The Sun.
London, England, 1863-07-14 00:00:00

(Before Mr. Justice Crompton.)
Mr. Best applied to his lordship to give the certificate re-
quired by the statute to authorise him, in the case of a pri-
soner whom he was instructed to prosecute, to prefer other
charges against him before the grand jury, besides the one
upon which he was committed by the magistrate. The
learned counsel explained that the whole of the facts were
brought to the knowledge of the magistrate, but he only
committed the prisoner upon one charge.
Mr. Justice Crompton refused to accede to the application,
and said that it appeared to him most important for the due
administration of justice that where a charge was made
against a prisoner the depositions should be fully taken by
the magistrate, as they afforded a great cheek to the wit-
nesses, and prevented them from garbling their evidence
when they were examined at the trial, and they were also
very important, so far as the prisoner was concerned, who
had a right to know what evidence was to be given against
him. It was too much the practice in the country for the
magistrate's clerks merely to state upon the d epositions
what was just sufficient to support the charge that was
made against the prisoner ; but is appeared to him that this
was quite opposed to the spirit of the statute relating to the
subject, and that it was of the very essence of justice that
the depositions should be taken fully, and that they should
disclose the whole of the facts connected with the charge.
With regard to the present application, if the learned coun-
sel considered it advisable to prefer other charges against

the prisoner, the proper curse would be to go before a ma-
gistrate, and have the depositions formally taken and re-
turned to this court.
James Webb, 31, a tall respectable-looking man, was
charged with the wilful murder of his wife, Hannah Webb.
By the coroner's inquisition the prisoner was only charged
with the offence of manslaughter.
Mr. Sleigh conducted the prosecution, and the prisoner
was defended by ,Mr. Metcalfe. - -
This eaNgwas postponed from the June session. It ap-
peared that the prisoner carried on the occupation of a cow-
keeper at Heaton, and that he and deceased were married
about five years ago, but they seemed to have lived very un-
happily together, and that they were both in the habit of
getting the worse for liquor, and frequently quarrelled. The
offence imputed to the prisoner was alleged to have been
committed on 26th May last ; and it appeared that on the
evening of that day the prisoner, who was undoubtedly in a
partial state of intoxication, and the deceased, who, it was
suggested, was in the same state, were at home, and were
heard to quarrel, and the prisoner made use of violent and
threatening language to deceased, and was heard to say that
he would strangle her, or some expression to that effect.
After this the prisoner was seen to drag deceased out of the
shop, down some steps in the shed, and there was the sound
of a violent scuffle between them, and after that deceased
appeared to be very much injured, and she died on the fol-
lowing morning, the cause of this event being, according to
the medical testimony, injuries that she had received upon
the head and other parts of the body. What actually took
place between the prisoner and the deceased on the night in
question seemed to be involved in a good deal of obscurity,
but there appeared to be no doubt that the deceased enter-
tained a feeling of jealousy, and that this was the founda-
tion of the quarrel that took place between her and the pri-
soner on this unfortunate occasion. It transpired during

