The Sun.
London, England, 1862-06-07 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—June 6.

JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF PRIVY
COUNCIL.

THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTER AND THE REV. DUN•
BAR HEATH.-JUDGMENT.

In this case, as it originally stood in the Court of
Arches, to which it was taken by letters of request
from the Consistory Court of Winchester, the office
of the judge was promoted by Mr. John Burder, of
Parliament-street, the secretary to the Bishop of
Winchester, against the Rev. Dunbar Isidore Heath,
M.A., Vicar of Brading in the Isle of Wight, who
published a volume of 19 sermons "on important
subjects," containing doctrines, as was alleged, con-
trary to the articles and creeds contained in the
Book of Common Prayer. The case was heard at
great length by Dr. Lushington, the Dean of the
Court of Arches, who eventually found that the
charges against him were true, and sentenced him
to deprivation from-his benefice:
From that sentence Mr. Heath'appealed to the
Judicial Committee of Privy Council. Having
heard the case sevt ral weeks since, their lordships
assembled at four o'clock this afternoon to deliver
judgment.
There were present—The Archbishop of York,
the Bishop of London, Lord Justice Knight Bruce,
Lord Justice Turner, and Lord Cranworth.
Lord Cranworth delivered judgment. He said
their lordships had been called upon to ascertain
whether certain opinions held and published by Mr.
Heath, the appellant, were or were not contrary and
repugnant to the articles of religion and the
creed of the Church of :England. The charges
against Mr. Heath, although of an ecclesi-
astical character, were offences under the
statute. Their lordships must look to the
statute entirely, for they must not enter into
the inquiry whether or not the articles were
conformable to the Scriptures. All they had to do
was-Ist. To ascertain on the ordinary principles
of construction what was the true meaning of any
article alleged to be infringed. 2d. What was the
true interpretation of the language of Mr. Heath.
3d. Whether by such language he had contradicted
the language of the articles and creeds. Dr. Lush-
ington, after hearing the case, came to a conclusion
adverse to Mr. Heath, believing that the volume of
sermons complained of contained doctrines irrecon-
cilable with the articles and creeds, and sentenced
him to deprivation unless Mr. Heath would consent
to revoke his errors. Against that decision Mr.
Heath appealed, and the case was argued before
their lordships last March. Their lordships had
given every attention to the case, and were now
prepared to state the advice which they would give
to her Majesty on the subject. The specific charge
was that Mr. Heath had published nineteen ser-
mons contradictory of the articles settled by Con-
vocation in 1562. It had been doubted, during the
hearing of the appeal, whether the sermons had
ever been preached or not, but that had really no-
thing to do with the case, for Mr. Heath was
charged with the publication of the sermons, and
no particular mode of publication had been indi-
cated. It had also been argued that whatever
might be technically the merits of the volume in
question, Mr. Heath did not advisedly maintain
doctrine inconsistent with the articles, and it was
said that those only were affected by the statute who
avowedly declared that the articles were unsound.
Dr. Lushington refused to hear any argument of that
sort, and their lordships thought he was right. They
came now, therefore, to the substantial point in dis-
pute, whether or not Mr. Heath opposed the articles
of 1562. If the statements made by Mr. Heath
could be reconciled with those articles Mr. Heath
would be absolved, but if his language was in-
consistent with and subversive of them, then the
decision of the Court of Arches must he affirmed.
The first charge against Mr. Heath had reference to
the 11th Article, that on justification by faith. The
learned judge below considered that Mr. Heath had
stated that which was inconsistent with the article,
and with that opinion their lordships agreed. They
did not believe, as had been urged by 11iIr. Heath's
counsel, that his phrases were irrational in the sense
of being incapable of having a meaning affixed to
them. (Lord Cranworth quoted largely from Mr.
Heath's sermons in support of this view, particularly
from the 14th and 19th.) Their lordships had been
most anxious to find something in these sermons
which would be consistent with the articles, but they
had been unable to find anytbing, for Mr. Heath had
given an entirely new version of justification by
faith, which was not contemplated by the article.
He held the doctrine not of justification by faith in
Christ, but justification by the faith of Christ him-
self. Their lordships understood him to deny alto-
gether the doctrine of justification by faith in Christ
as insisted upon in the article. The first charge
against Mr. Heath then appeared to their lordships
to be made out, and they found nothing in any other
part of the volume to inddce them to alter that
opinion, although in the fourth sermon he made
some remarks on justification which appeared to
come more closely within the meaning of the article.
The next charge which the appellant was called upon
to answer was, that by sermons 8,9, 15, 18, and 19,
he had affirmed doctrines contrary to the 2d and 31st
Articles, which referred to the sacrifice of Christ,
and the oblation he made upon the cross ; and
which stated that he was dead and buried, and made
a full perfect propitiation and sacrifice for the sins
of the whole world. Now, proceeding., as they
were bound to do, to put a construction upon these
articles, their lordships had no doubt that they
clearly laid down the doctrine that Christ died to
reconcile us to God, and that his redemption
was complete. Mr. Heath's views were diametri-
cally opposed to such views (Lord Cranworth quoted
passages in which Mr. Heath denied the sacrifice
altogether, and characterised such a doctrine as
"detestable.") It was not for their lordships to in-
quire whether Mr. Heath himself had clear views
upon those points, all they had to consider was
whether he negatived and denied the articles. They
were of opinion that he did so; and they must, there-
fore, hold the second charge against him proved.
The third charge was founded on several passages
in the 16th sermon, which were alleged to contra-
vene the Bth Article, affirming the Apostles' Creed
on the forgiveness of sins, the Nicene Creed on
baptism, and as also being repugnant to the 16th
and 27th Articles. The articles in question said
that men had fallen into sin, that by baptism we
were cleansed, and that by the blood of Christ men
might be redeemed. But the whole scope of Mr.
Heath's sermon was, that there could not be in the
Christian dispensation anything like forgiveness of
sins, although there might be remission of sin, which
he considered a totally different thing. He con-
tended that forgiveness of sins had nothing to do
with the Gospel—that God's scheme was remission,
and that no scheme at all would be necessary for
forgiveness. It was impossible, with every inclina-
tion to put a favourable construction on its lan-
guage, not to come to the conclusion that Mr. Heath
rejected altogether the doctrine of forgiveness,
whereas it was in that sense we were taught in the
Creed to say—" I believe in the forgiveness of sins."
It was true that the word :n the Nicene Creed was
remission, but it was used in the sense of forgive-
ness. On these grounds their lordships concurred
with the Court below, that the third charge, like
the other two, had been proved. The remaining
charge was of a somewhat different character, and
was framed on the language at the commencement
of the 12th sermon. He said that old philosophic
terms, not warranted by Scripture, had been im-
ported into the articles, and that these terms dark-

