The Sun.
London, England, 1862-12-03 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, DECEMBER 3, 1862.

amongst his constituents ; and, indeed, at that time,
in consequence of the rumours that were afloat, and
for some time afterwards, the public was disposed
to believe everything and anything that was said.
The result of the investigation before the benchers
was that they acquitted Mr Seymour of the charges
that had been brought against him, but they re-
buked and reproved him for what he had done.
About the same time that the decision was made
known it
reached his constituents at Southampton,
and on his arrival in that town for the purpose of
addressing them. he found that not only had the in-
formation reached the hands of many of his oppo-
nents there, but that they knew also the names of
the benchers who had voted, and how they had,
voted, and, mistaking the reproof the benchers, hia
opponents circulated in Southampton a report that
the benchers had found him guilty of the charges
that had been brought against him. He also found
the town placarded with insinuations respecting
this inquiry, at the instance of anonymous and
disappointed electors, and he was challenged at the
meeting to say if he had or had not been convicted
of the charges that had been made against him. Of
course, in the state of mind he was then in it was
hardly to be supposed that he would be able to
measure or weigh with that precision a man would in
cooler and calmer moments the words he used on that
occasion. He had undergone the most trying ordeal
that a professional man could possibly undergo.
He felt acutely the charges that had been made
against him at a time when promotion had been ac-
corded to him by the late Lord Campbell, and he
felt hurt that the rebuke which had been cast upon
him should have reached Southampton. He was,
therefore, unable to refrain from alluding to it, and
the address which he then delivered to his constitu-
ents in vindication of these unfounded charges had
also been made the matter of attack in this libel.
That was an outline of the circumstances relating
to Mr. Seymour to which the libel pointed, which
it was necessary for the jury to know before they
could fuliy understand and appreciate the malignity
of the attack complained of; and after he had read
the libel to them, he would ask them if it was a fair
and legitimate comment upon a man's public career,
or whether it was not a malignant and studied
attack upon a man for the purpose of crushing him.
He was not there to say one word against the
liberty of the press, for the action was brought for
no such purpose. On the contrary, it was for the
benefit of all that there should be free and
open discussion; but it was necessary for the
maintenance of the liberty of the press that
it should be carried on and kept within its proper
limits. He admitted that they might discuss in the
newspapers the public conduct of any public man,
from the highest subject in the realm to the lowest.
Every member of parliament might have his public
conduct criticised, and what they were doing then
in respect to this case might be properly criticised
by,the press, but it must take care not to go beyond
that. If, however, they went beyond that, and im-
puted corrupt motives to him, if they attacked him
in his private relations, and abused the liberty of
the press, such a person was liable to an action for
libel. If this paper or publication had contented it-
self with the mere criticism of Mr. Seymour's con-
duct in parliament, however severe it might have
been, provided it was bona fide, it would not have
been actionable, and the same applied with regard
to his professional career. A man, there-
fore, had no right to take, as the writer of this
article had done, rumours against an individual
and embody them in print as a charge against
him. The writer of this article had done so, and
had put these rumours into the form of an indict-
ment, for it was an indictment from the beginning
to the end, and attacking Mr. Seymour socially,
politically, and professionally. [The learned coun-
sel read the libel complained ot, and which, as it
would fill some four or five columns of our journal,
we cannot print.] The learned counsel in continua-
tion said he need hardly inform the jury that the
character of a professional man was essential to his
success. The article told the public that the plain-
tiff had gone through an ordeal painful enough of
itself to any one, that of answering charges arising
out of professional misconduct that occurred years
ago. He had been subjected to a severe censure
from the benchers, although they had found that
the charges were not proved, except in the one par-
ticular he had mentioned. The writer of the article
had not told the world upon what evidence the
benchers had come to their conclusion, so that they
might judge for themselves: but he had told Mr.
Seymour in this article that he ought to be no lon-
ger a member of the English bar. The writer hav-
ing thought proper to shield himself under the name
of the publisher, Mr. Seymour had no alternative
but to bring his action against that person, and
when the action was brought the defendant, instead
of offering an apology or a retraction, referred the
plaintiff to his solicitor, and in the following num-
ber was published another article on the subject,
which the learned counsel also read. It would be, I
he said, for the jury to say whether it was just and 1
fair comment. He called upon the jury to give to
the plaintiff substantial damages for this most ma-
lignant attack upon him, not because the plaintiff
wished to put any money into his pocket, but be-
cause the public in a case of that kind looked to the
amount of damages as an index of their mind upon
the question submitted to them. He hoped theresalt of
the trial would be that the jury by their verdict would
say there was r4o reasonable pretence for the writer's
stating that Mr. Seymour was a man unworthy to
belong to the profession of the law.
Mr. Keane handed in the publication containing
the libel, which he said was admitted by the de-
fendant. He called

