the history of party misrepresentation. But it re-
mains to add another singular feature of the contro-
versy. Can there be named any one person in any
one station, connected with the Whig party, by any
one tie, however close, filling any one office with or
under them, or even filled with hope of being promoted
by them, who has ever yet in private expressed any
approval of the gaol deliveries, and the treatment of the
Judges ? Nay, has not every person living, blamed Lord
Normanby for these transactions, although some doubt-
less may have expressed their censure in far gentler
terms than others ? Why, the Noble Marquis hardly
defended this course himself—certainly his colleague
and leader, Lord Melbourne, defended it not. A
strange scene, no doubt, was witnessed when the
Noble Viscount rose to speak. He had not read
the evidence, therefore he knew nothing at all of the
matter from the evidence, and could not tell whether
his friend and colleague were guilty or not. Indeed !
Then why bad he not read the case ? It took two
hours to read—no more. Was it chance, or was it de-
sign that kept him from the perusal? Had he picked
up nothing of it from other quarters ? Was he really
and truly so ignorant as to be unable to tell that the
act of reading might be attended with a risk of con-
demning ? In a word, was not his ignorance voluntary
—wilful ? This be left in no kind of doubt, for he
never dreamt of asking time to read by moving an ad-
journment, which must as a matter of course have been
granted, had he demanded it. On the contrary he moved
the previous question,—the meaning of which is known
to be," The motion cannot be negatived, for it contains
nothing that is not true—but we object to its being
put as needless or as inconvenient." Needless, no one
ever pretended that it was,—inconvenient and
excessively inconvenient every one felt it to be—for
the Government. After this no person has any right
to represent Lord Normanby as defended by Lord
Melbourne. He was plainly and almost in terms
given up by his leader. He was plainly and in direct
terms given up by his defender, Lord Hatherton. He
was openly condemned by his friend, the Duke of
Richmond.

But to what purpose make these remarks, or re-
cord such facts as these ? Not certainly in the vain
hope of working impossibilities—stopping the false
tongue of the professional slanderer—opening the
hearts of party leaders to justice, or to truth the
ears of their dupes—or making shameless men blush
—making those blush at being detected, who never
blushed to cheat. No such impossible aim is here in
view. But it is not without its use to take every op.
portunity of confirming the people of this country in
their resolution wisely taken of late years, to think for
themselves, and not let partisans and party prints dic-
tate their opinions of men any more than of measures.
It is not unimportant to give new and striking proofs
how unsafe a guide party prints are in form-
ing the public opinion on the conduct of public
men. It is useful to show the worst kind of
party dishonesty in its very worst colours, in order to
deter men from becoming faction's slaves. It is good to
add is new and striking illustration of Ilume's remark,
as sagacious in substance as happily and simply ex-
pressed in words. "Itis no wonder that faction is pro-
ductive of vices of all kinds ; for besides that it influ-
ences all the passions, it tends much to remove thve
great restraints, honour and shame ; when men find
that no iniquity can lose them the applause of their
own party, and no innocence secure them against the
calumnies of the opposite."—(History of England,
chap. lxix.) It is as well also to note the injury
which party does to public morals by the encou-
ragement which it gives to a vile traffic in slander and
falsehood ; for neither can the people nor those who
assume to guide them be in a sound state, when the one
are occupied in fabricating malicious fictions which the
other are habituated to contemplate, though they may
not be able to believe. There are not many serious
evils in a popular Government, and none at all deserving
to be compared with its advantages. But assuredly this
is among the worst of those drawbacks to which we
gladly submit for the blessings we enjoy, that
one part of the community are trained to trick and
deception, while another are drawn into unreflect-
ing dupery ; the feelings of public men are ren-
dered callous to public opinion, by seeing its
oracles so often devoid of all truth and justice ;
and the dictates of right and wrong are confounded
by observing how the best of party men, themselves in-
capable of such base proceedings, are yet willing
enough to share in the benefits which their followers
thus render to their cause.

MARYLEBONE VESTRY.

MUTILATION OF THE PAROCHIAL RECORDS.