ened and confused the 'otherwise comfortin
state-
ments of Holy Scripture. He cited, amongst other
phrases, " guilt of sin," " satisfaction," " necessary
to salvation." The danial of these phrases, their lord-
ships held, contravened the articles to which they
related. He also objected to the phrases " immor-
tality of the soul," " going to Heaven," " going to
hell," but it did not appear to their lordships that
he meant to deny the doctrine of everlasting life or
everlasting rewards and punishments. Reviewing
the whole case, their lordships had come to the con-
clusion that Mr. Heath had published doctrines
contrary and repugnant to the Articles of 1562—
that he had denied that Christ's blood was shed as
a propitiation and satisfaction for sin ; and had
affirmed that these phrases, " guilt of sin," " satis-
faction," &c., had been forced into the articles with-

out any sanction from Scripture. Their lordships
wished to state that their attention had been drawn
to a letter which Mr. Heath had addressed to the
Bishop of Winchester, stating that he had not ad-
visedly or knowingly taught or published anything
contrary to the articles, and that if it could be shown
where he had done so he would retract the expres-
sions. Their lordships had now to ask whether
Mr. Heath was prepared unreservedly to revoke the
passages which had been quoted, and which their
lordships held to be contrary to the articles, before
they proceeded to discharge the only remaining
part of their duty. Otherwise their lordships would
feel bound to advise her Majesty that the sentence
of the Court of Arches must be affirmed. Under
any circumstances Mr. Heath must ray the costs of
of this appeal.