Mr. Seymour, who deposed—l am the plaintiff.
lam a Q.C., and member for Southampton. My
father was a cleryman of the Established Church
in Ireland. I was educated at Trinity College,
Dublin, and graduated with honours. In 1846,
when at the age of 23, I was called to the bar. I
practised on the Northern Circuit. I attended the
sessions at Newcastle, Northumberland, and Dur-
ham; and afterwards Leeds and other places. I
had a large business at these sessions, and I was
entrusted with Crown prosecutions. I was
elected M.P. for Sunderland at the general elec-
tion in 1852. I was appointed Recorder of
Newcastle in 1854. I cannot connect that ap-
pointment with any vote I gave in Parliament.
I know it was stated that the appointment had some
relatio❑ to a vote I gave on the Foreign Enlist-
ment Bill. I had voted in favour of the measure
previously to the recordership becoming vacant or
of there being any probability of it. I had told my
constituents before that I should support the mea-
sure. My vote was not at all influenced by the ap-
pointment. I was not re-elected for Sunderland. I
was elected for Southampton at the general election
in 1859. Between the two elections I continued to
be in extensive practice both in London and on
circuit. My practice steadily and considerably in-
creased. I was appointed Q.C. to the County Pala-
tine of Lancaster by Mr. Baron Martin, with the
assent of Mr. Baron Wilde, who was travelling
circuit with him. The appointment received his
express sanction. Both these learned judges were
members of the Northern Circuit at the time I
joined it, and continued so till their elevation to the
bench. In the spring of 1860 I drew a bill and
brought it into the House of Commons, relative to
the Admiralty jurisdiction. Tr,at bill passed the
House of Commons before I was appointed Q.C.,
and had gone up to the Lords. It received the ap-
proval of Lord Brougham and Lord Cran worth, but
it did not pass the Lords. I gave notice in 1861 of
my intention to again introduce the bill. I after-
wards received a letter from the late Lord Camp-
bell, to the effect that he approved of the measure.
I gave way, and the bill was introduced into the
House of Lords. I then considered it a Government
measure. It ultimately passed, and is now the law
of the land. Lord Campbell's letter was dated the
14th February, and on the 19th I received a notifi-
cation from his lordship that I had got rank as
Q.C. I was app Anted in 1861. A large number
of gentlemen were appointed at the same time ;
amongst them several of my contemporaries on my
own circuit, with whom I had attended sessions and
fought the battle of business for many years. There
was no political pressure used or bargain made as
to my appointment as Q.C. As to pressure, I
should have thought it hard if had I been passed
over, considering those who were to be appointed.
The Lord Chief Justice—You say no pressure
was used ?

Plaintiff—None, luy lord, directly or indirectly.
Mr. Keane—And
that Lord Campbell e
waspr
eiete
eever i cs
roengvreeyt eadt
ht oa
vyi
no
gu
apppolainintetdiff—youu
nCitilCiPsaw it in the article referred to
I never had any season to suppose so. I went to
e daddressng s thtaot mh
had
constituentstake taken
place
proceedings IS or ue
ft
ehrar me
dp tt on ns,oamn de
before the benchers of the Middle Temple, part of
which is published in this article. I found the town
placarded when I got there, together with a copy of
the benchers voting. It had been industriously cir-
culated about the town. The statement in the article
as to the manner in which I received the intimation
of the so-called merciful view of the benchers is an
entire perversion of what occurred. I heard the
judgment, as I call it, read over to me when I came
into the room. When it was over I said, " I thank
the benchers for their finding with regard to the
principal charges." I then referred to the observa-
tions on Robertson's case, and I said that, although
they acquitted me with romantic generosity because
I consented to set him free from an engagement
which he had entered into at our common risk, many
years would not roll over before they would be pre-
pared to admit that they had not done justice to my
motives or my character. I may have spoken with
feeling ; but I certainly shed no tears. If I acted
in an abject spirit I was not conscious of it. I wrote
the protest in Jan., 1862, and on my return from

Southampton I added the poqtscript. My voting in
Parliament had nothing to do with my getting silk,
The Lord Chief Justice—You were at that time
then supporting the Government generally?
Plaintiff—Yes; I supported the Government both
by my speeches and votes. I published a hook
for private circulation with reference to these
charges. There were several names mentioned in
it, and these persons objected to its publication.
On my pressing them strongly they withdrew their
objection, and I then sent copies to my friends, to
the members of the House of Commons of position
and influence, to the members of the House of Lords,
to various members of the bar, and to many of my
friends who wished a copy for the clubs.
Mr. Sergeant Shee proceeded to cross-examine
the plaintiff, but had not concluded it when the court
rose.

