The Sun.
London, England, 1865-03-22 00:00:00

RI rilE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, MARCH 22, 18C

Court of Aldermen,

Yesterday a Court of Aldermen was held at Guildhall?
the Lord Mayor in the chair.

ABSENCE OF THE SHERIFFS.
When tire Sheriffs were called to give in their report
upon the state of the City prisons it appeared that both of
them were absent, and that there was no report in conse-
quence to be presented.

Mr. Alderman WILSON said he had been a member of the
Court for 30 years, and never during his experience had
the Sheriffs of the city failed to put in an appearance at
these meetings.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.—This Day,

-

WES TMINS TER.
DISGRACEFUL PERJURY.—Richard Mosert, a young man,
was charged with violently assaulting Martha Pink, a young
woman, who described herself as an ironer, and who exhi-
bited a black eye.

Complainant said that she had been last night to a benefit
ball at the Cremorne tap, and with her sister and mother
Went to Hungerfoid-bridge to see a young friend home.
Returning by the World's-end-passage the defendant
rushed out of a house and struck complainant in the eye
and kicked her.
In reply to questions from the Court, complainant said
that the defendant was at the ball, and there spat upon her
sister two or three times. None of the family had ever
given defendant the least provocation, and complainant
had no idea of the cause of the attack.

Defendant said that he had been a witness against com-
plainant's sister's young man for felony, and the accused
was sentenced to a long period of imprisonment. Since
then the complainant and all her family constantly insulted
him, and last night followed him to the King's Arms and
attacked him.

1 Complainant and her sister admitted that they came into
the King's Arms and had some ale, but denied seeing the
defendant.
-
Complainant's mother was called, and swore most posi-
tively that she and her daughters only passed through the
King's Arms, never stopped a second, and had no drink.
Mr. Arnold—Your daughters have sworn they had some
ale there.
The Mother—Well, if I speak the truth they did have a
glass of 'ale.
Mr. Arnold—Stand down. You are perfectly unworthy
of credit. I must have some disinterested testimony if
possible. I cannot act on this evidence. Defendant must
find a £5 bail for his appearance to-morrow.
Bail was put in.

THAMES.
FEMILE HIGHWAY ROBBEIL—Mary Ann Sullivan,
aged 28 years, was brought before Mr. Paget charged with
stealing 3s. 2d. from a little boy named Henry Goodbody.
The lad was in the employ of Mr. Roxborough, a trades-
man, who entrusted him with 3s. yesterday evening, and
sent him on an errand. The boy was met by the prisoner
at the entrance of a narrow court in Alie-street, White-
chapel. She slapped him and asked if he had any money
about him. The boy declined answering the question, and
she put her hand into his waistcoat, and took the 3s. he
had put there. She then searched his other pockets, and
took from one of them 2d. of his own money.
The boy called out for the police, and the prisoner and
another woman, who was standing at the corner of the
court when the robbery was committed, ran away. The
boy pursued the prisoner, who dodged him about the
courts and alleys with -which the locality abounds, and she
at last entered a public-house and made an attempt to con-
ceal herself. She was given into the custody of Police-
constable Rnackston, No. 200 11, to whom she gave two
sixpences, and she said that was all the money she pos-
sessed. She was searched in the poliee-station by a female,
and 2s. more found in her bosom. Some halfpence were
also found upon her.
Mr. Paget committed the prisoner for trial for highway
robbery.
STEALING TEA,--Wall
William Johnson, ship-keeper, and
Martha, his wife, wore brought before Mr. Paget, charged
with stealing 1 Ib. of tea from the ship Blencathra, in the
West India Dock.

The female prisoner was stopped by a dock constable,
named Cremer, yesterday afternoon, and a bag containing
11b. of tea was found concealed under her clothes. She
said her husband was the ship-keeper of the Bien-
cathra, a ship which was lately discharging a cargo of tea
in the dock. He confirmed her statement, and now said
that the tea was an overplus of some delivered to the
officers and men on board for their use, and he was
allowed to take it,

Mr, Paget, baying some doubts on the case, would giro:,
the prisoners the benefit of those doubts and discharge
them.

MARKETS-.-This Day.

MARK-LANE.
The arrivals of English wheat fresh up to our market
to-day were very moderate. The condition of the produce,
however, was good, and the trade generally was firm,
Monday's prices being well supported both as regards red
and white produce.
The supply of foreign wheat on the stands was very
7 ruled far from active;
I
nmeovdeerrtahteel.essThperitcreasdew,
were firm, though unaltered from
Monday. Good and flue Baltic wheats were chiefly in
request.
Floating cargoes of grain moved off steadily, at full cur-
rencies.