The Marylebone Vestry were specially summoned for
Saturday, pursuant to notice, to receive the Report cf a
Committee, and to comider the lateextraordimiry mutila-
tion of tombstones, and interpolations in the parish regis.
ters, for the purpose of securing the title to an estate,
called "Fendall's" situate in Bermondsey. The subject has
created an extraordinary degree of interest, imd during
the sitting of the Vestry the gallery of the Court-house
was filled with rate-payers anxious to witness the pro-
ceedings.
Mr. A DANIELL having been appointed to the chair,
Mr. FLOOD, the Vestry Clerk, read the following
Report :
" Your Committee have been appointed by a resolu-
tioneDorme
complaints
nVoqteuiAsi
rtiereysi
Messrs.
01l
certaint.ch Christie,
stthi
ea 71
IfeEgAugust
gnl au, sliat,,rr
iotuci
soo
rni
andtt ee
w, to
n
parish registers kept in the rectory church, the removal
of certain stones from the grave of the Fendall family in
Paddington-street burial-grounds, and the erection of a
new head and foot stone thereon, report that they have
prosecuted this inquiry with all possible despatch con-
sistent with a careful discharge of the duty deputed to
them,, while they are at the same time compelled to ex-
press their regret that the result of this investigation is
anything but satisfactory.
" I it the statements of the several parties whi h your
Coffin) ittee have had before them, considerable discre-
pancies are manifest ; but there is no evidence of a
character sufficient to warrant them in designating the
guilty parties, feeling aware that whatever may be the
force of impression made by these varying statements
upon their minds, they are not convictions arising from
indubi table evidence, such as to justify them in fixing a
branded mark upon the parties and instruments in this
fraudulent transaction, concocted and carried out as it
has bee n by some persons who are intimately acquainted
with the whole details, and who have had easy access
to the .registers. The erasures and alterations made in
the mini,ater's fee-book, to make it correspond with those
effected in the registers, fully substantiate this opinion ;
that such alterations and erasures have been made
within the last three years is also the impression of Mr.
Pau, the sexton, from the circumstance of his having,
at the re quest of Mr. G. Fendall, made diligent search
to trace these entries within the period, without success ;
but haw or by whom effected he himself has not the
slightest knowledge.
" Your Committee will state, first, the result of their
inquiries regarding the registers ; secondly, as regards
the graxestones ; and, thirdly, propose some remedial
measure', as appears to them most suitable to meet the
exigenci, as of so important an object. In the first place
the attetition of the Committee was particularly drawn
to the fo flowing entries, erasures, and alterations in the
registers.. viz.—in a book, marked on the back, No.
of marriages, 6 Dec:, 1711, to '2.8 Nov., 1734 ; bap-
tisms, 16 Dee. 1711, to 31 Jan., 1734 ; burials, 2:2
Nov., 1.711, to 31 Aug. 1733. 1733. At folio, 134, date
Nov. 29, 1734, the following. words have been inserted
and attcttnpted to be erased from the bottom of the page,
" Richar d Fendall and Elizabeth Chappell, both of this
parish, p er banns.' In a book marked on the back,
" No. of. Baptisms, 3 Feb.,
1733, to 22 March, 1748 ;
marriag.?a, 27 Dec. 1734, to 5 March, 1748, at the
end of Coo month of Dec. 1734, in the register o f
marriage are the words,' Richard Fendall and Elizabeth
Chappell, of this parish, per bans.' These words are
put in in lighter ink than the other parts of the book,
and they have been partly touched over a second time
in darker ink. At the bottom of the page, under the
date of M .ty, 1735, there is an obliteration of names,
which your • Committee cannot perfectly define. In this
said book, under the date of September 5, 1737, in the
register or baptisms are the words
of Richard and Elizabeth, born '25; William Fendall,
11 inst."Fhis is an
insertion,. or an erasure. In a book, marked Burials,
3d July, 179,6, to 31st October, 1789,' under the data

of April 11, 1786, are the nam,s of Richard Prendeil-
leau, Jane Mronella The book at this place is
very much disfigured. There have been erasures, over
which the name is written. The oil leaf is wrink:ed
and shrivelled. In a small book, called The Mi-
nisters' Fee Book,' under the samiLdate of April

11, 1796, we the names of • Richard Vine, chd : Jane
Petronella Launnens.' The only connexion this had
with the present affair is, that the name of Vinn
having been erased from the burials book, the name of
Fend all appears to have been inserted, and then, for some
reason, again erased, the name of Fendall converted into
• Prendeill,' and eau' added thereto, making the name
found in the book Prcndeilleau.' In this sami., burials
book, under the date of July '27, 1796, in the words
Richard Fendall,' the word Richard appears to be the
original entry, and the word Fendall an insertion or an
erasure. In the minister's fee-book, under the same
date, are the words ' Richard Fendall f the word
Richard appearing again to be the original entry, and
the word Fendall an insertion or an erasure. In this
same burials-book, under the date of July 31, 1726, the
words R. Fendall' have been inserted, and again
erased , the reason of this appears to your Committee
that it was intended by the parties to insert the name of
Richard Fendall in a blank space at the end of the month
of July, but after having made the insertion in the burials-
book, they found no corresponding space in the minister's
j fee-book. The name was, therefore, attempted to be
erased from the burials-book ; and, under the date of
July '27, 1796, is found the name of • Richard Prendeil-
leau.' The sirname was erased from both books, and