The further hearing of the ease was adjourned
to this day (Wednesday).

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

HOME CIRCUIT.—MAIDSTONE, DEC. 2.
(Before Mr. Justice Byles.)

EXTRAORDINARY CHARGE OE MANSLAUGHTER.

Major Murton, 52, a respectable-looking man,
who has been for a great many years engaged in
extensive basiness as a farmer, near Chatham, was
charged upon the coroner's inquisition with the
manslaughter of his wife, Lena Murton.
Mr. Russell conducted the prosecution; the pri-
soner was defended by Mr. Ribton.
Mr. Russell, in stating the case to the jury, said
prisoner occupied a farm called Port Lodge, near
Chatham, and he had been married to the deceased,
who was about his own age, for 30 years at the
time thn occurrence took place that was the subject
of inquiry. He said he believed it would appear
in the course of the case that the deceased was
addicted to drink, and that at the time of her death
she was suffering from an affection of the liver and
the kidneys. In other respects, however, she was
healthy ; but supposing the jury should be of
opinion that these ailments had anything to do With
her death, it was right he should inform them that
it was an undoubted principle of law that if the
death of any one was accelerated, even in the
smallest possible degree, by an act of violence com-
mitted by another, the offence would amount to
murder or manslaughter, according to the peculiar
circumstances of the case.

The fallowing evidence was then adduced :
Mrs. E. V. Walter said—l live with my husband
at Chatham. The prisoner is my father, and the
deceased was my mother. On Thursday, Oct. 23, I
saw my father at Chatham, and in consequence of
something that I heard I made up my mind to go
to Witchling, where my father and mother lived
and occupied a farm, called Port Lodge. Port
Lodge is 15 miles from Chatham. I set out on foot,
and my father overtook me in a cart. He had two
women in the cart with him, named Elizabeth
Whitbread and Sarah Collier. I got into the cart
and rode with them to Port Lodge, and we arrived
there about 11 o'clock at night. There was only one
servant in the house, and the only other person who
was there at this time was my mother. When we
got to the house my father and the two girls went
into the parlour, which was the best room. My
mother was in the kitchen. My father ordered some
bread and cheese and ale to be taken into the par-
lour, and this was done, and he and the girls had
supper together, while my mother was sitting in the
kitchen. They were about half an hour at supper,
and then my father went to bed with one of the
girls, Elizabeth Whitbread. Before this he had
said it was time to go to bed, and Whitbread said
she would not go to bed while my mother was in the
house, and she also said that if she had known she
had been there she would not have accompanied
my father home. When she said this my father be-
came very excited, and said he would soon clear
the house, and went into the kitchen where my
mother was sitting. He had a hunting whip in his
hand, and he struck my mother with it on the head.
He held the thong and the handle in his hand, and
he struck her with both, but it was only a slight
blow. When he struck her he said to her, " Get
out, or I will kick you out." My mother did not offer
to rise from her chair, and the prisoner laid hold
of her by her arm, and pulled her out of the chair,
and threw her across the room, and she fell down.
He then took up the tongs that were in the fire-
place, and struck my mother across the thigh with
them. He struck her once, and it appeared to be a
hard blow. When he did this I interfered, and
called assistance, but no one came, and I stood before
my mother in order that my father might not strike
her again. The house at Port Lodge is rather lonely,
and there are very few other houses near it. I went
out to see if I could obtain any assistance, leaving
my mother sitting on the floor, and when I returned
she was in the same position, and I got her up as
well as I could and put her into the servant's bed.
I cannot say the exact time my father went to bed,
but he did so very soon afterwards. I have no doubt
that the girl Whitbread slept with him, as I saw
her in his bed in the morning. My mother did not
get up until about noon on the 24th, and she com-
plained of pains and said that she was very poorly,
and she went to bed and got up two or three hours
during the day. She continued to complain until
the Sunday following, and she was taken on that
day to the house of Mrs. Clifford, the sister of our
servant. I returned to Chatham on the Sunday, and
before I left the two girls, Whitbread and CiAlier,
went out for a ride in the pony cart. I did not see
my mother again until the Thursday afterwards,
and she was then very ill indeed, and appeared to
me to be in a dying state. On the Saturday before
her death she told me that she was going very fast,
and she made a statement to me afterwards.