The supply of barley on sale was tolerably largo. The
demand for all qualities was in a sluggish state, yet no
change took place in prices.
Malt sold slowly, at previous quotations.
With oats the market was moderately supplied. On the
whole, the trade was dull, but good and flue samples
Prises
were unaltered,
rate request, at late
rcahtßieeestla.ynscoamndmpaneadsedwaetrteenintionb,ut

The flour trade was steady, on former terms.
ARRIVALS THIS WEEK.
Wheat.Barley.Malt. Oats. Flour.
English and Scotch., 590 1N 1,030 920 710
Irish rA 1,940
o
Foreign

brls.
COMPARATIVE QVANMEts AND PRICES OF GRAIN for the
Weekending March 18, 1865 i—Wheat, qrs., 70,688; average
88s Bd—barley, 41,679; 280 10(1,-oats, 7,614; 21i 4d.
Corresponding week in 1864 i—zWheati 77,432 ; 400 Id—
barley, 45,17wMA Bd—bats, 13,/97 od,

gaol carried out -without regard to whether the prisoners
were rich or poor men.
Mr. Alderman STONE observed that he was not for making
any distinction in the treatment of the rich and poor pri-
soners.

Mr. Alderman WILSON said the motion had evidently
been placed upon the paper by reason of the detention of two
highly respectable gentlemen in Newgate upon remand, and
who, while imprisoned there, had to eat their meals without
either knife or fork, and to clean their cells. Like men
about to be hanged, the use of knives and forks was denied
them, as if the authorities apprehended they would cut
their throats. This was a great indignity if they were inno-
cent ; but, instead of inflicting upon them this indignity,
the magistrate who remanded them might have admitted
them to bail, particularly when bail was offered in their
case to the extent of £50,000. Still, this was no reason why
any alteration in the treatment of prisoners at Newgate
should be made without first inquiring what were the regu-
lations at other gaols in similar cases. If Newgate was to be
made a respectable asylum for all classes, then the punish-
ment for crimes committed would cease to have effect. As
it was the gaol was much too comfortable. The prisoner had
a good bed there, excellent provisions, a table and chair,
washing utensils, and books to read.
Mr. Alderman SALOMONS-Why should not an untried
man have all that ?

Mr. Alderman WiLsoN—l da not say he should not have
it. I admit great hardship was done to the Messrs. Barry ;
but then it was in the power of the magistrate to mitigate
that by,liberating them on bail. Nevertheless, I say that
there is better accommodation in Newgate than the prison-
ers could get in any workhouse.
After a few words from Mr. Alderman STONE in reply,
who said he advocated the propriety of a general treatment
of the question, the motion was put and unanimously
passed.
The Court then adjourned.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.
OMNIBUS ROBBERY.--,lane Clark, a respectably-dressed
woman, in an advanced state of pregnancy, was charged
before Mr. Tyrwhitt with picking the pocket of Mrs. Amy
Massy, residing at Great Titchfield-street,
Mr, E. Lewis, of Great 3larlborough-street, appeared for
the defence.

Mrs. Massy said that while in an omnibus in Oxford-
street she put her hand into her pocket to see if her purse
was safe, when she found that the elastic band had been
slipped off and two sovereigns had been taken from it. The
Prisoner sat next to her in the omnibus. She got out and
spoke to the conductor, and told him that she had seen the
prisoner's hand in her pocket, and the prisoner was then
taken into custody. The prisoner denied taking the money.
The omnibus was searched, and the sovereigns were not
found at the time, but were subsequently.
Henry Taylor, a lad, proved that while in an Islington
omnibus a lady called his attention to a sovereign lying at
the bottom of the omnibus, and on stooping to pick it up
ho found a second. He gave them to the conductor of the
omnibus.

Mr. Lewis asked the constable whether the prisoner had
given the right name and address, and he said she had.
Mr. Lewis addressed the magistrate at some length on
prisoner's behalf, and said he was instructed that the pro-
secutrix in pulling out the pocket-handkerchief pulled out
the two sovereigns, and a gentleman remarked to her that
she had dropped something.

Mr. Tyrwhitt said he did not see how he could withdraw
the case from a jury, but he would take bail.
Mr. Lewis appealed to the magistrate to deal with pri-
soner, stating that she would plead guilty
Mr. Tyrwhitt committed the prisoner for two months,
with hard labour.

