The Sun.
London, England, 1862-11-28 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONI)0141, FRIDAY EVENING, NOVEMBER 28, 1862.

now administering the vacant diocese of Milan, was
absent at the time at Rho, but he was soon informed
of the occurrence, and intimated to the Provost of
St. Charles that Passaglia was not to be allowed to
exercise any of the duties of his sacred ministry in
that church, and most particularly not to he allowed
to preach. The Provost answered that Passaglia
was licensed to exercise his sacred ministry when-
ever he chose by virtue of a decree of the Sacra
prr uhetent
riient egnwz Pieria
theasai.„l
ro
onTvgoh
set
and Bishop
himselfl
somewhat
no pe w repliedhuan td angry
gb
tyrhyeac
oi treatnrrhteesrpdoi
interdict.
..f
dbeuntcethbeetfowremener teheeempeadriswhetridesistpaonseddhtios dhioocldesahnis,
ground regardless of consequences.
In the meanwhile the Prefect of Milan, Villa-
marina, sent to the central Government at Turin
the particulars of this priestly squabble, and ex-
pressed some apprehension that the appearance of
Passaglia on a Milan pulpit might give rise to some
collision betweeen the hostile clerical parties and
their partisans. An agent of the police waited
upon Passaglia at his residence in the Marquis of
Cavour's palace, and, in the presence of this latter
nobleman, and, in the very gentlest terms, endea-
voured to prevail upon the father to give up his
Milanese engagement. Passaglia held fast by his
purpose, and repeatedly answered the police- agent
that he would obey orders, but must disregard
mere counsels. Saturday (yesterday) arrived, and
by the one o'clock p.m. train Passaglia travelled
hither from Turin. He took up his quarters at
the house of Monsignor Brioschi, one of the Mi-
lanese prelates, who has moat zealously embraced
Passaglian views. He was there visited by the
Provost of St. Charles, who told him that in his
difficulty with his ecclesiastical superior he had
deemed it expedient to address the lay authorities,
and had signified to the Prefect Villamarina that by
allowing Father Passaglia the free use of his pulpit
he, the Provost, considered that he was only exer-
cising his indisputable right, and called upon the
guardians of public order to screen him from vio-
lence, and to take proper measures against any popu-
lar disturbance. The Provost went on stating that
the Prefect had vouchsafed no answer, and that
nothing should be ventured unless a good under-
standing could be established with the lay authori-
ties. Passaglia instantly presented himself to Villa-
marina, put himself under the protection of the law,
and added that he thought he had fulfilled all the
obligations of a dutiful subject by simply acquaint-
ing the authorities with his firm resolution to preach
in St. Charles's on the morrow. The Prefect fully
reassured the padre, denied having in any manner
written or telegraphed to Turin on the subject, con-
tended that he felt no alarm, had communicated
none to Turin, and ended by saying that he would
have given the Provost of St. Charles the same as-
surances if he applied for his protection. The Pro-
vost waited upon the Prefect early on the following
(this) morning, but Villamarina was nowhere to be
found ; whereupon the poor Provost was seized with
a sudden panic, and, fearing lest he might find
himself exposed to the fury of a mob fana-
ticised by the Papal party, without any reliance
on the support of the police, withdrew from
his position and requested Passaglia to desist
from his purpose. It was therefore an-
nounced that the series of Passaglia's sermons for
the Advent was interrupted. What the result of
Passaglia's eloquence upon an Italian audience, and
more especially on so susceptible a multitude as that
of Milan, might be under present circumstances I
would not undertake to say. It is possible that
Villamarina and the Turin Government were really
afraid that the animosity between the two hostile
clerical factions might lead to scenes which it was
their duty to prevent, even at the expense of what
might seem to English people right and justice,
but it may also be that the Rattazzi Ministry were
only acting in consistency with their former de-
sertion of Ricasoli's policy with respect to Pas-
saglia, when they refused to sanction the promise
of indemnity for any loss that the priests signing
Passaglia's address to the Pope might have to en-
counter. The fact is that Passaglia would be a great
weapon in the hands of a daring and resolute
Italian Government, not only against the Pope,
but against the Power whose bayonets uphold the
Pope at Rome ; and as Rattazzi feels sure that the
Emperor Napoleon is unwilling to withdraw from
Rome he may dread that that Sovereign would be
angry if the Italians found a religious solution to
that Roman question to which all their political
endeavours afforded no clue.

