The Sun.
London, England, 1863-08-31 00:00:00

house during the preceding day, and if the fire was accidental

he would ask them to consider how it was possible the fire
could havegot into the theatre, which was divided from the
rest of the property by a very thick wall. Another circum-
stance was that on the very following day to the fire the
premium would have become due, and it was quite clear
that at this time Mr. Woolley was not overburdened with
money ; and this, as it appeared to him, was another in-
gredient for their consideration. Who could have occasioned
the fire ? There were no children in the house; no one was
there but Mr. Woolley and Crozier and the Temples. Why
should he have gone down with Crozier to put the gas out
and have sat upon the stairs while Crozier went into the
kitchen ? Again, who were the persons first seen when the
fire was discovered? Why, Mr. Woolley and Crozier.
Was it not a remarkable conclusion to come to that having
caused the fire and provided for their own safely, Mr.
Woolley was the first person to escape from the burning
building. He then referred to Mr. Woolley's own state-
ment as to the circumstances connected with the fire, and
said that he himself admitted that his statement that the
fire was under his bedroom and Crozier's was false, and
that they never were in the danger that he represented
them to have been, and he submitted that this false state-
ment could only have been made because Mr. Woolley did
not dare to speak the truth. It was also clear from the re-
port that Mr. Woolley felt the necessity of giving some ex-
planation how it happened that such a building as this
was destroyed in so short a period of time, and he therefore
endeavoured to make it appear that the police had not per-
formed their duty,and that three-quarters of an hour elapsed
before he was able to obtain any assistance. This statement
was undoubtedly false. for no one could doubt that Rogers,
one of the policemen, was at the fire almost at the moment
it occurred, and although Mr. Woolley, in his report, stated
that he saw Mr. Frere, and that he lent him a cape, he did
not say a word abouthis havingbeen accompanied byßogers.
All the evidence, in fact, showed that the policemen were
upon the spot at all events within a few minutes of the fire
breaking out. The evidence of Woolhouse, as he should
contend, if they believed it, was conclusive of the guilt of
Mr. Woolley. How could a suit of clothes come into the
passage of the house, and how could such a fact be recon-
ciled with any other theory than that Mr. Woolley and
Crozier undressed themselves in that passage for the pur-
pose of enacting the part they afterwards did outside. It
appeared to him impossible to conceive that Woolhouse had
deliberately come forward to perjure himself, and to depose i
to a fact that was not true. They would also remember
that ho did not volunteer his evidence, but on the contrary
he was unwilling to come forward until his master compelled
him to do so. What motive could he have had for telling an
untruth ? The effect of such a piece of evidence could not
have been imagined at the time the statement was made, and
it did not in itself appear to be of the slightest importance;
and it was not until afterwards that the cogency of this fact,
in connection with other circumstances of the case, became
apparent. It appeared to him, therefore, that if they be-
lieved this witness—and he did not see anything to justify
them in comingto the conclusion that he had perjured him-
self—the case for the defendant was completely established,
and it would be impossible for them to come to any other
conclusion than that the crime of wilfully setting fire to this
house was committed by Mr. Woolley, and that it did not
occur in anyother manner. The learned counsel next referred
to the evidence of the witness Ellis, as to having seen Mr.
Woolley and Crozier together outside the house on the '
morning of the fire, and he said that, although
this witness bad not given his evidence very
clearly, there was no reason to doubt that he was
speaking the truth, and that the fact he deposed to was one of
the greatest possible importance, and coincided completely
with the suggestion that Crozier and Mr. Woolley had sat
up on this night until what they considered a fitting time
had arrived far carrying out the design they contemplated.
Mr. Lush then again commented at considerable length
upon the circumstances connected with the fire, and to the
extraordinary rapidity with which it spread over every part
of the house, and he also called the attention of the jury to
the fact that although Mr. Woolley represented that before
he left the burning edifice he shrieked out "Fire," and
iz Murder," neither of the Temples heard any such cries.