The Inspection of Convents

No nun or other inmate of the convent was ever impri-
soned or kept without food, or subjected to any ill-usage
whatever. No death ever occurred which was not duly
registered, and no one was ever buried except in a coffin of
the ordinary shape. •

As one result of this'correspondence, I trust, will be to
show that Roman Catholic gentlemen are not so indifferent
to the treatment of the inmates of convents in England as
you seem to suppose, I shall take the liberty of publishing
it. I am, Sir, your obedient servant,

C. LANGDALE, Jun,
C. N. Newdegate, Esq., M.P.

3, Arlington-street, Piccadilly, March 17.
Sir,—l have referred to your letter of the 13th, and to
• a copy of my reply, and I do not understand what you
mean, as applied to myself, by the following paragraph in
your letter of to-day :
" You decline, sir, to meet my challenge to have your
statement tested before a competent tribunal."
The statement which I made in the House of Commons,
and to which you refer, consisted in an avowed citation of
sworn evidence in my possession. That evidence was col-
lected, after an inquiry of about five months, by competent
persons for submission to the Court of Queen's Bench. The
only reason that it was not brought into court and there
tested by cross-examination was that it was found that the
nun, for whose liberation this preparation had been made,
had been removed from the convent to Staplehill, which
at the time when she was seen by direction of Judge Wight-
man, she refused to leave.
This evidence I proposed to submit to a committee of the
House of Commons, which was refused at the instance of
the Rorti;:n Catholic members of the house. Ido not, there-
fore, understandwhat you mean by the expression I have
quoted from your lett.:
of to-day. I have no wish to dis-
pute the sincerity of your b.... -.lief that the evidence in my
possession is untrue ; but you mad ;rest assured that I will
not submit this evidence to any tribun'a; L.,ut such as I con-
sider competent—such as a committee of the 11,;:ise of Com-
mons—since this evidence relates to events which o,Zurred

more than eight years ago.
I felt bound to reply to the Rev. Dr. Ullathorne, because
I named him in the House of Commons, and because ho
claims to be the Superior governing the convent at Colwich,
and was a party to the transaction to which the evidence
relates. I have thus far replied to you because you stated
that you have a relative in the convent at Colwich ; but I
will no further waive the privilege which guards freedom
of debate in the House of Commons, since I see plainly
that those connected with persons in these convents might

inflict a practical penalty upon all mention of convents by
any wember of the house, if the member who alludes to
them is to be held bound to appear before any tribunal
which persons who may deem themselyes affected by his
statement Might extemporise for his annoyance.
I have no wish to prevent your publishing this corre-
spondence if you think fit to do so, reserving, of pourse, the
same discretion to myself.

I have the honour to remain, Sir
Your obedient servant,
C. N. NEWDEGATE.
Tho Hon. C. Langdale, Jun., Stafford Club.
N.B.—My letter of the 17th was delivered by my servant
at the Stafford Club on the same day that Mr. C. Langdale's
second letter was received by me—i.e., on the 17th, which
date it bears. The following letter was received byme on
the 19th of March, at Arbury, near Nuneaton.

C. N. NEWDEGATE.

4, Queen-street, Mayfair, March 18,

Siry-=Your letter of yesterday has reached me, and I
regret that the previous portions of the correspondence has
already been C.lf_Asoatched to the following papers :—The
Times, Standard, and Daily Telegraph. I mention them in
case you wish to forward yours of yesterday for publica-
tion with the others.
I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
C. LAN4,7pALE, jun.
C. N. Newdegate, Esq., M.P.

GREAT FIRE AT STANGATE.—About half-past 11
o'clock last night a destructive fire broke out in the large
engineering and patent iron revolving shutter works be-
longing to the Messrs. Jennings, situate in the Palace-road,
Stangate, which burnt with such rapidity that in less than
half an hour the whole factory with its valuable stock and

The following correspondence appeared i
Times ..

3, Arlington-street, Piccadilly, March 15.
Sir,—l much regret to find that a mistake in the address
of my reply to your letter of the day before yesterday has
delayed your receipt of it. Tho report of the portion of my
speech Whicityou quote from the Standard may not be exactly
accurate ; but the general purport of the evidence from which
I cited that passage is very much to the effect of that report.
Had I not been in possession of the affidavits which con-
tain corroborate evidence to the effect, I should not have
cited the portion of the evidence to which you especially
refer.