Dr. Phillimore, on the part of his client, said that
Mr. Heath had been present and had heard their
lordships' judgment. He might perhaps like to
answer for himself.
Mr. Heath rose and said—l have nothing to re-
voke, my lords.

Her Majesty Will therefore confirm the sontence
of deprivation from his living which the Court of
Arches pronounced,-and the vicarage of Brading
will be declared vacant.
The benefice is worth between £6OO and £7OO

year, and is in the gift of the masters and fellows
of Trinity College, Cambridge.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before Sir C. Cresswell.)
GRIFFITHS V. GRIFFITHS,
This was a suit instituted by the wife for a dis-
solution of marriage on, the ground of cruelty and
adultery, to which there was no appearance on the
part of the respondent.
Mr. Day and Mr. Serle were counsel for the peti-
tioner.
The parties were married in October, 1854, the
petitioner at the time being living with her mother,
who was a person of some means, and the respon-
dent being employed as barman to his father, who
was a publican. After the marriage they lived in
the Edgware-road, and the alleged cruelty com-
menced from a very early period, and consisted
of threatening to strike the petitioner with an
iron bar a month before her confinement, and
other acts of violence, in consequence of which
the petitioner was delivered of a still-born child.
The respondent then went to America, but in
June last was seen by the brother of the peti-
tioner in a cab with a female, and he was traced
to a house in Gloucester-street, Theobald's-road,
where he was living with a woman under the
name of Jackson. He admitted to the petitioner's
brother his having formed this adulterous connexion.
Decree nisi with costs.
GLOVER V. GLOVER AND BLACK.
This was a suit instituted by the husband for
a divorce on the ground of his wife's adultery with
the co-respondent, and there was no defence.
Mr. Huddlestone, Q.C., and Mr. Mereweather
appeared for the petitioner.
The evidence was to the effect that the parties
were married at the parish church of Stepney some
years back, and after cohabiting for some time they
removed to Holloway. They were separated twice
in consequence of differences between them, the last
time in January last, when the respondent went to
reside at St. John's-wood. The co-respondent was
in the habit of visiting her every evening, and ulti-
mately the respondent went to Notting-hill to live,
and there she gave birth to a child, which she stated
to one of the witnesses was Mr. Black's.
Decree nisi with costs.
AVILA V. AVILA.
This was a petition by the wife praying for a
judicial separation on the ground of her husband's
adultery, and the respondent pleaded denial.
Dr. Spinks and Mr. Serle were counsel for the
petitioner, and Mr. Inderwick represented the
respondent.
It appeared from the evidence for the petitioner
that the parties were married in 1859, and had lived
happily together for two years. In 1861 they were
residing at Mile-end, where the respondent was
employed as an assistant at a pawnbroker's, and in
the course of that year a Mrs. Travers came to the
house with a child, which she stated was Mr. Avila's,
and the result of an improper intimacy between him
and her daughter. The petitioner left the house
after this occurrence, and had not since resumed
cohabitation with the respondent.
The witnesses were cross-examined at some
length, but no evidence was called for the defence.
The Court reserved judgment.
GREENWOOD V. GREENWOOD.
In this case the wife originally petitioned the
Court for a dissolution of marriage on the ground
of cruelty and adultery, to which the respondent
appeared, and denied the allegations. The charge
of cruelty was abandoned, and the petition was con-
sequently limited to a prayer for judicial separation.
Mr. O'Malley, Q.C., and Dr. Wambey, were
counsel for the petitioner ; and Dr. Spinks attended
for the respondent.
It appeared that the parties were married in June,
1859, and lived happily for some time, but the wife,
suspecting her husband, who represents himself to
be a commercial traveller, had him watched. She
then discovered that he was in the habit of visiting
a female named Ann Webb, at a place called Rose-
village, at Uxbridge, and subsequently it was ascer-
tained that he had frequently committed adultery
with this person.
The ease was fully proved and the Court pro-
nounced a decree of judicial separaticn.
TRUWHITT V. TRUNVIIITT AND FISH.
This was a suit instituted by Mr. Chas. Trnwhitt,
a solicitor, for a dissolution of marriage, on the
ground of adultery; and there was no appearance
on the part of the co-respondent. The respondent
appeared, and pleaded denial of the adultery ; that
the petitioner treated her with violence, and deserted
her; that he conduced by his misconduct to the
adultery alleged; and that he was in collusion with
the co-respondent.
Dr. Spinks and Mr. Hance were counsel for the
petitioner • and Mr. Garth, Q.C., and Mr. Serle for
the respondent.
Dr. Spinks said that the parties were married at
St. Luke's, Chelsea, in December, 1850, and resided
at Chelsea, Gravesend, and elsewhere, until 1853.
The husband was in very good practice, but unfor-
tunately the wife contracted habits of intemper•
ance, and she frequently came to his office in a
state of intoxication, which had the effect of destroy.
ing his business. The respondent's conduct became
so violent that the petitioner determined to leave
the country, and went to Australia. Prior to his
departure he made provision for his wife, by placing
£52 in the hands of Mr. Odey, a solicitor, to be paid
to her at £1 a-week, and he remitted her money
from Australia, which was regularly paid, until Mr.
Odey discovered that she had been leading a profli-
gate life, when it was discontinued. The husband
had treated the wife with the greatest kindness,
and there was no ground for pleas which she had
pleaded on the record.
Some evidence was adduced in support of the
petitioner's case, and the Court then adjourned.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.—Tune 5.