TILE WALKER COLLIERY EXPLOSION,

NEWCASTLE-ON-TYNE, Nov. 27.

Mr. Reed, the coroner for South Northumberland,
and a jury, assembled in the Railway Inn, Walker,
this morning, to make inquiry into the cause of the
death of William Barnes and the 15 men and lads
killed in the pit at this place on Saturday morning
last.

Mr. M. Dunn, Government inspector of mines;
Mr. T. E. Foster, consulting engineer to the coal
trade; Mr. Jobling, managing viewer to the col-
liery, and other mining engineers, were present,
but there appeared to he but little interest felt in the
inquiry by the pitmen, as few, if any, were present.
Anthony Barnes, master wasteman at Walker
Colliery, was the first witness examined. He was
in the pit at the time that the explosion took place.
It occurred about a quarter past 6 in the morning
of the 22d of this month. He had gone through
the waste before the accident took place. Found
all to be right, and a good current of air prevailing.
Never saw any gas in the pit ; but they wrought
with the Davy lamp. At half-past 4 o'clock he
was at the north or down cast " trouble." The men
were shooting stone to enlarge the return. While
there witness saw Haswell fire one shot in the
stone. The explosion occurred an hour and three-
quarters after that. After firing the shot, wit-
ness asked Haswell and the other two men to
go back with him to where they had their clothes
lying to get a " bit bait" (something to eat). He
could be with them there about 10 minutes. He
left them sitting there, and they would have to re-
turn to the trouble again, but he did not think that
they could have time to prepare and fire another
shot before the explosion took place. He was at
the furnace at the upcast when it occurred. The
first thing he did was to go to the north side of the
upcast pit. He found the doors all right. He re-
turned to the furnace and kept the fires on, and
stopped there as long as he could, but was obliged
to leave on account of the after-damp. He came
out of the pit by the up-cast. He was very ill from
the effects of the after-damp. He could say nothing
further about it.

By Mr. Dunn—There are goaves in the pit, but
he never saw any gas. One of the furnaces had
been damped 6 hours before the explosion took
place. The explosion was a mystery to him. The
size of the return was 6ft. by 4ft. He did not think
that the explosion took place at the trouble.
By Mr. Foster—Before the shot was fired he
examined the place with his lamp, and found that
all was clean, when he then told them to fire. If

the waste near two working boards were fou
he did not think that the boards would be foul.
George Shields, back overman at Walker Co

liery, on the day that the pit fired had previously
been through all the workings. Everything was
safe, The indications of gas were trifling. He ex-
amined the wide boards between the two troubles
or dykes, and found no gas. Had there been any
gas there it would have gone by the return to the
dyke, where Haswell was working. The gas he
saw was two walls north and two pillars west from
the return on the low side of the dyke, in the face
of a wall. Had never seen gas outside of the goaves.
He believed that the goaves were clean. He could
not tell where gas had come from, or the seat of
the explosion. had his lamp in the north juds
of the goaves on the morning of the explosion.
There was as much air as usual, though the fur-
nace was slackened. There were eight hewers
working in the pit at the time of the explosion.
When the air was slackened there was sufficient air
to work the pit with safety.
Edward Robinson, another overman at the col-
lmivelrooynisi,oiwntgat.
sooiknthe east district at the time of the ex-
plosion. Had examined it that morning. There
was a good current of air going through the pit that
Couldplace, not
wf form any
it idea
occurred wherehe made the
el

he shaft for a light. When he got it he went to
the men whom he had passed in coming out. He
then tried to get to the trouble where the men were
blasting, but after getting six walls in he was
obliged to return. He found that the stoppings
were displaced. He then returned back, and met
Mr. Cole, and then went up the west way. A
very few minutes after the air appeared to be travel-
ling in its usual course up the west district, and in
sufficient quantity. He did not think that the ex-
plosion occurred where the men were firing a shot
at the trouble. _ _