The next point for their consideration was the conduct of
Mr. Woolley after the fire. He evidently thought that
there was likely to be a contest with the fire office, for
within a few days after the fire the witness Clift was em-
ployed to make a model of the house; and when he sent in
the first claim he refused to sign it in conformity with the
requisition of the company, and when the formal claim was
sent in the amount of the property alleged to have been de-
stroyed was stated at £l,OOO less than the amount of the
first claim. With regard to the suggestion that there was
a difficulty in making out the claim, that could not be the
case, for there had been a bill of sale in 1859, and he had
nothing to do but to look at the bill of sale, and he would
have obtained all the information he required. The learned
conned concluded by stating that the Sun Fire Office would
not have resisted this claim if they had not felt that it was
their duty to do so ; and when the jury had considered the
whole of the facts connected with this extraordinary in-
quiry he believed they (the jury) would come to the conclu-
sion that they were perfectly justified in the course they
had taken.
Mr. Bovill then rose to address the jury in reply upon the
whole case. He commenced by saying, with considerable
warmth, that he had no hesitation in expressing his opinion
that if the directors of the Sun Fire Office considered them-
selves justified, upon such facts as were relied upon by his
learned friend, in this case to support a charge of arson, the
sooner they left off insuring the public against fire the
better. (There were several loud cries of " Hear, hear,"
when the learned counsel made this observation.)
Baron Bramwell asked if any one could be pointed out
who had acted in this unseemly manner. It was most dis-
graceful to behave in such a manner in a court of justice,
and any one who did so should certainly be committed if he
was discovered.
Mr. Bovill then went on to say that he could not conceive
a more cruel charge than that which was made against the

plaintiff on the present occasion, or one which, as he should
contend upon all the facts, could be more unfounded. Not
only was Mr. Woolley charged with arson—an offence for
which he was liable to be sentenced to penal servitude for
life—but Crozier was also included, who could not by any
possibility have had the slightest motive or object to com-
mit such a crime. The defendants had evidently raked up
the whole history of Mr. Woolley ; but, although no doubt
they had spared no expense or trouble, they had been unable
to discover that he had been guilty of one single dishonour-
able act. The worst thing they appear to be desirous to
make out against him was, that he had at one time been a
waiter at Raggett's Hotel, but this was proved to be untrue.
They then endeavoured to make out that he had formed part
of a company of provincial actors, but this also had failed,
and all they were able to maka out was that he had played
on the stage, and that hehad taken a benefit at Southampton.
Even if they had proved it, what did it amount to ? Did it
in any way go to show that he had been guilty of the fearful
crime of setting fire to his own house. He asked the jury to
consider what the effect of such a charge as this must neces-
sarily be upon any man possessed of the slightest honourable
feeling. No verdict that they could deliver would entirely
restore that peace of mind. which had been so cruelly destroyed.
For more than a quarter of a century Mr. Woolley had been
moving in the highest circles of society, and respected and
honoured by persons with whom it was a pleasure to be ac-
quainted. He was received into the very best society, and
he had obtained the friendship and consideration of persons
of the highest rank. His learned friend had attempted to
make out that he was embarrassed ; but this was not thefate
cht
The only debt he owed at the time of the fire w e
wae witness
consideredT e m pl eh
e, andttbetter
forhe prudentialw o ul would
avoeo
ns beenconsiderations
rpaattido
nbuatsthatthatto
ii
et
should not be done until this inquiry was terminated. Not
a single person could be found to whom the plaintiff owed a
farthing, and yet the insurance company, to avoid paying
the amount of their insurances, had ventured to make such
e thatonrtse owf a
pro
r no o.
sof o, rwt uh ne et
aligehhtarmgaetateg
raifnorst
thhiemm;
toa nhd a itv e a tpapkeeanr e sdutcohh am.
to
admittingh having t
that
aspent
hhat
ds
dwife'sne
upone
e:asditnhegaa.tl Cam
oPWat hei tneh Hri
enogsuausrreda'n ce company ? She had not com-
plained,w and it was evident that her sister and her brother,
Captain Cope, made no complaint of the conduct of Mr.