BOW- STREET.—COMING HOME FROM THE
DERBY.—Charles Probert and Wm. Forrest, two
well-dressed young men, were brought before Mr.
Hall, the former charged with creating a disturb-
ance in the Strand, in front of Exeter Hall, and the
latter with assaulting the police-constable.
Policeman Castel], F 129, deposed—l was on duty
at about 11 o'clock last night outside Exeter Hall,
when the company was leaving after Madame
Goldschmidt-Lind's concert. I saw the prisoner
Probert and two others standing across the middle
of the footway, passing remarks on the people and
creating a great obstruction. They had little
dolls stuck round their hats. A number of dis-
orderly persons were assembled round them, and
gentlemen and ladies coming out of the hail
could not get by. I spoke to Probert, and asked
him to go away, but he refused. I then said if he
did not go I would take him into custody. He re-
plied, "Two policemen could not take me." I then
took him into custody. Ho resisted, and we had a
severe struggle, but another constable came to my
assistance, and we removed him to the station-
house. As we passed Russell-street on the way to
the station the prisoner Forrest came beside me and
struck me a severe blow in the face. Both prison-
ers were sober.

The prisoner Probert being informed that he was
at liberty to cross-examine the witness,entered into
a long rambling and not very intelligible statement
in defence, alleging that ho was a gentleman, and
had behaved throughout in the most gentlemanly
way, and entreating the magistrate to remember
that he lived in a Christian country, and that cer-
tain witnesses whom he was about to call had only
come forward "in consequence of the milk of
human kindness."

Forrest asked the officer--►i' Will you swear you
did not kick me twice ?"

Witness—Certainly, I did not kick you at all.
Inspector M'Kenzic stated that several gentlemen
having complained to him of the conduct of the pri-
soner Probert and his friends, he desired Castell to
remove them unless they could be induced to go
away quietly. Mr. Probert was sober.
Marsh, 163 F, corroborated Castell's statement.
When first spoken to Probert went away, but in a
few minutes returned, and recommenced the dis-
turbance.

Probert denied that he was giving any annoyance
or causing any obstruction when the officer arrested
him, and told him".to go away in a peremptory and
dictatorial manner. He (Probert) replied, " You
are exceeding your duty in interfering with a gen-
tleman who is going along peaceably ane giving no
offence." The officer then seized him in a violent
manner, and he said, "You need not use force. I will
go with you quietly. If I meant to resist two of you
could not take me." He was well connected, and had
been brought up like a gentleman, and he considered
he had behaved as a gentleman, It was true
that he had put some dolls in his hat, but even
noblemen did that when returning from the Derby.
Forrest said it appeared to him that Probert was
unnecessarily interfered with by the police, and also
that they were using undue violence. He remons-
trated with them on finding that they persisted in
their rough treatment of Probert. He said he
would go to the station-house to see that Probert
had fair play. Castel! then kicked him. He took
no notice of this outrage, intending to make a com-
plaint at the station-house, but as they crossed
Great Russell-street into Bow-street Casten kicked
him again, upon which he admitted that he struck
the policeman. He had no previous acquaintance
with Probert.
Mr. Hall asked if he had been at the races.
Forrest—No; I had been to the concert with my
sister.
The prisoner called several witnesses. Three
gentlemen who had been at the concert concurred..
in the opinion that Probert's demeanour was in-
offensive. They admitted that he endeavoured to
get away when taken in custody, but said that this

