The Sun.
London, England, 1854-07-06 00:00:00

TO THE EDITORS OP THE NEWSPAPER PRESS.

Gentlemen,—l think most men now feel the necessity of
shortening our Sunday morning Church service, if such
could be judiciously done. The combination of three dis-
tinct services has naturally caused needless repetitions and
a length of service which, in many instances, actually
hinders the practical usefulness of the Church.
I would proceed, indeed, with the utmost caution,
avoiding, on the other hand, the introduction of novelties,
and, on the other, the omission of the more marked pecu-
liarities. The service I would retain almost in its present
form, neither ignoring the Litany, with its simple but sub-
lime petitions, nor leaving out the pre-Communion service,
with its Collect, Ten Commandments, and appropriate
Epistle and Gospel.
In the plan appended to my letter to the Archbishops
and Bishops of the Church, I have strictly endeavoured
to carry out these views. The Sunday Morning Service
remains, in its prominent features, almost the same ;
yet the slight modifications introduced render the ser-
vice shorter by some twenty or twenty-five minutes.
The Collect for the day is only once used, the Occa-
sional Prayers are interwoven with the Litany thus :
" That it may please Thee to endue the Lords of the
Council and all the nobility [during the Session of
Parliament], and especially the High Court of Par-
liament at this time assembled, with grace, wisdom, and
understanding," on y- creed only is recited, the Lord's
Prayer less frequently repeated, and in places where they
do not chant the " Venite" is omitted.
You will observe that on other days, with the exception
of Wednesdays and Fridays, the customary rubric is fol-
lowed almost without alteration ; and that scarcely any
change is made in the evening service.
I have also suggested that on Sacrament Sundays the
complete Communion Service only should be used without
Morning Prayers and Litany, the sermon following the
Nicene Creed, the minister then returning to the table and
commencing the Offertory. In agricultural parishes, espe-
cially where people generally have a long distance to walk
to church, and whore the second service is usually in the
afternoon, the adoption of such a plan would, I am per-
suaded, quickly be followed by increased attendance in
the number of communicants.
Much, very much, depends on the public press to bring
about a wise and prudent modification. Let the subject
be calmly discussed, let party strifes be forgotten, let men
earnestly ask direction and wisdom from above, and, with
God's help and blessing, the desired object would soon be
attained, and, once attained, would tend materially to fill
our churches with the labouring classes, and to remove
many obstacles of which good and pious Dissenters some-
times justly complain.—l remain, gentlemen, yours most
obediently, JOHN W. LESTER,
Incumbent of Ashton Hayes, near Chester.
June 29.

THE WAR WITH RUSSIA.—MEETING IN ST. PANCRAS.
—Last night a public meeting was held at the Vestry-
hall, King's-road, Camden-town—convened by requisi-
tion—on the present war with Russia. Mr. Cudden,
after some delay, took the chair, and stated that Lord
Dudley Stuart and Sir B. Hall had been invited to
attend. The former excused himself as be had a pre-
vious engagement, and Sir B. Hall was absent through
indisposition. Mr. Urquhart addressed a meeting of
about 400 persons for two hours, and denounced the
war as unnecessary, rash, and inconsiderate. It had
already in one year cost 10 millions, and the people sub-
mitted to it like sheep led to the slaughter. There could
be little to expect, when the hen. member for Maryle-
bone brought forward his motion on the Russo-Dutch
Loan, but that there would be another count out, and
thus the people of England were cajoled. It was pal-
pable that the people of England in 1854 were as stupid
as they were in 1806. Major Rolland and Mr.
Ross seconded, resolutions to the effect that all treaties
beinr, abrogated by the fact of the war, the continuance
of the payment of the Russo-Dutch Loan is a treason-
able offence, to be visited by impeachment, and
con-
demnatory of the whole of the arrangerne,cits re-
spectwith to Greece and the Ottoman empire, the The
of Russia having been adopted in all their movs mes
ements.
A petition to Parliament and an address to the Queen
were also agreed to.
ENGLISH MEDICAL STAFF FOR THE TURKISH ARMY.
We aro able to state positively that the Sultan has
determined to obtain a staff of English and French
medical officers for his troops. The Turkish ambassador
has entered into communication with our Government
on the subject, and the advice of the Director-General
of the Army and Ordinance Medical Departments has
been requested as to the formation of the staff.—
Medical Times and Gazette.