Woolley, but, on the contrary, they were still on the most
intimate and affectionate terms with him, and they had the
highest opinion of his honour and integrity. Notwithstand•
ing what had been insinuated against Mr. Woolley, there
could be no doubt that when he was introduced to his late
wife he was moving in good society, and when he married
her ho admitted ho obtained a fortune of £35,000 with her.
Were the jury, because Mr. Woolley thirty years ago had
belonged to a company of actors, to come to the conclusion
that therefore he was likely to commit a felony such as was
imputed to him? It appeared to him that the fact of Mr.
Woolley having raised himself to the position he now occu-
pied was more to his credit than otherwise. What was Mr.
Woolley's connexion with the defendants ? Why, it appeared
that whenever he desired to insure his property he insured
in the Sun Office, and he said it was worthy of observation
that the factappeared that down to the year 1859 there ac-
tually had been no insurance at all upon the furniture, and
it had been clearly established that the amount of the in-
surance had only been increased at the earnest solicitation
of Miss Cope, who had a mortgage of £13,000 upon the
property, and who felt that she was not sufficiently secured
by the amount of insurance that was already effected.
There was no secrecy when the insurance was effected—the
surveyor to the Sun Fire Office went over the house, and he
consented to take an insurance of £lO,OOO ; and it showed
that the company were pretty mindful of their own interest
by their insisting upon being paid the doubly hazardous
premium, or 4s. 6d. per cent., instead of ls. 6d., and it also
showed that they were at the same time aware that it was a
place very likely to be accidentally burned. He really could
not understand how it was possible the fire office could come
to the conclusion that there was the slightest suspicion that
the plaintiff had wilfully destroyed Campden House. They
had heard what sort of place it was. It was more than 200
years old—Charles 11. had held many revels there—it was
once the residence of Queen Anne; but when the plaintiff
took it it had been a school, but in 1854 he gave £5,000 for
a lease of the house and grounds for 99 years at a nominal
rent of ss. per annum. After this period it appeared to be
the sole object of his life to renovate the building, and it
could not be doubted that he had spent the whole of his
wife's fortune, £35,000, and £13,000 belonging to her sister,
in that object. His desire evidently was to make Campden
House one of the most magnificent places the world could
produce, and to a certain extent he succeeded. The defend-
ants, notwithstanding this, would endeavour to induce them
to come to the conclusion that he had wilfully destroyed the
whole work of his life—and with what object? Why, the
amount of the insurance, although large, was really in-
significant compared with the value of the property. The
building itself was insured for £12,000, and it would have
taken more than that sum to rebuild it. What could he
have gained by that? It would not give him one single
sixpence, and under these circumstances he was to make
himself a felon and subject himself to penal servitude
for life. This is what the Sun Fire Office would have
then believed. Could anything more monstrous be con-

ceived ? What would this house have fetched in 1861, with
five acres of pleasure grounds. They knew what houses of
the ordinary description did fetch in that neighbourhood,
and to talk of burning such a housel It he wanted to
let it, did they doubt that ho could have obtained a very
large rent indeed ? If he had really been so insane as to
destroy such a place, which it had been the object of his
whole life to create, surely he wculd have waited till after
the Exhibition year, and it was for the jury to consider

whether it could possibly be conceived for a single moment
that Mr. Woolley would have destroyed this splendid man.
sion and the whole of its costly contents for the sum of
£29,000 when it was admitted that he had expended £50,000
upon it. Every one knew that the ordinary object men had
in view when they insured their property and destroyed it
was to obtain a profit ; in fact, to obtain considerably more
money than the property insured was worth. But was
that the case here ? On the contrary, if Mr. Woolley had
received every shilling of the £29,000 he would still be an
enormous loser by this unfortunate fire. The learned coun-
sel then referred to the course adopted by the fire-office in
insisting that Mr. Woolley should prepare plans and sur-
' Veys of the building, which would have cost him £l,OOO,
and the learned judge himself appeared to be surprised at
their adopting such a course, and said he could hardly
believe that the company seriously intended such a thing to
be done. As to the building, then. there was no doubt that
the amount of the insurance upon it was most moderate,
and his learned friend did not appear to dispute this fact.