the inquiry that deceased was drunk for two or three days
previous to the 26th of May, and that she was in the habit
of sending boys, who came to her husband's shop for milk,
to fetch spirits for her, and that she sometimes got so drunk
that she went into the bed of one of the servants to sleep,
instead of going to her own bedroom, and that it was fre-
quently necessary to carry her up to bed, in consequence of
her drunken condition. It was also proved that upon one
occasion she had fallen down drunk behind the counter of
the shop, which was robbed while she was in that condition;
and that upon another occasion she had fallen into the fire-
place, and would in all probability have been burned to
death, if she had not been dragged out by a man named
Casey, who was in the service of the prisoner. One of the
witnesses for the prosecution stated, in addition to this, that
only a short time before the death of the deceased the pri-
soner went upon his knees to her, and prayed her to keep
from drink, and she promised she would do so and was quiet
for a short time, when she again recommenced practising
her unhappy propensity for drink. The immediate cause of
death, it appeared, was extravasation of blood upon the
lungs which, according to the evidence of Mr. Simpson, the
surgeon, might have been occasioned either by a blow, or a
fall, or any other external violence.
At the close of the case for the prosecution,
Mr. Metcalfe submitted that there was no evidence to sup-
port the charge of wilful murder, and the learned Judge and
Mr. Sleigh also concurred in this view of the case.
The learned counsel for the prisoner then addressed the
jury for the defence, and contended that the evidence did
not support the suggestion that the violence of tho Prisoner
was the cause of the death of the deceased, and that she
might have injured herself by falling down while she was
drunk.
Several respectable witnesses gave the prisoner an excel-
lent character for humanity and general good conduct, and
also stated that he generally behaved with great kindness
towards deceased.
The learned Judge having summed up,
The Jury, after a few moments' deliberation, returned a
verdict of not guilty.
James Mills, 19, clerk, and Geo. Peacock Smith, butcher,
were indicted with feloniously sending a threatening letter
to Earl Spencer, with intent to extort Di.
Mr. Sleigh was counsel for the prosecution, Mr. Orridge
was instructed for Smith, and Mr. Poland for the prisoner
Mills.
The prisoner Mills pleaded guilty, and Smith, who sur-
rendered in answer to his bail, pleaded not guilty.
Mr. Sleigh, on the part of the prosecution, said he had had
a communication from Mr. Orridge, and coupling that with
the evidence as it appeared on the face of the depositions,
he thought he would not be justified in putting the case
before the jury, inasmuch as there was such inadequate
evidence to be adduced. He was informed that the prisoner
Smith was totally ignorant of the contents of the letter
which was sent by the other prisoner to the Earl Spencer,
and, from what he could gather, he had only been aeshort
time in London, and had made the casuaracquaintance of
Mills. The Earl Spencer concurred with him that the ends
of justice would be met by the other prisoner having pleaded
guilty. He had taken the present proceedings solely on
public grounds, conceiving it to be his duty to do so.
No evidence having been offered against Smith, the jury
returned a verdict of Not Guilty.
There was a second indictment against Smith, charging
him with conspiracy with the other prisoner to extort
money, &e.
No evidence, however, was offered against him in this
case, and a verdict of Not Guilty was returned.
Mr. Orrid go said, with regard to Smith, the communica-
tion he had made to Mr. Sleigh had satisfied him ; but if it
were necessary, he was in a position to prove all that he had

stated.
Mr. Poland, who appeared for Mills, said that he was
bound to state publicly that there was not one word of
truth in the letter alluded to, and, in fact, the prisoner had
never seen the earl until he had instituted the present pro-

ceechn gs.
The learned Judge then proceeded to pass sentence upon
Mills, and said, thoxgh so young, he bad pleaded guilty
to one of the most vile and serious crimes a man could be
guilty of towards another. An attack upon a man's per-
son was nothing to such an attack upon his character—an
attack to which too many were apt to yield ; and it was not
often that any one was man enough to fight it out, and to
take the proper tours-, as had been done in the present
case. The learned judge then read a portion of the letter,
which concluded with a threat that unless the Earl sent bim
£5, he would write and expose him to all his friends. His
lordship said it was a crime which, when brought home to
any one, wee dealt with with the utmost severity, as it was
the most fearful mode of robbery that could be imagined.
He then sentenced the prisoner to 20 years' penal servitude.

THIRD COURT.
(Before the Recorder.)
Arthur Robert Willoughby Wade, whose delinquencies
have already attracted so much public attention, and who was
described in the calendar as being a soldier, 35 years of age,
war brought up to plead to five indictments, charging him
with having unlawfully and indecently assaulted five young
females, named respectively Bridget Corragan, Louisa
Nagle, Harriet Bird, Maria Whelan, and Mary Marshall,
The prisoner on being called upon, said he pleaded guilty
to the indecent assaults.

The prisoner was again arraigned on an indictment for
having feloniously, by certain false pretences and repre-
sentations, procured one Bridget Corragan, a girl under the
age of 21 years, to have illicit connexion with him. To
this indictment the prisoner, in a defiant tone of voice,
pleaded not guilty.
Mr. Orridge intimated to the court, that in the absence of
his learned leader, Mr. Clerk, he had to state that the pro-
secution had been instituted by direction of the Home-office
through the Treasury solicitor, but upon the prisoner's plea
of guilty to the charges for indecent assault it was not in-
tended to offer any evidence in support of the felony.
Mr. Sergeant Ballantine (who has been specially retained
to defend the prisoner) said that this course had saved a
painful inquiry. On the part of the prisoner, he could only
say that the Court, from the depositions before it, must
know that he stood now a man ruined in position and cha-
racter. He had a wife and family who would bo perhaps
the greatest sufferers, and he (Mr. Sergeant Ballantine)
could only commit the prisoner to the merciful considera-
tion of the Court.
The Recorder said he should take time to consider the sen-
tence, and the prisoner,',who manifested great indifference,
WAR romoved from the bar,