Ellen French—l am the plaintiff. In 1847 I resided
at Chapel-street, Park-lane. I had resided there about
three months when I became acquainted with the defen-
dant. I first saw him May 22, 1847. Afterwards I
went to live at Rutland-gate. On May 10, 1849, I went
to live at Lowndes street, Lowndes-square, at the re-
quest of the defendant. I was living previously under
the protection of a noble lord, but his lordship received
some anonymous letters, which I believe were written
by the defendant, who wished me to live with him alone,
which I did not wish to do, and in consequence I sepa-
rated with his lordship. I took a lease of the house in
Lowndes-street for three years, at 1301. a year. The
defendant guaranteed the rent. He agreed to pay me
501. a month for board and lodging, and to keep men
servants and a carriage and horses. It was an unfur-
nished house. I had some furniture at Tilbury's, and
furnished it myself. Defendant lived there for three
years. He only paid me for two or three months. It
was an expensive establishment. I was frequently in
want of money while he was there. I pledged my plate
and jewels for 7001. I afterwards pledged my furniture
to pay the interest on the money due on my plate and
jewels. I think it was worth 3001.
Cross-examined—l first saw the defendant in the Park.
He visited me for two years before he lived with me. I had
previously known a.person named French. I do not know
that he was the son of a tradesman in the City. I lived
with him in Park-village, Regent's-park. I am not living
with any person now. Defendant, when I first knew
him, lived with his father. He left me two years ago
next August. I did nut expend 4,0001. during the tune
he lived with me, from 1849 to 1852. To the best of
my knowledge I did not receive more than 7001. or
8001. from him during that time. He paid the last two
bills. A carriage was kept. He said he would pay for
it, but he did not. I paid for it. Two horses were
kept. I bought them. He paid for their keep during
a part of the time. He gave me a riding horse, and
took it away from me again. I had it two or three
months. [A bundle of cheques was here handed to wit-
ness.] These are in the handwriting of defendant. They
have my initials, " E.M.F.," to them. He was in the
habit of debauching about London, and when that was the
case he used to put my initials to the cheques he drew in
consequence. He never gave me money. He generally
gave it to the lady's maid. I went to Brighton with him,
and to Bath, and to York, during 1850, 1851, and 1852.
Before I lived with Mr. French, whose name I took, I
had lived with somebody else. I never was a member of
the corps de ballet of the Opera House or the Adelphi
Theatre. I came from Bath thirteen years ago. I lived
with a gentleman a very short time before I came to
London. I have also lived with another person besides
those who hays) been mentioned. He was not ruined by
me. I neverelived with a hotel-keeper in the Hay-
market. I don't know that Mr. French had 3,0001. when
I lived with him. He furnished the cottage for me.
Miss Clarke was my dress-maker. Defendant paid her
1501. for me. He kept a box at the opera before I went
to live with him. He paid Miss Clarke 2201. for dresses.
He paid Hunt and Roskell 1501. or 1601. for a bracelet
for me. It came to a good deal more, but they al-
lowed me 1251. for an old one. He paid 331. for a
bouquet holder. I opened an account with Hunt and
Roskell as Mrs. Fortescue. I lived in Chapel-place as
Mrs. French ; but some persons know nee as Mrs. For-
tescue. I paid two years' rent in Lowndes-street. The
last quarter I received the money from him. An execu-
tion was issued against him whilst lie lived in Lowndes-
street. I went from there to Charles-street, Westbourne-
terrace. I there took his name. He lived there two