The witness was about to give the statement, but
Mr. Ribton interposed and objected that it was not
legally admissible.
Mr. Justice Byles inquired of the witness when
the deceased died.

She replied that she died on the day following
that on which she made the observation that she
was going very fast, and she made the statement to
which she referred only a few hours before her death.
Mr. Justice Byles said he was of opinion that un-
der these circumstances the statement was admissi-
ble as a dying declaration made by the deceased.
proceeded with her evidence.
before my mother died she said
About The witness
three hours
to me, " That wicked man (meaning the prisoner)
has been the cause of my death." She afterwards
said that he had caused her death by turning her
hthrsen
out of the house. A week before the 23d of
Oct,ber, and down to that time, my mother was
quite well, and performed all her usual occupations
about the house, and assisted the servant in wash-
ing and churning. She was a little addicted to
drinking, but I had not seen her intoxicated for
some time before the day in question. She was
quite sober at the time my father acted towards her
in the way I have described. On the day before
her death she complained of pain in the thigh,
where the prisoner had struck her with the tongs,
and she showed me a mark.
Cross-examined--I believe my father and mother
were married, but a short time back I heard my
father say they were not. They were always consi-
dered as man and wife, They did not live very hap-
pily, and I believe something had been said to the
effect that my mother was to leave him and go to
live at another farm a short time before the 23d of
October, but the place was not ready to receive her,
and it was arranged that she should go temporarily
to Mrs. Clifford's. lam not aware that the reason
why my father and mother lived unhappily was
her being addicted to drink. At one time my father
wanted me to go to Port Lodge and be his house-
keeper, but 1 would not leave my husband. The
girl Whitbread had been known by our family from
a child, and when I saw my father at Chatham on
the 23d of October, I understood from him that he
was going to take her as housekeeper, and that she
was to accompany him home at night, and the other
girl (Collier) was merely to go with her. I also
heard him say something to the effect thiA my
mother had either gone, or was to go, on the fol-
lowing morning. My father asked me to ride with
them when he overtook me on the road, and I did
so, although it was very improper that he should
take the girls home with him. After I put my
mother to bed I went into the room where my
father and the two girls were at supper, and I had
some tart, and also drank some ale with them. The
girl Collier slept in the same room with me that
night. It was after they had supped that Whit-
bread said she would not come with my father if
she had known that my mother was there. I do
not remember saying when I was before the magis-
trate that my father struck my mother on the
shoulders and not on the head.
Mr. Justice Byles said he thought that in the in-
terest of justice he ought to put the deposition she
had made previously into her hand, in orde: that
she might see what she really did say, and he ac-
cordingly did so. _ _

Thewitnesshaving looked at the deposition said
—I remember now that the prisoner struck my mo-
ther on the shoulders with the thong of the whip,
and he did not strike her on the head. I also said
that he threatened to chuck her out of the house,
and I made a mistake when I stated that he said
that he would kick her out. My mother was a large
stout woman. I swear that he did not lift her out
of the chair in order to assist her to bed. The two
girls drove out on the Sunday by themselves. I be-
lieve that some arrayarrangement had beenpreviously
made that my mother should go to Mrs. Clifford's
until the other place was ready for her.
g
Re-examined—During all the time my father and
mother lived together they were reputed to be man
and wife, and
it was not until two or three months
ago that I heard my father say they were not mar-
ried. My mother never said anything to me to the
same effsct, but on the contrary, two or three hours