TIMES.—The case of "The Countess Della Seta v.
Lord Vernon" is now before the public, and though it
is not yet concluded, enough has been elicited to
modify very materially the impressions which had
got abroad respecting it. An injured woman ap-
pealing for justice against a heartless seducer who
leaves her to support herself and her offspring as
best she may must always be an object of sympathy,
and the more so if the accused party be a wealthy
nobleman. Such was the picture which had been
painted by some over-zealous friend of the Countess,
who does not seem to have foreseen the disenchant-
ment which would be wrought by the publicity that
was claimed on her behalf. We now know the
worst, and to what does it amount ? In the year 1842
Lard Vernon formed a connexion with an Italian
lady, by whom he had four daughters, and with
whom he appears to have lived for ten years. In
1852 this connexion was broken off upon terms which
certainly cannot be considered unfavourable to the
interests of the lady. By a deed dated the 30th of
August in that year Lord Vernon covenanted to
pay an annuity of £l,OOO for her separate use dur-
ing her life and his own, and an annuity of £2OO to
each of the daughters after her death. In case any
of them should marry, or attain the age of 21 with-
out marrying, £lOO a year out of the £l,OOO was
to be paid to them respectively during his lordship's
life. He further covenanted to leave £20,000 in
all for the benefit of the mother during her life,
and, after her death, to be divided among the
daughters. These provisions were clearly ex-
pressed to be made upon condition that the
mother should maintain and educate the young
ladies during their minority to the satisfaction of
the trustees, who were empowered to make any
deduction from the allowance which they might
think-fin for this pueposeejlethat condition should
be broken-. So far, then, whatevei may be thought
of the morality of such an alliance, there was no-
thing unhandsome in the way of terminating it.
A jointure of £l,OOO a year is no despicable pension
for the widow of an English gentleman, and in
Italy such a sum represents something more than
humble competence. The lady may have been
wronged originally, as every woman is wronged who,
whether treacherously or not, is tempted to sacrifice
her virtue and good name, but she received what
the world would call an ample pecuniary repara-
tion. The sequel is soon told. We need not fol-
low the history of the present Countess Della Seta
further than to say that in the following year she
married the Count, from whom she appears to have
been afterwards separated, still retaining the cus-
tody of the three survivors of Lord Vernon's four
children. Some months ago he heard that " they
" were not happy with their mother," and had left
her house at Cairo. Thereupon he instituted proceed-
ings in Chancery, with a view of making them wards
of the court and obtaining a scheme for their educa-
tion. Pending this, some part of the monthly instal-
ments hitherto paid regularly for the joint benefit of
the Countess and the daughters was withheld during
two menthe, without the slightest apparent intention
to violate the spirit of the settlement, and only until
the Court should designate the proper recipient of
it. Meanwhile an order was made for the appro-
priation of £4OO annually to the support of the
three sisters. It is this order which the Countess
now seeks to get modified, at the same time
claiming access to her daughters, one of whom has
been seriously ill. This application is still before
the Vice-Chancellor, but whatever be his decision
it will, no doubt, carry oat the presumed design of
the original settlement. Lord Vernon's counsel
declares, on his behalf, that he neither has, nor ever
had, the least idea of shrinking from the liabilities
which he incurred in 1852, and it is but justice to
say that the facts, so far as they are known to us, do
not furnish the smallest pretext for such an asser-
tion. How it came to be made is now the question,
and to this question we fear no satisfactory answer
can be given. It is unfortunate that the merits of
this very simple matter should have been obscured
by a misapprehension of the course pursued by
Vice-Chancellor Stuart. It is the practice of the
Court of Chaticery to allow certain cases to be heard
in private. Among these aro applications respecting
family disputes and those which affect the status or
reputation of wards of the court. Into the wisdom of
this rule it would be idle to enter; it is enough that it
exists, and that Vice-Chancellor Stuart acted in ac-
cordance with it. Not only does it exist but it appears
from one of the precedents cited that whereas cases
relating to family disputes can only be kept private
by the consent of the counsel on both sides, those
which might compromise wards of the Court may
be properly so reserved, although one of the parties