months and a half. I did not whilst there break the
furniture and threaten to stab him. He has visited me
since. Afterwards we went to 8, George's-terrace. I
knew he secreted himself from executions. They com-
menced in March, 1852. I then sold the horses. The
coachman brought an action against him for 521. A
publican claimed 351., and he paid it. My carriage
came from Laurie and Marner's. He wished me to
have a new one, and I exchanged my old one, and he
paid the difference. It was not much. I had 1,0001.
when I went to live with him. I had it from the noble-
man I lived with, on parting, to pay my debts. I spent
it all but 4001. in doing so. During the whole time de-
fendant lived with me he ran me into reckless extrava-
gance. Ido not know where my lady's-maid is. She
kept the books. She has not received as much as 3001.
at a time from the defendant. I think she received
2001. at one time in 1851, and I think she had two sums
of 251. besides, on two occasions. I believe he paid
631. 14s. to a grocer. He gave me 1001. on one occa-
sion, in October, 1851. I first consulted my attorney
about this action this time last year. Ido not know
that defendant is gone abroad. Ido not know he paid
the tailor 541. lls. 10d. for the men's livery.
By the Judge—l have made bargains with persons I
have lived with before about board and lodging.
Witness—I swear I did not break. a looking-glass. I
swear I did not stab him with a knife. There was some
.thbeuitr
that was in Lowndes-street, two years last Septem' ber.
glass broken by accident, and he.v•
After he left me I sent the people
bills to his father's house. I did not send them
to an
attorney to sue him. I told the coachman to do so. A
man called on me about it.
The Judge—lt is a change of names
tradesmen "people," and the attorney She calls the
"a man."
Re-examined---I believe th
in defendant's handwritin ese anonymous letters to be
The following letters t
nobleman with whom
were then put in and read.
They were addressed
plaintiff was living at the o the.
time they were written :
‘‘ Lord —.- :Your
guilty, in conjunction with
Ellen French, has been
on with her maid and waiter at the
Albion Hotel
there will be a Hotel,
Brighton,
of stealing a letter therefrom. As
should know it. terrible row, it is but proper that you

"Yours truly, " A FRIEND.
" Get your miniature, or you may be ruined. Wishing
you well, I say fail not."
" Lord —. —Ask your woman who she slept with on
Friday at the Albion. Being an inmate that night at the
hotel, I actually slept next room ; and being an old pal of
yours, I made up my mind to tell you. I asked the waiter
who that lady was. and he said Mrs. Bolt, which being an
untruth, as I knew, I was determined to write toyou. On
further inquiry, they tell me ho sleeps at 19, Chapel-street
every night, and has done for this long time, I'll swear.
Ask —, opposite ; ho must have seen what a vile woman
she is.—Yours truly,
" Wellingborough, Northamptonshire.
" Ask who was with me."

By the Judge—The letters, though anonymous, were
perfectly true.
Witness—l did not steal his letter ; but a letter came
to the hotel for him, addre .sed "A. A.," and I opened
it by mistake, thinking it was for me. Lord gave
me those letters, and in consequence of them we parted.
He also gave me 1,0001. to pay my debts. (A num-
ber of tradesmen's books were produced in which
the accounts were debited to plaintiff.) Nearly. all
these bills have been paid by defendant's father since

