The Sun.
London, England, 1865-07-28 00:00:00

tious in a great work of a public character.

Mr. Gladstone's Church at Seaforth•

At a meeting in Warrington recently, in support
of the Liberal candidates for the representation of
South Lancashire, Dr. Smith called attention to a
statement made by the Rev. A. A. Bridgman on the
previous day at the Lion Hotel, to the effect that
Mr. Gladstone had built a church in Liverpool that
brought him in £7OO a-year, whilst he gave a poor
parson £l2O to do duty in it ; and read a telegram
which he had received from Mr. Gladstone in reply
to a communication, saying that the statement was
" grossly untrue," but that it was impossible to state
the case by telegraph. Dr. Smith has since received
the following letter from Mr. Gladstone :
" Hawarden, July 23, 1865.
" Dear Sir,—l had much pleasure in giving you infor-
mation on the subject of the church at Soaforth, first by
telegraph, and secondly by letter ; but it was done, as I
think I mentioned, to prevent your being placed in a false
position, and not to give encouragement to proceedings like
those of Mr. Bridgman and the editors of ono or more
periodicals. I think that grave censure attaches to those
who by speech or writing publish on the authority of
rumour, or on any anonymous authority, statements inju-
rious to any private character; and who hold up to blame
matters of personal and private conduct without having
had the courtesy—l might say the decency—to give the
person inculpated a prior opportunity of explanation and
defence. Bad in all cases, it appears to me that these pro
ceedings become worse when they are carried on for poli
tical purposes at the time of an election. And worse, again,
when the authors of them are clergymen and editors of
periodicals professing to be religious. It is possible that
the heat of party, or that the exclusive devotion to parti-
cular and limited objects which so effectually closes the
mind against the view of broader and larger ones, may have
led to the course of which I complain. And if it bo due,
to inconsiderateness only, I shall very gladly forget it. But
at any rate, 1 will do nothing which may serve to en-
courage such proceedings hereafter, or may seem to ac-
knowledge the authority of Mr. Bridgman and his coad-
jutors to cite persons before their tribunal in this improper
manner. 1 take my decision on the grounds 1 have stated.
But I may add that the affairs of Soaforth Church hare
long ago been brought by me before the Ecclesiastical
Commissioners, and those who desire information about
them may, if they like, seek it at the proper time from that
public body. If either now or at any other time the com-
missioners think fit to give such information I have not
the smallest objection. You are quite at liberty to publish
this letter if you think fit. Thanking you for your oblig-
ing letters, I remain, dear sir, your very faithful and obe-
dient, " W. E. GLADSTONE.
" Joseph Smith, Esq., M.D.
" I have written under the belief that Mr. Bridgman has
not condemned, but has made use of the rumours of state-
ments in question. If mistaken in this I should gladly
withdraw what I have said of his conduct."