should withhold his consent. Therefore, even if
the Vice-Chancellor had overruled the objections of
Mr. Malins, representing the Countess, and ordered
the Court to be cleared on his own authority, he
would have been entitled to the credit of having
acted according to recognised usage and to the best
of his judgment. Such, however, was not the fact.
It is true that Mr. Malins at first objected, but
upon being assured that the request was made to
shelter the interests and reputation of the three
young ladies, and not to screen Lord Vernon, he
yielded the point, and expressly gave his consent,
In fact, it was not from Mr. Bacon, Lord Vernon's
counsel, but from Mr. Greene, the counsel, for the
infants, that it originally proceeded. This ought
to have been more than enough to protect the judge
from imputations which should never be lightly
made against any one holding the judicial office.
If a bench of magistrates were to adjourn the trial
of a game law case into a private room, the first
principles of criminal justice would be so flagrantly
violated that charity itself could suggest bat one
motive for it. A motion before an equity judge
concerning family matters is a totally different
thing, and o justice with closed doors," however
undesirable in the abstract, is far from implying
corruption or partiality. Those who make such
insinuations are at least bound to acquaint them-
selves with Chancery ct and to take care
that they have prima fparcaiegicreosunds for hazarding
so odious a charge. }lad they
inquiry, they would not only have learnt their mis-
takemade but a little
on this elementary point, but would have per-
ceived that Lord Vernon himself had nothing to
gain by secrecy. The moment the name of the
mysterious nobleman became known, as it very soon
was,
it was much better for him that the whole
truth should come
which society il nun His offence was of a kind
eas-1---perhaps too easily—forgives,
especially after the lapse of 20 years, while his
subsequent conduct was sure to be commended as
honourable, and even generous. Righteous indig-
nation is too precious to be wasted. There are still
abundant occasions for just exposure and honest in-
vective without inventin or exaggerating facts.
When men in high places prostitute their
rank or office
for the sake of gain or
influence, or out of the mere love of jobbery, by
all means let them stand in the pillory of public
opinion and point a moral for popular satirists.
But
let us take care not to make such charges too
cheap lest they fail of their due effect when they
are really deserved. Noblemen are sometimes
guilty of scandalous misconduct, no doubt, but as a
class they are very like other people in their virtues
and vices, neither much better nor much worse.
Strange as it may sound to some credulous persons,
it does not necessarily follow that when they are
parties to a suit they must be on the wrong side.
Still less is it to be lateen for granted that the
judges are in league with the aristocracy, and
would be ready to forfeit the
spect of all their
respect
countrymen for the chance of obliging some lord,
whose favour, in nine cases out of ten, would not
be worth the seeking.
HERALD.—Though
we think that Mr. Roebuck
was entirely justified in
bringinghis
the
forward mo-
tion for the recognition of Chonfederate States,
w"
and though we cannot agree
cen-
sures so freely lavished by our Liberal contempo-
raries upon the course whi I
c he took and the argu-
ments which he urged in the speech by
supported it, we do not doubt that
rightly and wisely in withdrawing
it. Indeed the
whole responsibility for its '
'withdrawal has been
voluntarily assumed by another. When the head
of the Government appealed to the mover, on the
high ground of public convenience,sh to permit the
termination of a debate which, a
unseasonable and likely to embarrass the affirmed,
theacti was
action of
the executive, it was impossible for Mr. Roebuck,
except on such grounds as would harp
compelled
him to convert it into a vote of want of confidence,
to persevere with his proposal. W hatever may be
ea nature his or our private opinion as to the r
the•inconvenience apprehended by the Ministry, no
one can pretend to say that
they may nut possibly
be in possession of information which indicate
that very serious embarrassments might arise arisefrom
any further discussion of a question which has been
so managed as to involve in no common degree the
feelings and the character of
a potentate with whom
we are on terms of intimacy, and whose co-opera-
., _
Lion in any measures we may hereafter be obliged
to take in regard to A • merman affairs is of vital
importance. We do not conceive it to bp the
fault of Mr. Roebuck that the debate has taken a
course which is certainly unusual and unsatisfac-
tory. The charges made against him of having
endeavoured to influence the decision of the Douse