--
was because the policemen used him roughly. One
gentleman said the prisoner used no more resistance
than the conduct of the police required. Two of
them said that Castell kicked the prisoner Forrest.
Their evidence was corroborated by Miss Forrest
(the prisoner Forrest's sister), and by the two
" friends" of Probert—a footman and a gardener—
Who had accompanied him to town from Epsom.
None of the witnesses saw Forrest strike Castell.
Mr. Hall was surprised to hear that Probert was
sober, considering the great imprudence of his con-
duct. It seemed singular that a man of his posi-
tion, a man of independent property as he described
himself, should select such associates ; but they cer-
tainly acted with mare discretion than he did, for
they did not return to the scene after having once
left. He would not impute to the witnesses that they
meant to give any but a truthful account of the trans-
action, but they clearly had imperfectly observed, if
indeed they had witnessed, the commencement
of the altercation. The officer had not interfered of
his own motion, but had been directed by Mr.
M‘lieuzie to put a stop to an annoyance of which
several gentlemen complained. From long obser-
vation of Mr. M'Kenzie he was sure the latter
would not mislead him. It seemed strange that the
witnesses could see the kick, but not the blow ad-
mitted by Forrest. He did not believe that Cas-
tell had wilfully kicked the prisoner, though per-
haps he had put his foot behind to keep off the
crowd. Probert must pay 102. or be imprisoned
ten days, and Forrest £3, or 21 days. The fines
were immediately paid.

SPORTING INTELLIGENCE.

EPSOM RACES, FRIDAY.