the name of Fendall in both cases was written on the
erasure. The erasure has been of some fine scratching,
commencing with P.
" In the statements of those persons who volunteered
an explanation of the several parts they have sustained
in the search for, the finding of, and the granting cer-
tificates of those entries the following particulars have
been detailed :

" Mr. Pau, the sexton, made search three years
ago, but found none. The period of search was, he
believed, from 1740 to 1770. His brother, David
Pau, named the subject to him more than a year ago,
when he told him (D. Pau) he might search the books
if he liked. Mr. D. Pau did so, and claims to have

found the entries required. Continuing the search he
discovered the appearances ; he admits that at first
they looked to him so very suspicious that he called
his brother's attention to them, as also the Rev. Mr.
Gilbert's, the curate on duty, remarking that it was
his opinion that the registers had been tampered with.
He, Mr. D. Pau, wrote out the certificates ; they were
signed, on these suspicions, by the minister, and Mr.
D. Pau took them to Mr. Fendall, and charged 3/. or
41. for the search and certificates, which Mr. Fendah
paid. He, Mr. D. Pau, was induced to move in this
business at the request of Mr. Fendall, who met him
in the city, Mr. Fendall being then going to the parish
clerk's office to offer a reward for those very certificates,
and, having some previous knowledge of Mr. Fendal:,
he, Mr. D. Pau, agreed to see his brother on the sub-
ject. That, at the time the entries were found, there
were present in the Vestry-room of the Church, himself,
his brother the sexton, the Rev. Mr. Gilbert, and John
Stamp ; each inspected the registers, expressed surprise
at their appearance, yet no communication was made of
the circumstance to the other Curate, the Rev. Mr.
Burgess, nor to the Rector, in whose custody the regis-
ters are legally placed. That at the last Summer Assizes
for Surrey, held at Croydon in August last, actions of eject-
ment were brought by Mr. Fendall against certain per-
sons, purchasers of property settled under a deed of trust,
dated June 1831, made by George Choumat, the in-
heritor by marriage of one, and by purchase of the
other, moiety of the estate of Richard Fendall, of
Bermondsey, who died in 1734, he, the present Mr.
Fendall in question, claiming the property as descending
from the said Richard. Mr. Pau, the sexton, was sub
pcenaed to attend at Croydon, and took with him the
registers to produce in Court to sustain plaintiff's
claims ; but on inspection of the registers, the evening
preceding, by plaintiff's counsel, to whom Mr. Pau,
the sexton declared, that if asked he should swear
that he believed the entries to be forgeries, the
plaintiff determined to withdraw the record. Had the
trial proceeded, the complainants before the vestry,
who are legally interested as purchasers of this pro.

p rty, would, perhaps, have had no occasion to call for
inquiry as a means of protection on their part. Mr.
D. Pau, at the time, could not be found by the defen-
dants to serve him with a subpoena. Stamp stated to
the Committee that he was detailed in the country,
having met with an accident.
" Your Comtnitttee cannot refrain from expressing
their surprise that Mr. Pau, the parish clerk and sexton,
who received the appointment of deputy in charge of
the registers from the rector, the Rev. Dr. Spry (he
having also been deputy of the late rector, Dr. Heslop).
should not have seen it his duty to communicate with
the Rector on such an important affair as this, involving.
as it does, the safe custody and integrity of the parish

registers. The reasons he assigns are quite insufficient
to justify his silence, in their view of his oblig:ttions
his principal. The Committee are equally at a loss to
account for the silence of the Rev. Mr. Gilbert, a gen-
tleman who, from his professional knowledge and minis-
terial character, must have known that the dis-
covery of a series of very doubtful entries in
the registers of the parish required in vestga-
don. A doubt upon an entry made 100 years ago
might be treated as an error not calling for any par-
ticular notice, but here a marriage, the birth of a son,
and a burial, each relating to the same parties, eaci;
exhibiting the same evidence of falsification, each cer
tificate of which was required by or for the same per
sons, and, at the same time (as it is so stated by Mr.
Pau and Mr. D. Pau, while Mr. Gilbert has no distinct
recollection as to the time, yet he stated a circumstance
calculated to fix the memory—that the first set of cvr-
tilicates which he signed were brought again to the.
vestry of the church so damaged by fire that they wert
useless as evidence, yet retained enough for him to
identify them when he was required to sign a fresh set
of certificates), are all circumstances of so unusual a
character as to have required from him a distinct ml(4
marked notice in the conscientious discharge of th(
duties of his office.