this action was brought. If they had been paid be-
fore, I should not have brought the action. My
housekeeping expenses whilst he was living with me
were about 1,2001. a year. My old friend assisted me
on many occasions. Other friends also gave me 501. or
601. at a time. I have spent all I had, and all my
jewels and furniture.
Cross-examined upon this additional evidence—l lived
with defendant after I had received those letters from
Lord —, I kept them in my possession all the time.
Mr. Oxenham, auctioner, proved that, in July, 1853,
he sold the plaintiff's jewels by auction for 785/., and her
furniture for 1,1621. Amongst the jewels sold was a
brilliant necklace ; it fetched 1351.
This was the plaintiff's case.
Mr. James then addressed the jury for the defendant.
His learned friend, with that solemnity of tone with
which he could quote " Hudibras" or the Bible, had
spoken of the plaintiff appealing for justice, and not
being sent empty away, but he hoped the jury would do
justice to the defendant also. They were men of the
world, and they must look at this case, like all others,
in the light of the surrounding circumstances. Instead
of opening this as a case in which, as his friend must
have known was the case, a young man had been ruined
in health and estate by his connection with the plaintiff,
he had spoken of her as a flower plucked by him in the
innocence of her youth, who was now to be trodden
down and spat upon. It was, however, nothing of the
kind. This was not the case of a young woman seduced
by the defendant from her home and then abandoned.
She had come from Bath 13 years ago, and had been
living with different young men ever since, the general
result being that she had ruined each of them. She
had been living with a tradesman's son, and, as might
be expected, he was ruined in six months. She then
went to live with a noble lord. Whilst with him she
permitted the defendant to visit her, and after two
years, their illicit intercourse being discovered, she
went to live with the defendant. She lived with him
about three years, at the rate of 1,2001. a-year, she
having but 4001. of her own, and the'proceeds of her
jewels and furniture ; and now that the connection had
terminated, she sued him for board and lodging from
May 1850, to August 1852, to the amount of 1,4001.
She said he agreed to allow her 501. a month, or 6001.
a year, but that he had not paid it. She admitted that
she had received money to pay bills, yet not a tradesman
bad been called to prove that she had paid anything.
There was an impudence about the demand that was sur-
prising. He was not there to defend waiting the anony-
mous letters or the rest of the defendant's conduct, but
he thought the jury would believe that they were made
use of only to extort money from the defendant. The
plaintiff, without a blush upon her cheek, had detailed
the number of persons she had lived with, and the base
manner in which she had requited the confidence of her
noble benefactor; and knowing that she could not reoover
anything if she admitted an agreement to live with the de-
fendant in immorality, she and her advisers had resorted to
the afterthought of making this demand for board and
lodging, thinking that the defendant's father would
rather pay it than submit to an exposure that must be
so painful to him. They were, however, mistaken. He
contended there was no sufficient proof whatever of the
contract she spoke of, and all probabilities were against
it. But even if it were true that there was such a con-
tract, the facts proved that the defendant had more than
performed it. It was now admitted that he had paid
bills to the amount of 1,1501., besides the money he had
given her. He contended, therefore, that this was an
impudent charge, trumped up by a reckless and ungrate-
ful prostitute, whom, nevertheless, his friend described
as " a summer flower," and who relied upon the defen-
dant's absence from the country, and consequent ina-
bility to give evidence on his own behalf, to enable her
to succeed solely upon herown evidence. He, however,
entreated the jury to look at the case as men of the
world, and with all the surrounding circumstances. If
they did so they would see through it, and return a ver-
dict for the defendant.
The Chief Justice said this was an action for board
and lodging. The plea was, never indebted. Mr. James
said lie defended the action for the father of the
defendant, who alleged that the only engagement be-
tween the plaintiff and defendant was a profligate one,
which the law would not sanction ; and, consequently,
that to avoid this difficulty the pretence of a contract of
board and lodging had been adopted as an afterthought.
The only witness was the plaintiff herself. She swore
the defendant did enter into such a contract with her,
when she was induced to take the house in Lowndes-
street. The defendant was not called. They were told
he was abroad, where, if his father did his duty by
him, he would leave him for some time, to feel the con-
sequences of his folly. Under these circumstances, the
jury must look at all the circumstances of the case. It
was not a case of romance. The defendant did not seduce
the plaintiff. It was said his learned brother had called
her "a summer flower ;" but if he did so, it was before
he had seen her, or probably be would have said she was
full-blown. She objected to tell her age, but said she
had left Bath 13 years ago, since which time it was clear
she had been living with several men in prostitution.
She had been living with a tradesman son, and in a
very few months the natural result followed, and he
was ruined. She then went to live with her "old
friend," a nobleman, and whilst living with him she
became acquainted with the defendant. How, after this,
she could look in his venerable face, he could not tell ;
but she lived with the nobleman, and intrigued with
the defendant, until some anonymous letters were
written, and then her " old friend" turned her off. She
then had 1,0001. to pay her debts, and after doing so
she had but 1001. left. After this she lived with the
defendant at the rate of 1,2001. a year. She had her
own necessary expenses, and horses, carriages, bijou-
terie, opera boxes, &c. Your wives and mine, gentle-
men (said his lordship) don't indulge in such things ; we
can't afford it ; but the plaintiff did. Where did the
money come from ? There was no plea of payment, but
the defence was, that the defendant paid for all those
things, and that this was inconsistent with the alleged
contract. The question was, was there such a contract
or not ? She swore it, and if they believed her, they
must find for her ; but if they thought the understanding
was that they should live together immorally, and he
should pay the current expenses, their verdict should be
for the defendant.