The Ewell Plate (handicap) of 60 sovs for all ages. Win-
ners extra. One mile.
Lord Uxbridge's Keane, 3 yrs, 7st 61b (Challoner) 1
Capt. H. Rhys's Rhcebus, 4 yrs' 7st 51b 1.. (G. Parsons) 2
Mr. Law's Dunoon, 3 yrs, Est 41b (S. Adams) 3
The following also ran :—Cronstadt, Flutter colt, Snow-
drop colt, Warrener, and Lucretia.
Betting-2 to 1 eget Keane, 4to 1 agst Rhcebus, sto 1
agst the Flutter colt, and 6 to 1 agst the Snowdrop colt.
Keane was the first off, but was immediately pulled
back, and the running taken up by Rhcebus, who was
followed up by Dunoon and Cronstadt, the favourite going
on next, with Lord Glasgow's colt lying up. In this way
they ran without change to the centre of the stand, where
Challoner brought Keane to the fore, and won c'everly by
three parts of' a length ; there was a head between the se-
cond and third, the Flutter colt fourth, Cronstadt fifth, the
Snowdrop colt sixth, and Warrener next. Lucretia was
beaten off a long way.
The Headley Stakes of 50 each, h ft, for 2-yr-olds; colts,
Bst 71b ; fillies, Bst 31b ; maiden allowances ; three-quar-
ters of a mile.
Capt. Lane's Debden, Bst 71b (G. Fordham) w. o.
The Oaks Stakes of 50 Boys each, h ft, for;3-yr-olds ; fillies,
Bst 101 b each; the owner of the second filly to receive
100 soya out of the stakes, and the winner to pay 100 sovs
towards the police and regulations of the course, and 30
sovs to the judge. if miles, to be run on the new course.
154 subs.
Mr. Naylor's Feu de Joie (Challoner) 1
Colonel Towneley's Imperatrice (J. Snowden) 2
Mr. T. Valentine's Hurricane
Mr. R. Ten Broeck's Olive Branch .. (Fordham) 0
Mr. T. Valentine's Q. E. D. (W. Boyce) 0
Captain Christie's My Partner (Custance) 0
Lord Glasgow's b Y. Melbourne—Maid of Masham
(Bullock) 0
Lord Glasgow's b. by Stockwell—Miss Sarah (Aldcroft) 0
Lord Portsmouth's Villette (J. Goater) 0
Baron Niviere's Alerte (H. Grimshaw) 0
Mr. H. Sopp's Miley (H. Sopp) 0
Mr. Stevens's Ethel ' (Payne) 0
Lord Stamford's Bertha
Baron Rothschild's Mahala..
Mr. I'Anson's Bonny Breast-knot (Wells 0
Lord Chesterfield's b by Kingston—Omoo.. (S. Rogers) 0
Lord Coventry's Sappho (J. Adams) 0
Mr. Ten Broeck's Annette (Barlow) 0
Mr. Simpson's Bannerdale (J. Mann) 0
Betting-5 to 2 agst Hurricane, sto 1 agst Sappho, 7to
1 agst Villette, 10 to 1 agst Olive Branch, 100 to 7 each agst
Bonny Breast-knot and Bertha, 100 to 6 agstAlerte, lb to 1
agst Q. E. D., 20 to 1 agst Feu de Joie, 25 to 1 agst Miss
Sarah filly, and 33 to 1 agst Mahala.
After the usual time allowed for the inspection of the
fillies in the saddling paddock they left for the preliminary
canters, Lord Glasgow's was the first to show past the
stand, followed by Bonny Breast-knot, then came Olive
Branch, Q. E. D., Alerte, My Partner, and Annette ;
some distance in their rear followed Villette, Impera-
trice, Mahala, Feu de Joie, the Omoo filly, Bannerdale,
and Bertha, Ethel, and Sappho bringing up the rear. A
pause of a few minutes ensued, when the lot were seen
emerging from the Lodge-gate towards the starter, who
having got them together,with one slight failure,despatched
them from the post in close company. On their settling
into their places Annette, on the far side, was seen with a
clear lead, followed by Bannerdale, Lord Glasgow's pair,
and Q. E. D., the favourite, with Imperatrice, Bertha,
Olive Branch, and Mahala, who headed the rear division,
following next in close company, the tail being brought up
by Bonnyßreast-knot, Omoo filly, and Alerte. In this order
they ran through the furzes to the turn, where Annette
dropped back, and the lead was taken up by Bannerdale,
closely attended by the Miss Sarah filly, the Maid of Mas
ham filly, and Q. E. D. ; the favourite lying in a good place
next the rails, being next in company with Imperatrice,
T2prilt. rind ()live Branch. The leaciimtr horses ran in rinse
company- down the hill, and round the turn into the
straight, where Q.E.D. appeared in difficulties, and shortly
after disappeared from the front, and on reaching the dis-
tance Bannerdale was added to the beaten division, leaving
the Miss Sarah filly with the command. In a few strides
further she was headed by Hurricane, who came on with a
clear lead, having Feu de Joie, Imperatrice, Bertha, and
Sappho in immediate attendance to the enclosure, where
Challoner came with a rush and got to the favourite's quar-
ters, Imperatrice on the lower side at the same time join-
ing issue. A fine race home ensued between the three, and
Feu de Joie running the longest won at last very easily by
two lengths, a length between the second and third ; the
Miss Sarah filly was fourth, beaten three lengths from the
favourite ; Bertha was fifth, Sappho sixth, Alerte and
Mahala the next two, the last lot being Maid of Masham
filly, My Partner, Miley, Bonny Breastknot and Annette,
the latter walking in some distance after the others. Net
value of the stakes £1,325. Run in 2 min. 48 3-10 sec.
The Glasgow Plate (handicap) of 50 sovs, for all ages.
Half-a-mile.
Capt. Coates's Helper, 4 yrs, 9st 41b (Snowden) 1
Mr. Bruce's Lord of the Manor, 6 yrs, Bst 101b(Custance) 2
Lord Westmoreland's Merry Hart, 2 yrs, 6st.. (Hunter) 3
The following also ran :—Touch-me-not, Lava, Queen
of Spain, Diana, Peahen, Commander, Coalition filly,
Cutler, Pretty Horsebreaker, Strawberry Leaf, Don't-come-
late, King of Italy, Sibyl, and Harleston.
Betting--10 to 3 agst Lava, sto 1 agst Merry Hart, 7
to 1 agst Strawberry Leaf, Bto 1 agst Diana, 10 to 1 each
agst Sibyl and Don't-come-late, and 100 to 8 agst Lord of
the Manor.