" In the explanations given by the sexton to th.
Committee, he stated that since the Vestry had refused,
in 1834, to pay for copying the registers as required b;
the 52d Geo. 111. c. 46, they hive not been fur-
nished. They have been regularly supplied by th.
Vestry up to the present time. The Act makes it unr-
rative in the church authorities, and the non-cyie
pliance with the provisions of the above-named Act, is
marked dereliction of duty. It was, by correspondener
with the Bishop's registrar, found that no copy of the
St. Marylebone registers had been sent in since 1833.
" The removal of the old grave stone, and the erec-
tion of a new stone, was effected upon the application
of Stamp to Mr. D. Pau, on the part of Mr. Fendall
he being desirous, it was said, that the inscription on the
family grave•stone should correspond with the re-
cently discovered entries in the registers. This
application was made in May 1838 ; Stamp required au
order for this purpose from the sexton as usual.
Mr. D. Pau wrote one in his brother's name. Stamp
considered this sufficient, and gave an order to Mr. Daw
son, the mason, for a head and foot stone. The next
day Mr. D. Pau gave him, as from Mr. Fendall, a
copy of the inscription to be cut on the new stone, which
was done by Mr. Bunell, sen., (since dead). He re-
ceived his instructions from Stamp, and the work was
finished by his son, Win. Bunell, who produced to the
Committee the copy of the inscription, in the hand-
writing of Stamp. The old stones were removedlh‘
Stamp when the men brought the new ones. The}
were told by Stamp where to fix them. The old heat
stone was rubbed down by the grave-digger, Josiah
Small, as directed by Stamp, who paid him 4s. for his
labour, and thus the whole of the writing has been ef-
faced. The foot stone was left untouched, and sup-
posing the initials and dates on the stone to represent
accurately the names and dates on the head stone, the
following additional names have been inserted :—' Eli
zabeth Fendall, died Dec. 24, 1774 ; Richard Fended,
died July 20, 1796, aged 83 years ; Elizabeth Fendall,
died May 3, 1811. The date of the decease of Wm.
Fendall is altered to 1809, the date of the old foot stone
being Win. Fendall, 1803. Two of these three names
bear close affinity with certain entries in the registers.
Stamp stated to the Committee that Mr. Fendall was un-
known to him. He was first pointed out to him at
Croydon Assizes, and now he should know him ; yet he
admitted subsequently that he took the bill for the new
stones to Mr. Fendall, and that, after calling several
times, he receved the amount, 71. 14s. 6d., from Mr
Fendall himself, by cheque upon his bankers. Bunell,
un., stated to the Committee that Stamp told him very
abruptly one day as he was leaving the ground, that
should he be asked any question about the waiting on
the Fendall stone, to say he knew nothing about it, as
he told them the man who did it was dead. The Com-
mittee have no evidence that Mr. Pau, the seeiton, had
any knowledge of this part of the transaction : he him
self positively denies any acquaintance with it ; yet the
position of the stone is a very public one, being close
to the gate leading from Paradise-street, and may be
seen without entering the ground.
" Your Committee are aware, that by the 56th Geo.
111., c. 151, sec. 54, a penalty, not exceeding 1001., is
incurred by wilfully or maliciously breaking down or de-
stroying any foot or headstone in any of the cemeteries
or burial grounds of this parish, or to obliterate and de-
face any inscription thereon ; but the obliteration and
defacing above detailed will not come within the mean-
ing of the statute, or they would recommend a pro-
secution to recover the penalty. With reference to
the remedies your Committee have to propose the
most effectual one to guard against the recurrence of
such frauds as have been referred to, would be a
complete copy in duplicate of the several registers
from their commencement to 1813, when, by the
52d Geo. 111. C. 146, duplicate copies were re-
quired to be deposited in the Bishop's Court, with
the registrar of the diocese ; but this would entail a con-
siderable expense, which it is apprehended the Vestry
will be unwilling to incur. Such proceedings may
be rendered unnecessary, and the registration com-
mittee appointed two years since. recommend the
consolidation of all the registers belunguig to the Esta-