GALLANT CAPTURE OF A SHARK IN THE BRISTOL
CHANNEL—Last week one of the navvies employed
on the Brean-down Works, near Weston-super-Mare, was
looking down over the "tip," when he espied a large fish
close on the shingles at the foot of the rocks. With all speed
he made his way to the spot, and the fish remained within
arm's length of the edge cf the water. The man, thinking
ho could pull it ashore, laid hold of its tail, but soon found
that it had more power in its native element than he gave
it credit for, and with a flap of its fins it pulled him knee
deep into the water, and moreover turned upon him, show-
ing a pair of huge jaws armed with three rows of teeth,
which savagely snapped at him. Tho navvy, however,
was not to be scared so readily. Holding on by the tail of
the creature, he sung out lustily to some of his comrade's,
and three others went to help to land the strange and for-
midable fish. It was fortunate for the man that it did not
succeed in biting him, for the fish was nothing less than a
shark from five to six feet in length, and an arm or a leg
would not bo worth much if once fairly within the reach of
its jaws. The first man who arrived at the spot seized hold
of the dorsal fin. The monster now became more violent, and
pulled the two men further into the brine, and it was not
until a third rendered assistance that they succeeded in
dragging the fish ashore. The final struggle was fierce and
exciting. The shark,fiuding that it could not beat the men,
snapped at every thing within reach. Catching hold of a
large pebble, it ground it savagely, leaving the marks of
its teeth in the solid stone, and breaking them with the
violence of the effort.—Bristol Daily Post.
CHARGE OF KIDNAPPING AT ROCIIDALE.—At the
Rochdale Police-court on Wednesday, Joseph Varey
and Lydia Varey, husband and wife, were charged with
having " unlawfully, and by force and fraud, enticed away
and detained a child," named William Hunter, under the
age of 14 years. The case has created considerable interest
in the town, and the court was densely crowded. Mr. J,
Lomax, solicitor, was retained on behalf of the prisoners ;
who, throughout the hearing of the case, appeared to feel
keenly the serious position in which they had placedthem-
selves. The prosecutor, David Hunter, stated that he re-
sided in Robert Town, Yorkshire, and that on several
occasions the prisoners had enticed his son from home,
and after considerable trouble and expense he had been
able to get him back. Last Tuesday week ho found that
his son had again left him, and he succeeded in tracing him
to Manchester, in the company of the prisoners, but while
witness and the prisoners were quarrelling, the boy was
got out of the way, and he had not seen him since. On
Monday night ho took a police officer to the prisoner's
house, in Castle-street, Rochdale, and the female prisoner
then stated that she had not seen the boy for several days ;
but he could prove by witnesses that the boy was with
her the day before, and that tho malo prisoner had re-
moved him to Manchester on learning that his father was
in search of him. Cross-examined by Mr. Lomax—He would
swear the boy was under 14 years of age. Mr. Lomax
wished the bench to take particular notice of the prosecu-
tor's answer to the question in reference to tho boy's age,
as it was intended to proceed against him for perjury. The
prosecutor reiterated his statement that his son was under
11 years of age. Thos. Allison and Charles Hunter con-
firmed prosecutor's statement in the most particular parts
Mr. Lomax then asked the magistrates to adjourn the case
until the next court day, so as to give his clients the op-
portunity of producing the certificate of the child's birth
which would show that he was above 15 years of age,
which would render the case out of their jurisdiction. The
case was adjourned till Friday.
A MADMAN IN A RALWAY TRAIN.—The Journal
de Rouen states that the passengers in one of the
carriages of a train which left Lisieux for Caen two even-
ings since, made the unpleasant discovery, almost immedi-
ately after their departure, that one of their fellow-travel-
lers was a madman, and inclined to be violent. They ma-
naged, however, to keep him from injuring either him-
self or others until they reached Mezidan, when the poor
man was given in charge to the gendarmerie, and placed in
a chamber, where he passed the night quietly. Tho
next morning the Mayor of Mezidan made the necessary
arrangements for having him conveyed to an asylum. Be-
fore the carriage arrived, however, the lunatic broke a
water decanter which he found in his room, and thrust one
of the fragments into his neck so far as to sever the carotid
artery, and cause almost instant death. The deceased was
identified as a man named 3lassert, holding a subordinate
emplo,paaut ha the zap.l7 offices at Cherbourg.

offence. The laying the foundation-stone of the
new Bridge at Blackfriars was supposed by the
u ninitiated to have been very well managed, and
an interesting ceremony was thought to have passed
off well. But we now learn how mistaken was this
conclusion, for two grievous errors were committed;
errors so unpardonable in their nature, and so
serious in their consequences, that it is only won-
derful that the foundation-stone remained in its
place. The Common Council were not invited to
a dinner given by the Bridge-house Committee, at
Guildhall, to the Lord Mayor and others, and no
carriages were provided for them in the procession
formed to lay the stone of the Bridge. Can we
hope that the Bridge will prove a success after such
an inauspicious beginning ? Mr. Deputy BONE
already sees the shade of the New Zealander in the
distance, but his chief regret is that that adven-
turous savage will find an incorrect account of the
proceedings of July, 1865, in the ruins of the
Bridge. Perhaps it is not yet too late to remedy
the error by inserting an erratum in some other
part, say the keystone of the centre arch, to set
the minds of future students right. Such an
instance may well serve to convince us how little
we can rely on history ! The gorgeous robes and
stately figures of the 200 members of the Common
Council were actually missing from a pageant, in
which, joking apart, they ought certainly to have
been, but the question is whether the fault was not
their own rather than that of the committee. They
were invited to come in due state, and might cer-
tainly have provided their own carriages if they
attached any importance to the occasion. They
are determined not to be left out next time, and
have already issued strict commands about the open-
ing of the new bridge, whose first stone has just
been laid, but they would have shown more regard
to their own dignity by being less punctilious in
the matter, and by joining heartily and unostenta