By Mr. Dunn—Never saw any gas on the edge of
the goaf. Had capital air in the pit on the morn-
ing of the explosion. Had found four Davy lamps
broken. One was not locked. It was found in the
west, contiguous to the goaf. It was the deputy's
lamp. Every viewer's lamp was locked. The
deputy's lamp was half screwed on. There were
four lamps missing. There must have been a great
accumulation of gas to have caused the explosion
from the damage that was done.
By Mr. Foster—He believed that the blast came
from the north-west, where the goaves and pillars
were. He- inferred that from the appearance of
the stoppings. They were lying to the south.
William Mason had charge of the lamps in
Walker Colliery, He repaired them when neces-
sary. They were in good repair and perfect.
Mr. W. R. Cole, resident viewer at Walker Col-
liery—Examined the pit a week before the explo-
sion• Examined it thoroughly. The scales and the
stables registered 6,842 cubic feet of air per minute ;
the first east way, 10,500 ft. ; the second east way
15,600tt. ; the north way, going down the dyke,
1,200 ft. ; the west way, 17,018 ft. At the time of
the explosion, when we were casing the Ann Pit and
had slackened the furnace, the total amount of air

-61,960 cubic feet per minute—would be dimi
nished. In consequence of this, there would be in
the stables at the time of the explosion 5,152 ft. ; in
the first east way it was reduced to 7,330 ft. ; in the
second east way, to 11,700 ft.; in the north way, to
9,000 ft. ; in the west way, to 12,764 ft. This was
amply sufficient air to carry on the pit with perfect
safety. The reduction of air in consequence of the
operations in the shaft would be one-fourth. In
the east way the 12,764 cubic feet of air is divided
so that one-half of it was taken into the whole boards
when the four men were found, and into the juds,
and the other half into the west district. Had exa-
mined the place where the men were firing the shot
in the trouble, but could not form an opinion
whether the explosion had taken place there or not.
At the place where the men were blasting the
trouble there was not the least indication of the
explosion having occurred.
By Mr. Foster—The cause of his not having been
down the pit for a week before the accident was
that be had been poorly, and in the doctor's hands.
His usual custom was to go down the pit every day.
By Mr. Dunn—The stable air goes into the
return immediately, and so does the first eastway
air, neither of them entering the workings.
Mr. I'. E. Foster, viewer, said he had had consi-
derable experience in his profession. Had examined
Walker Colliery yesterday very minutely. He
went to the west side of the trouble, where the men
had been blasting, and from the appearance of the
timber at that point he was satisfied that the explo-
sion did not occur there. He was borne out in that
opinion by the fact of the lamps of the deputies
who were working there having been found with
their tops on and all secure. It was true the waste-
man's lamp had not been found, but, as he had nothing
to do with the blasting, he presumed that his lamp
top would be all right. He examined the work-
ings in the four whole boards in the west and north,
and he found that the greatest amount of damage
had been done there. It was his opinion that the
explosion had occurred either from a defective
lamp or from an injury to a safety lamp. It
was also his opinion that the quantity of gas had
not been much, or less the damage would have been
considerably greater. He had examined the ven-
tilation with very great care, and found the quan-
tity going into the west way, east way, and second
east way, before it divided, to be 50,400 cubic feet
per minute, which, in his opinion, was quite ample
to ventilate the pit in safety. All goevee have gas
in them.
By the Coroner—He thought that when one of
the juds next the goaf was drawn a day or two be-
fore the explosion it had not fallen, but that it fell
at the time of the explosion, smashing the lamps,
and originating the disaster. In the north return
there is no trace of damage. It is a splendid return.
Mr. W. Armstrong, viewer, of Wingate Grange,
who had examined the pit in company with Mr.
Foster yesterday, concurred with the evideace
given by that gentleman. The goaf was exceed-
ingly small and the amount so short that he thought
the diminished air at the time of the explosion was
sufficient. There was little timber in the pit, and
all the conditions for good ventilation existed.
Mr. R. Johnson, of Haswell, examined, agreed
with Mr. Foster as to the cause of the accident.
A.r. Jobling said the last accident in the pit,
tthopreoefyheis e a
years ago, was
lamp.
caused by a man removing the
The jury returned the verdict, " Explosion
purely accidental."