Commander on the lower ground, the Coalition filly,
Merry Hart, and Hesper in the centre, and Lord of the
Manor on the upper ground, lay in front to near the
distance, where Commander and the Coalition filly were
beaten. Merry Hart then obtained a slight lead, with
Hesper at her girths. On reaching the stand the latter was
first, and Lord of the Manor overhauled Merry Hart. Hes-
per won very cleverly by a length, a neck only separating
the second and third ; Lava was fourth, Don't-come-late
fifth, Harleston sixth; and Queen of Spain seventh. The
last two were Peahen and King of Italy.
The Ninth Great Surrey Foal Stakes of 10 sous each, with
100 added; for 3-yr-olds ; colts, Bst 71b; fillies, Bst 41b.
Certain penalties and allowances. Last mile of the Derby
Course. 20 subs.
Baron Rothschild's Wingrave Bst 71b (J. Osborne) 1
Lord Stamford's Bertha, Bst 111 b .. (Edwards) 2
Sir J. Hawley's Salamanca Bst 41b (car Bst 51b) (Wells) 3
Mr. Gratwicke's Ashford, 'Bst 71b (Custance) 4
Betting-6 to 4 agst Wingrave, 11 to 8 agst Bertha, and
5 to 1 agst Salamanca.
Wingrave made the running, followed by Salamanca,
Bertha, and Ashford, in the order we give them, to the
half distance, where Bertha took the second place, and at
the centre of the stand Edwards made his effort to reach the
Baron's horse, but failed, and was beaten by a neck ; three
lengths between the second and third ; a bad fourth.
The Derby and Oaks Stakes of 5 sous each, with 30
added, for 2-yr-olds and upwards; weight for age, with
optional selling and maiden allowances. Half a mile
Five subs.
Lord Stamford's Mary filly, 2 yrs, sst 121 b (£5O) (Gray) 1
Mr. I, Sadler's Court Martial, 3 yrs, 7st Sib (£5O)
Mr. W. Holdsworth's Disaointment, 3 (S Adams) 2
PP yrs, 7st 131 b
(£5O) (G. Fordham) 3
Lord Coventry'sUnderhand's dam c, 3 yrs, 7stl3lb (X5O) 4
Capt. Coates's Tiney, 2 yrs, sst 91b (£5O) (J. Grimshavv) 5
Betting-5 to 4on the Mary filly.
The favourite, in company with Court-Martial, made all
the running, and won in a cantor by two lengths; half a
length between the second and third ; a bad fourth ; the
others were beaten off. The winner was b3ught by Lord
Winchilsea for 500 guineas.
The Durdans Stakes (handicap) of 10 sous each,b h ft, with
100 added. Derby course. 11 sou.
Forciham) 1
Mr. H. Ten Broeck's Amy, 4 yrs, 7st 121 b (
(J. Snowden) 3
(Roper) 2
Mr. S. Jacobs's Atropia, 4 yrs, 7st 71b (Roper)
Captain Coates's Flirtation, 4 yrs,
Cor • Onet, fby Weather-
yanadndACtororopniae,t,
and
dtollo atogslt
bitl:hanedfoellaoitevdinogn.also ran :—Gleanit
catedtotin7B-1.50 tloe2acehacahgsatgsGth3Aamm

agst Flirtation.
lying
closerhwaanyd in the
distance, to
Amy, in company with .Atropia, Gleam, and Coronet,
running,dmisatdaencteh,ewherethe three
Flirtation
got
offterms, up
the middle of the stand, where Atropia got up, but was
beaten after a fine race, by a head, a length and a half sepa-
rating the second and third; Caledon Was fourth Gleam
next, the others beaten off._

Match, 100 sous, h ft, Bst 10Ib each. Half a mile.
/r. Hodgman's Shillelagh, 4 yrs ........ (G. Fcrdham) 1
Mr. E. -Hall's Fravola, 5 yrs .............. (S. Rogers) 2
Even betting, the mare for choice.
Fravola made the rtituibig to the Stand, where Shillelagh