before her death, I put the question to her, and she
told me that she and my father were married. I
never heard that my mother had consented to leave
the house, and so fur as 1, could judge she had no
intention of doing so. I knevi the character of
Whitbread, and I thought she was a very improper
person for my father to take into his house.
Harriet Russell said—l was servant to the pri-
soner at the time in question, I remember his
having to go to Chatham on 'Wednesday, Oct. 22,
and before he went away he told me to preOre the
best parlour, as he should bring a friend home
that night. He did not return Oft the Wednesday
night, but he came home on the Thursday night,
accompanied by the two girls and the witness.
Mr. Robinson, a surgeon at Brompton, near
Chatham, proved that he saw the deceased on the
day before her death, and she showed him a bruise
on her left thighs which was as large as the crown
of a hat. She was evidently sinking at this time,
and died on the following morning, Upon a post
mortent examination he discovered that the liver
was very much enlarged; and the heart and kidneys
were eleo very considerably diseased. She might,
however; have lived a considerable time notwith-
standing the diseased condition of these organs; and
he expressed his opinion, founded upon the evidence
he had heard, that her death had been accelerated
by the shock to her system that was occasioned by
tha violence inflicted on her by the prisoner on the
night in question. He also said that the liver of the
deceased being in the condition he had stated was
very likely to be severely influenced by such a cause
as the one referred to.
Mr, Joy, another medical gentleman, gave evi-
dence of a similar character, and this closed the case
for the prosecution.
Mr. Ribton having addressed the jury on behalf
of the prisoner,
Several witnesses were called, who gave the pri-
soner the character of being a kind and humane

Egan.
Ihe Jury in a quarter of an hour returned a ver-
dict of guilty.
Sentence was deferred.

OXFORD CIRCUIT—STAFFORD, Dec. 2.

(Before Mr. Justice Mellor.)
James M'Donald, 20, striker, and James Howlett,
18, striker, were convicted of feloniously assaulting
Joseph Roberts on the 2d November at Wolver-
hampton, and stealing from his person three halt-
crowns.
The prisoners watched the prosecutor lease a
onffeehouse at about one in the morning, and in a
much frequented thoroughfare, and in the sight of at
least three passers-by who were only 10 yards off,
garotted and robbed him of 7s. 6d.
Sentence, four years' penal servitude each.
Henry Ciwynne, 30, boat-builder, was convicted
of two burglaries, the one on the 28th and the other
on the 31st of July, at Tipton, both on the pre-
mises within 10 yards of his own house.
Mr. Justice Mellor sentenced the prisoner to be
transported for 12 years.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS, Dec. 2.

(Before the Assistant Judge.)

I BAD BOY.-IMPRISONMENT WITH TWO vnurriNcis.
Wm. Small, 14, was found guilty of stealing six
pairs of slippers, value 65., the property of Robert
Steel, while hanging up just inside the shop, round
the window.

The father of the prisoner said he was a very
bad boy. He was a dairyman, and had a milk
walk. He had employed the boy, but it was no use,
for he would run away; and further, he had taught
the younger children to steal thiags at home, so
that he had to send him away to his aunt. The
boy had been run over, and both his hands were
crippled, so that if he was inclined to work, it was
not overy kind of employment that would suit him.
His lordship regretted he could not send him t o
a reformatory, as he was over 14 and crippled. He
would however send him to the House of Correc-
tion for six months, to be there employed in suit-
able labour, and during that period he would be
twice well whipped with the birch, 18 stripes to be
given at each whipping. As his father was will-
ing to receive him at the termination of his impri-
sonment, he would be forwarded to his house to be
then dealt with by him.

ENTRY WITH FALSE KEYS AND ROBBERY'.
Wm. Geo. Pybus, '2O, labourer, was indicted for
stealing a timepiece, value £6, the property of
James Crocker.

The prisoner pleaded Guilty.
The prosecutor was a furniture mover, and the
timepiece produced had been taken from his house
by means of entry with false keys. A police con-
stable found the timepiece in prisoner's possession,
as he was walking away with it, and he had an
open knife up his sleeve. A former conviction was
proved against the prisoner.
His lordship said he was a daring thief, and sen-
tenced him to three years' penal servitude.
John Roberts, 55, commercial traveller, pleaded
Guilty to stealing two blankets and other articles,
the property of Richard Jenkins. There was also
a second charge against him of stealing four blan-
kets and other articles, the property of Thomas
Vaughan.
The Prisoner said he was actuated by distress to
the commission of the robbery.
Sentence—Six months' imprisonment, with hard
labour.

William Barrett this day appeared in the court in
discharge of his recognisances. It will be remem -
bored about two sessions ago this defendant was
charged with a misdemeanour, together with two
other persons, he being the owner of a house of a
disorderly character, and the two latter persons
with being the occupiers of the same. llr.Barrett
was a man well-known in the parish of St George-
in-the-East, and took an active part in the proceed-
ings which were instituted b 3 the parish authori-
ties against the Rev Bryan King for Puseyite
practices ; he had served the office of churchwar-
den and overseer, and had been a member of the
vestry ever since the passing of the Metropolitan
Local Management Act. At the trial a doubt was
raised whether the owner of a disorderly house
could be made jointly responsible with the occu-
pier, and the question was reserved for the decision
of the Court of Criminal Appeal, and that court
decided that he was not liable, and the conviction
of this court was reversed.