LAW INiELLIGENCE, Nov. 27.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.

- - - -
Sittings at Nisi Prius at Westminster.—(Before
Mr. Barer) Martin and a Special Jury.)
LEIGH V. THORP.-BEDITCTION.
old Ford
This was an action brought by Edward Leigh, a
: to re
journeyman
painter,
compensation r;
residinginthe Roman-road,
in damages for
the seduction of his daughter, Emma Leigh, a young
girl, who had been a domestic servant of Samuel
Thorp, a brevet-major in the Indian army. The plea
was not guilty.
Mr. Tindal Atkinson and Mr. Philbrick were
counsel for the plaintiff; and Mr. Sergeant Parry
and Mr. Lloyd for the defendant.
Upon the resumption of the trial this morning
f was the first witness
a
called.M a jor Thorp,e s a
itdh_e
I defendant
residet 2, Regent-square,
which is a highly respectable house. I came from
India to this country in Sept., 1859. I have been
a widower three
years. My wife died of cholera in
the jungles while I was on the march. My daugh-
ter is now five years old. I would have returned
to India four months ago if it had not been for this
action. In order to be present here I have been
obliged to ask several times for additional leave of
absence. The girl Emma Leigh was in my mother's
service as nurse to my daughter. She went into her
service at the latter end of 1859, or the beginning
of 1860. I have been in the habit of keeping a
diary from day to day of all my proceedings and
disbursements. It commences in March, 1861, and
ends on 25th November, 1862. I now produce it.
Ido not know when mma Leigh left. It must
have been at the end of 1860, or the beginning of
1861.
Mr. Baran Martin said of course the diary was
not evidence, but the witness could refresh his
memory by referring to it.
Mr. Sergeant Parry said he was too well aware
of it, but he wished to show that his client kept a

diary.
Examination continued—l saw Emma Leigh at
my apartments in Regent-square on Bth July, 1861.
I never saw her on any other occasion afterwards.
I think I saw her once at Walthamstow after she
left my mother. It was not so late as July, I never
on any occasion asked her to come and see me at
Regent-square, nor did I give her the address for
that purpose. I never told her how she was to come,
nor to take an omnibus. (Emma Leigh here said,
" Did you not give me 25.?") I never gave her 2s.
to come to my hoese. On the Bth of July she came
into my room. I was surprised to see her. I was
writing at a table opposite the window. I turned
round and saw it was Emma Leigh. I said, "What
do you want, Emma Leigh ?" or words to that effect.
She said, " I have been for a long time out of a situ-
tion—do you kaovv of any situation that would suit
me ?" Some months previously my aunt had asked
me to look out for a servant for her, and I mentioned
this to the servants at Walthamstow. I told
Emma Leigh that my aunt had got a servant
who suited her. I had never mentioned to her
previously that my aunt wanted a servant. She
said she could obtain a situation if she had some
money. I asked her what, and she replied some-
thing in a sewing machine manufactory- I then
asked her what she would require, and she replied
about a pound. I said, "If a sovereign will be of
any service to you, here it is, but you must repay
me as soon as you can," and she said
she would.
Prior to my lending her the sovereign, I asked her
why she had not applied to her parents for it. She
said if she had they could not have given it to her.
She said after she had learnt the business she would
be able to earn money on her own account. This
mention of the sewing came from her. I can swear

I lent her a sovereign on the Bth suly, ant. 4 not half
a sovereign. Her bonnet and shawl were taken one
neither by herself nor by me. She remained about
a quarter of an hour or 20 minutes. She sat on the
opposite side of the table to me, and she could see
plainly into the bedroom. I never took any liberties
with her, or drugged her, or took a bottle from the
chimney piece, poured something from it into a
wine glass, and gave it to her. There was no fire or
gas in the room. I never gave her any warm gin
and water, nor any cake. I had no warm water
or gin in the room. I never in my life took any in-
decent or improper liberties with the young woman.
I never saw her at Walthamstow in July. I never
saw her again after the Bth July, either in Regent-
square or anywhere else until I saw her in the court
yesterday. She never made any application to me
about my being the father of the child. The first
intimation of it I received was by letter. I remem-
ber my mother also showing me a letter. I received
the letter produced myself. It is dated 20th May,
1862. That is the first intimation I received about
this matter. The second letter produced was the
one shown to me by my mother.
Mr. Baron Martin—That is the letter which the
plaintiff Leigh said his brother-in-law had written?
Mr. Sergeant Parry—Yes, and I propose to have
Lt read. It is addressed to Mrs. Thorp.
The letter was as follows:

" 31st May, 1862.
"Dear Madam,—l write to inform you of the vile
profligacy of your son, Samuel Thorp, in conjunction
with his groom, Robert Hubble, towards my daughter
Emma Leigh, a short time since. It appears by my poor
girl's statement that these two men, acting in concert, and
under the pretence of obtaining for her a good situation,
and with marked hypocrisy, beguiled her into a disreputable
hovel in Regent-square, where this rascal Thorp drugged
my poor girl and violated her person. She has given birth
to a child and is dangerously ill, and I have to inform you
that unless instant reparation be made for this deep injury,
which affects me and my daughter's reputation, I will at
once bring the matter before a tribunal against both of these
men without further notice.—Yours, &c., EDWARD

Lzaus.”
Examination resumed—l consulted my cousin, l
Mr. Oakley, with regard to this letter. I also re-
ceived a letter dated Bth July, 1862, from the at-
torney
who first conducted the action for the plain-
tiff. The letter, which was addressed to the major,
was to this effect :—" Having received instructions
from Edward Leigh to apply to you for compensa-
tion for the seduction of his daughter, Emma
Leigh, effected by you by administering some
noxious drug to her, and the loss of her services,
&c.,1 trust you will at once see the necessity of
making him sufficient compensation and pay my
costs; I shall wait for the purpose until twelve
o'clock on Thursday next, and if I do not bear from
you I will forthwith issue a writ against you."
Examination resumed—There is not the slightest
truth in Emma Leigh's statement that between
July and Sept., 1861, I had intercourse with her
four times. (The girl here made an exclamation,
and was with difficulty induced to remain quiet.)
On the Bth July Hubble, the groom, was in town.
He came to take care of Wright, the gardener, who
had to attend the Old Bailey. A servant had robbed
my uncle, Robert Thorp, and he was a witness for
the prosecution.
Cross-examined—l did not reside at my mother's
house all the time Emma Leigh was acting as
nursemaid to my little girl. I may have stayed
two or three days or a week at a time. Oakley
has sometimes gone with me to Walthamstow,
and slept there. I have been in the constant
habit of keeping a dairy both in this
country and in India. I was at Walthamstow in
July last occasionally, bnt I am confident I did
not see this young woman. If I had done
so I would not have entered it in my diary. I only
saw her once at Walthamstow after she had left my
mother's. That was soon after she left. I may have
spoken to her on that occasion, and it may have
been in the garden. I cannot say that my little
girl was with her. lam sure it was not in July,
but I cannot say in what month, or at what time of
the year—it is so long ago, I really forget at what
time of the year, but whenever it was I cannot say,
and did not speak to her. I take on myself to say
that I never gave her my address, or told her that
my aunt wanted a servant. My aunt is Mrs. Hall,
who resides at Fleetlands, near Fareham,in Hamp-
shire. She came to me and asked me if I could get
her a servant. I mentioned this to my mother, and
I may also have done so to the servants at Wal-
thamstow. Hubble came into my service on my re-
turn from India. He remained at Walthamstow,
where I keep my horses.
Re-examined—My aunt, Mrs. Hall, came to town
with my daughter; and stayed at 2, Regent-square,
from the 17th April to the 29th. They were my
guests, and it was then that my aunt asked me about