I was sincerely anxious that this portion, as well as other
portions of the evidence, should be tested by the committee
for which I moved ; but the members who are of your re-
ligion voted against the inquiry I proposed, and if you feel
aggrieved that this evidence is not tested, you must blame
those who opposed my motion, not myself. I must, how-
ever, decline your application, as I declined Dr. Ullathorne's
invitation to visit the convent at Colwich. I was quite
prepared to submit the evidence from which I spoke on the
3d, and to which you refer, as part of the matter which a
Committee of the House of Commons should investigate,
but not as the sole matter of investigation. I cannot
consent to remove this matter from the House of Com-
mons for the purpose of having it investigated else-
where. Should you be in possession of evidence that will
refute that which I cited, I have no doubt that there
are members in the house who will undertake at your in-
stance to produce in the House of Commons that which
you may consider a refutation. Except for the sake of that
which I consider, and which was considered by at least 79
members who voted for my motion, an important public
object, I should never have referred to a subject, which
appears to have caused you and may have caused others
some annoyance ; but if my motion has no other effecethan
causing yourself and other gentlemen of the Roman
Catholic religion to devote more attention to the convents
in England, and to the treatment of their inmates, it will,
in my opinion, have been productive of at least one bene-
ficial result.—l have the honour to remain, Sir, your
obedient servant, C. N. NEWDEGATE. ]

Stafford Club, March 17.
Sir,—There has been some delay in your letter leaching
me in consequence of your having addressed it to my father,
who is unfortunately not equal to a prolonged correspon-
dence. This is the only reason for my undertaking what I
assure you I feel to be a painful duty.
You decline to meet my challenge to have your state-
ment tested by a competent tribunal. The case, therefore,
between us stands thus.
You, a gentleman and a magistrate for two counties,
charge a community of ladies living in your own district
with practices not merely wicked but felonious. You say
you can support this charge by 27 witnesses. You are
asked to come into court and have the case fully investi-
gated, and you decline to do so.
You, a gentleman and a member of Parliament, make a
statement in your place in the House of Commons, involv-
ing a grievous stain on the character of certain ladies, and
then, under the shelter of your privilege, you deny them
and their families the oppOrtunity of vindicating their
honour by disproving your charges.
After this, I am much mistaken if the public will deem
it a fitting reply on your part to appeal again to a committee,
which has already been refused by the House of Commons.
In default of this, you tell me you have no doubt 1 can find
some members who will undertake to produce " what I con-
sider a refutation." I incline to think that after the publi-
cation of this correspondence, no further refutation will be
necessary. But for the satisfaction of others, I will state
now on my honour what I would have proved, if you had
given me the opportunity, in:a court of justice.
That the statement of the girl named is a tissue of
falsehoods. The girl referred to was a Protestant child,
whom the nuns out of kindness allowed to attend their
day-school. She never was inside the convent in her life
further than the schoolroom, or perhaps the parlour.
There neither are, nor ever were, any underground cells.
The cellars which do exist are filled with wood, coals,
coke, roots, and bottles

The Stafford Club, Savile-row, March 13.
Sir,—My excuse for calling your attention to a state-
ment respecting the convent at Colwich in your speech in
the House of Commons on the 3d of March last, is that I
have a sister in that convent, where she has been a nun for
the last 20 years. She must, therefore, have been cogni-
zant of, or possibly a victim to, the atrocities you describe.
I hardly know which alternative is the more painful.
You must not imagine that the fact of her being a nun
makes my sister less dear to me. Her honour and well-
being are matters that concern me as nearly as ever.
Therefore, sir, I feel it a duty to call your attention to
the following extract from your speech, taken from the
Standard of March 4th. That statement (viz., "of a girl
named —") was, " that she saw nuns imprisoned in that
convent, that she knew them to be kept short of food, that
she saw one nun forced down into this underground cell—
that to the best of her belief she never came out alive. . . .
Now this evidence is corroborated by 27 witnesses. . . . It
was proved that there were more burials within this con-
vent than appeared on the register of deaths."
Now, Sir, do I understand you rightly ? Do you mean to
insinuate that, at any time during the last 20 years, any nun
or inmate of the convent at Colwich has been subjected to
the cruel treatment you describe, has been imprisoned in an
underground cell, has been left there till death ? Do you
mean to assert that during that period any nun or inmate of
that convent has been clandestinely buried ?Am Ito under-
stand that your 27 witnesses can prove all these charges
or any of them ? If this is your meaning, I call on you to
come out of your privileged position, and to make these
charges in such a way as will enable those whom you accuse
or their friends to test the truth of your statements.
I am, sir, your obedient servant,
CHARLES LANGDAT.R7 Jun,
To C. N. Newdegate, Esq., M.P.