to the house the one-sufficient proof that it was un-
true. This defeat of their conspiracy of course in-
furiated the authors of the rumour, and they charged
Mr. Roebuck with doing what they themselves had
striven to do—making the opinion of the Emperor
of the French an argument to guide the counsels of
the British Parliament. Lord Palmerston thought
proper to reproach him with " irregularity" in hav-
ing referred to the Emperor at all; but it is tole-
rably certain that if he had not done so, a more se-
rious irregularity would have been committed. The
Northern party would have said, "It is absurd to
talk of joint action ; the Emperor will not join
with us in recognising the South ;" and the Minis-
ters, knowing this to be false, would have sat still
and given the falsehood the sanction of their silence.
Still, there is no doubt that the extraneous matter
thus introduced into the discussion has added in
some degree—we cannot say in how great a degree
—to the inconvenience which generally attends
parliamentary discussions on foreign policy, and
which is only overbalanced by the worse inconve-
nience of leaving the feelings of Parliament un-
spoken; and it would have been very unsafe for
Mr. Roebuck to have persevered, at the risk of
forcing the Prime Minister to sustain the state-
ments of the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs.
No one doubts that Mr. Roebuck, confirmed as he
has been by Mr. Lindsay's published letter, gave a
correct account of his interview with Napoleon 111.,
and had the discussion continued, there would have
been great danger of the fact becoming flagrantly
visible that the story of the Foreign-office and that
of the French Emperor are in diametric opposi-
tion and that the house must weigh the word
of in Layard against that of our august ally.
POST.—Those who are anxious to uphold the
dignity and privileges of the House of Commons
have no reason to be dissatisfied with the proceed-
ings of last night upon the withdrawal of Mr. Roe-
buck's motion for the recognition of the Southern
States. Neither Mr. Roebuck nor Mr. Lindsay
ventured to challenge the issue of which we warned
them. No attempt was made last night to involve
the House of Commons in any dispute as to the ac-
curacy of any report of the conversation with the
French Emperor; and the dignified, although gen-
tle, assertion of the constitutional principle has been
sufficient to guard the House of Commons from the
imputation of having ever assented to its violation.
Mr. Roebuck himself proposed to put an end to the
debate in which he had interpolated his extraordi-
nary violation of all constitutional usuage. It is
perfectly absurd to say that he did so because Lord
Palmerston assured him that the discussion would
be injurious to the public interests. Lord Palmer-
ston deprecated the incidental discussion of a con-
versation with the French Emperor. To this inti-
mation Mr. Roebuck yielded with as much grace as
he is capable of showing; but he withdrew his mo-
tion because he knew perfectly well that, had he
persevered in it, a motion would have been proposed
by a member entirely unconnected with the Go-
vernment conveying the censure of the House of
Commons upon the conduct of any member who as-
sumed to convey to the house a message from a
foreign sovereign. The record of such a censure on its
journals the member for Sheffield has escaped by the
charity and forbearance of the House of Commons.
We cannot regret this result. We pointed it out
yesterday morning as the possible mode of ending
this" affair." Lord Palmerston, with admirable
tact, has relieved the House of Commons of the ne-
cessity of a formal vote by his clear and explicit
declaration that the allusion to the sentiments of a
foreign sovereign was a proceeding not to be toler-
ated. He emphatically said he desired it to be un-
derstood that it was now on record, as solemnly as
it could be without a formal resolution, that such
allusion was never to be made in a British House
of Commons. These few and dignified words
from Lord. Palmerston will have in the history
of Parliament an effect equal to that of a reso-
lution solemnly recorded on the journals. The
assenting cheers of the house accepted the clear
announcement of the Premier that the House of
Commons could only know of a foreign sovereign
through the Queen; and that any member who
presumed to bring a message from such a Sovereign
violated the laws of Parliament, and his duty to the
constitution of his country and his Queen. Our
more sturdy ancestors would not have been satisfied
without a formal censure upon the member who
violated a principle so plain. But, as we hinted in
our previous observations on this subject, there were
many reasons in favour of the milder course. In
the first place, there is a rule, and a proper rule of
the house, that words spoken by a member car only
be visited with censure if noticed at the time, and
taken down while fresh in the recollection of mem-
bers at the moment of uttering them. Lord Pal-
merston was not in the house when Mr. Roebuck
announced the message from the French Emperor,
and no person moved that the words should be taken
down. Mr. Roebuck took very good care not to
give the opportunity of repairing the omission, and
in the few sentences in which he skulked from the
debate, he made not the slightest allusion to the in-
terview with the French Emperor, or to the em-
phatic contradiction which the Moniteur has given
to his assumption of the character of an imperial
envoy to the House of Commons. So far as Mr.
Roebuck is concerned, judgment is gone by default.
His message was but a piece of gasconade, combin-
ing, in a union not uncommon, a servile worship of
rank with the assumption of familiarity that really
has its origin in a passion for that most ignoble of
all pursuits which men call tuft hunting. Mr.
Lindsay, to do him justice, had nothing to retract,
and nothing for which he had to apologise. His
one indiscretion appears to have been the introduc-
tion of Mr. Roebuck to the imperial closet. He
had a right to vindicate himself from the charge
of being a busybody, and he appears to have done
so, if not with perfect success, at least without any
flagrant violation of good taste.