a servant.
Robert Hubble, the groom, was next called. He
said, I entered the defendant's service a month after
he came from India. I resided with my mother at
Walthamstow. On July 8, 1861, I saw Emma
Leigh in town when Wright was with me. I had
before seen her in June in Gray's-inn-road. I did
not recognise her until she spoke to me. I walked
home with her, and we called at two or three public
houses. We had a pint of ale and a biscuit at one
place, but I am not positive whether I had any
cheese, (Laughter.) I met her between 4 and 5
in the afternoon. On the Bth of July she was with
me from four in the afternoon until 10 at night. I
met her at Sidmouth-street, Gray's-inn-lane.
Wright was with me. We went into Elliott's
and had some bread and cheese. She had tea
and ham. Leigh did not tell me where she had
been. I saw her between 3 and 4 in the
afternoon. Wright was left at a coffee.house in
Holborn-hill. I walked home with her. I left her
about 100 yards from her father's house in the Roman
road, Olp Ford. We walked all the way. It is
three or four miles or four and a half miles from
Gray's-inn-lane. We got to Old Ford at 10 o'clock
at night. We called at one or two public houses
on our way. We had biscuits and cheese. We
had some ale. She poured it out herself. I had
walked with her before this. I once called when I
left my work. On Bth July I and Wright came up
about the prosecution at the Old Bailey. I never
drove Emma Leigh to 2, Regent-square.
Cross examined—l know it was the Bth of July
when I saw her. I cannot say why lam so certain.
I don't keep a diary. (Laughter.) The major did
not tell me it was the Bth of July. I cannot say
what is the date to-day. (Laughter.) It runs in
my head that it was the Bth of July. (Laughter.)
Re-examined—l came up with Wright to take
care of him. (Laughter.) He had to attend the
trial at the Old Bailey.
Wm. Wright, a little old man, said--I do any
sort of work about Mrs. Thorp's place at Waltham-
stow. I have been about the place 47 years. I re.
collect coming up with Hubble to the trial. We
met Emma Leigh.
Cross-examined—l recollect seeing after blossom
time Emma Leigh in the garden with the child. The
major might have been there, but I did not see him
talk to her.
Mrs. Hubble, the mother of Robert Hubble, said
she saw Emma Leigh's mother at her (witness's)
house at Walthamstow, in July, 1862. She told me
my son haddriven her daughter to 2, Regent-square,
on the Bth July, 1861, that she was drugged and
seduced by Major Thorp, that she went there again
the next day, and that she blamed her for going next
day. Emma Leigh has called a number of times at
my house. She sent a boy to the door for my son.
He was not at home. I went down to see her. I asked
her if she was Emma Leigh. She said " No," and
bidding me good bye, went away. I saw her after,
wards, and asked her how she could deny herself'
She said, " I may as well own it • it was me."'i
She called a number of times, and I said I had a
great objection to her coming so often to my
house. She always wanted to see Robert. I'
said it had a bad appearance, and I did not like it.
II said my son did not want her.
Cross-examined—My son is now in the employ
of the major.
Mary Hubble, the daughter of the last witness,
said—l remember Mrs. Leigh calling on my mother.
She said that she blamed her daughter very much
indeed for going the next day to Regent-square
after what happened on the Bth July.
Mrs. Leigh, the mother of Emma Leigh, was re-
called at the request of Mr. Sergeant Parry, and
asked by the learned judge whether, when she
called upon Mrs. Hubble, she stated to her that
what Emma had told her as to what happened in
Regent-square was told three or four days after her
confinement, and when she was quite in a sane
state ? The witness replied that she did.
Mrs. Herring, the landlady of 2, Regent-square,
deposed to a young woman calling to see Major
Thorp in July, 1862. She was Emma Leigh. The
major's servant went up and told the major, and
then Emma went upstairs, She remained a.very
short time, 10 minutes or a quarter of an hour. In
10 or 14 days she called again. Witness saw her
at the door as she was leaving the house. She told
her that she had better knock at the door, but she
believed the major was not at home. That was her
belief; never saw her again, and was very certain
she never did call afterwards. -
Cross-examined—When I met the young wom
at my door, I might have been away an hour before
I returned. It might hare been twelve or one when
she came.
William Henry Oakley, clerk to the registrar of
the Court of Probate, and cousin to the defendant,
said the defendant consulted him with regard to
the letters which had been read.
Mrs.,Thorp, the mother of the defendant, examined,
said—Emma Leigh was in my service. I gave her
notice to leave me on account of her being so fami-
liar with the men-servants. I had repeatedly com-
plained of that, and said that she should not go
out of the nursery and gossip with the men. The
man she talked to was Robert Hubble. I did not
' make her sleep in my room when my eon and Mr.