After they had given him a great deal of trouble to estab-
lish the value of the fittings, they also admitted that they
were insured for a reasonable and proper amount; and his
learned friend was at last compelled to take his stand upon
the item of the furniture. He then commented upon this
portion of the case, and said that with regard to any allega-
tions that there had been a fraudulent claim in respect of the
furniture, even if every article that had been referred to by
the witness Temple had been removed, the value of the fur-
niture that undoubtedly remained was considerably more
more than £5,000, for which the property was insured, and
he also reminded the jury that Mr. Woolley stated in his
claim that the prices ho had fixed were not made.
in
refe-
rence to the actual cost, but upon the assumption of whst
it would cost to replace the different articles. The learned
counsel, after some further observations with refer-
ence to the conduct of the defendants,
said that upon
aen theyr
ae book
Woolley claiming 4s. a volume for 1,000 books, Mr.
actu-
ally required that he should give the title of every
and the price it cost him, and ho put it to the
jury rywhe whether
this was not a most monstrous thing to ask for, d whether
it was possible to be complied with. He then commented
upon what he said had been described as putting the housented
into an extraordinary state of preparation fur a fire, by
var-
nishing the different rooms, and he argued that every fact
that had been proved showed that Mr. Woolley, and his
sister and brother-in-law also, were merely engaged in doing
what had always been their principal enjoyment, namely,
embellishing and beautifying this house, and that the u„„
of the varnish was an act of the most innocent character.
He said it appeared to him that all the facts they had had
to contend with were mere shadows, and he must say that
he was utterly at a loss to find those conclusive facts upon
which the directors of the Sun Fire-office felt themselves
justified in defending this action. The learned counsel then
proceeded to comment upon the evidence that had been
given by Temple and his wife, and to the manner in which
they had contradicted each other with regard to the cooking
or the warming of the sausages, and he said it was not at
all improbable that the fire might have been occasioned by
the neglect of those people in leaving a fire or a candle in
the green room, and that one object they had in view was to
screen themselves from blame. He said it was also clear
that both these witnesses were actuated by a strong animus
against Mr. Woolley, and that their evidence ought not to
be relied upon ; and ho called upon the jury to dismiss their
evidence entirely from their consideration. He then referred
to the evidence of the witness Woolhouse, and said that his
evidence with regard to what he alleged ho saw when he
first arrived at the fire was clearly false, as that portion of

the building which he represented as the first that was in
flames was actually still standing, and the fireman who had
the charge of the salvage was actually living in it. Having
remarked upon the evidence given by the witness as to the
alleged finding of the clothes, he submitted that his story
was absurd and improbable, and that he was a worthless
fellow whose testimony could not be relied upon; and he
said, at the same time, that he could not help expressing
his opinion that the Sun Fire Insurance Company ought to
have investigated the story told by this man, and have
ascertained whether ho was speaking the truth, or whether
he was a man whose testimony could he depended upon,
before they ventured to charge two respectable persons with
the crime of arson, for which they might be sentenced to
penal servitude for life. The next point upon which his
learned friend seemed to place great importance was the
evidence given by the witness Ellis. Now, they had beard
the manner in which Ellis had given his testimony, and he
would ask them whether they thought they ought to place
the slightest reliance upon him. They had seen the manner
in which he had evaded the questions that were pnt to him,
and they would remember that when he was asked to mark
the places upon the plan where he had represented he had
seen Mr. Woolley and Crozier, he made the letter N instead
of A, and he said that it was caused by his hand shaking,
They could judge from this fact and his own edmission about
his haying had delirium tremens what sort of man he was,