The A.,sistant Judge said—The point of law which
was reserved in your case has been decided by the
Court of Criminal Appeal in your favour, and I
have now to order your recognisances to be dis-
charged. At the same time I should think I failed
in my duty if I did not caution you as to your fu-
ture conduct. It seems strange that a person who
bas filled the offices of overseer and church.
warden in his parish should be a party to receiving
the proceeds of profligacy in the shape of rent, for
such tenants as these. The law requires something
more than you have done to bring a person within
its operation, you must be careful not to overstep
the line, for if you do you may find yourself con-
victed of the misdemeanour for which you have
been tried.
Mr. Barrett said—Your lordship must recollect
that at the trial it was stated I had already paid
upwards of £lOO for turning some persons of this
character out of one of my houses, and I shall now
pay as much for not interfering. But in justice to
myself I most solemnly assert that these persons
were not my tenants. They were tenants to a per-
son who had been my tenant for nine or ten years,
and I knew nothing of their proceedings.
The Assistant-Judge—lt passes the bounds of
human credulity to believe that you, who were
taking the rent weekly, could be ignorant of the
vile trade of these people,
Mr. Poland (counsel for the prosecution) said a
written notice was given to him.
Mr. Barrett--It was left in a letter-box, or put
under the door, and 1 never saw it until this pro-
secution was instituted,

The Assistant Judge—Well, I advise you to be
more eat eful for the future.
PRESENTMENT OF THE GRAND JURY.

At the conclusion of the duties of the grand jury
the Foreman said it was the desire of his brother
jurors to make to his lordship a presentment, and to
express a hope that he would present it to the Go-
vernment with a desire that some remedy would be
provided for the evils which prevailed. It was as
follows :

.6 We, the grand jury, now assembled at the Ses-
sions House, Clerkenwell, cannot terminate our offi-
cial duties without intimating our opinion to the
court that the serious outrages upon persons, and
the robberies now so openly and unceasingly perpe-
trated in the streets of the metropolis, demand the
immediate attention of the Government, and espe-
cially the attention of the Secretary of State for the
Home Department.

" We consider it one of the most important duties
of a Government to adopt means best calculated to
repress crime, and to afford due protection to the
lives and property of the people ; and we have ob-
served with anxiety and alarm the modern system
sanctioned by the Government of remitting a portion
of the sentence of imprisonment passed upon con-
victed criminals, supplying them with tickets-of-
leave, and in our opinion thereby affording facilities
for again inflicting gross outrages upon persons and
property.
" We consider the present alarming state of
inse-
curity to person and property, and the manifest
in-
ability of the police, under present regulations: dulywhich
to protect the public from the gross outrages
are constantly occurring to the scandal of
he means
o
the me-
tropolis, to reflect upon the competency
hitherto adopted by the Government render effec-
tive the police force, and we consider that the large
amount annually paid for the maintenance
of that

force entitles those who pay it to demand adequate
protection for themselves and others.
" We consider any system of management in her
Majesty's gaols to be most reprehensible which per•
mits connoted criminals and felons to enjoy a better
dietary and more advantages than are afforded to
the aged and unfortunate poor in many of the unions
and parochial workhouses, and we think the atten-
tion of the Secretary of State for the Home De-
partment should be directed to so patent and disre-
putable a fact.
" We consider that all punishments awarded by a
criminal court should, except in special cases, be
fully carried out, and we think that any interfer-
ence with sentences passed by the judges or the
magistrates, unless it can be shown that such sen-
tences were improper, are likely to prove bad in
principle and mischievous in effect ; nor can we
avoid observing that such interference appear to us
to be an affront to justice, the law, and its officers.
"We very respectfully requestthe Court will order
that this, or a copy of this, our memorial or pre-
sentment, be forwarded to the Secretary of St,te
for the Home Department, with our further request
that he will submit the same to the consideration of
her Majesty's Government,
" THOMAS BLAILEMAN, Foreman

"Dec. 2, 1862. (On behalf of the Jury)."
The Assistant Judge said it gave him great
satisfaction to receive the presentment of the grand
jury, and he would have pleasure in forwarding it
for the consideration of her Majesty's Government.
The grand jury were then discharged with the
thanks of the county for their services.