The j ury returned a verdict for the defendant.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.

(Sittings at Nisi Prius, at Guildhall,-after Term, before
the Lord Chief Baron and Common Juries.)
CHARD V. BIRCH-FALSE IMPRISONMENT.
Upon this case being called on, Mr. Crosse said he
represented the defendant, but he did not see the counsel
on the other side present.
The plaintiff said his solicitor had been in court until
the last few minutes, when he was obliged to go home
from illness, and his counsel were engaged in another
court, so that he had no one to appear for him.
The Lord Chief Baron—Then you are an unhappy
man.

The Plaintiff—No, my lord, I am not unhappy.
(Laughter.)
The Lord Chief Baron—Well, then, you are unfortu-
nate, for you are here when your cause is called on with-
out attorney or counsel ; you have a sick attorney, and
your counsel are absent. I consider that an unhappy
position for a plaintiff to be placed in. The usual mode
of proceeding—the jury having been sworn, and your
counsel not bing present—would be that you should be
nonsuited. lam reluctant to put you to the expense of
appearing here again, therefore you shall state your own
case to the jury, and then upon being sworn, I will re-
ceiveti,e le
ayroiul
erdevi
counselden c e.w
hlonaorder
rst ofodrotthis,
the declaration and pleas.
Mr. Crosse said that the action was brought to recover
ofis Jaanuar pianoforte
defendant duasnttrteogrueeasdt
and to this the defendant pleaded not guilty..
damages for an alleged assault and false imprisonment,
whoth
tuner, was returning home on the 11th y last,
It appeared that the plaintiff,
11
of the defendant, a broker, in Old-street-road, he entered
when, seeing some second-hand pianofortes in the shop
his shop and began to try one of them. The defendant,
on his asking the price of it, told him it was 161. He
tried another, and was about to leave the shop when
the defendant asked him if he intended to purchase, and
o
going
gtrti lewd w
if so, he would have a grand pianoforte in a few days
which would be worth buying. The plaintiff replied
that instruments of that kind were not saleable, and
suit him.
as the
oshewhaiachs nhoet
notteoulmdakea
this the defendant opened a volley of abuse upon him
—so much so, that a number of persons collected round
pianos
the house, and finally he gave the plaintiff into custody,
upon a charge of having damaged a pianoforte. The
plaintiff was taken to the station-house, where he was
detained for four hours, at the expiration of which time
he was enabled to obtain bail. On the following
morning, he appeared before the magistrate, and was
discharged.
Shortly after the plaintiff bad made his statement,
Mr. E. James and Mr. Jones came into court, and apo-
logised for their not being present at the commence-
ment of the case, saying that they were engaged in
another court.

For the defence, it was contended that the plaintiff
had caused the injury to the plaintiff through wilful
violence.

The jury, after a short deliberation, returned a verdict
for the plaintiff, damages, 51.

ACTS OF PARLIAMENT.—From January 31, the com-
mencement of the session, to Monday last, only 28
public acts of Parliament have received the royal assent.
RUSSIAN RIFLES.—The following has been addressed
to the editor of the Times by a Prussian engineer :
" Sir,—l beg to say a few words on the Russian rifles,
whose needle-pointed bullets studded the sides and masts
of the English ships in the affair of Eckness. The Rus-
sian military rifles are constructed on the principle of
what is called in Germany a stielbuehse,' from a plug
standing up in the middle of the interior of the breach,
is rounded or flat at the base, cylindrical in the middle,
or spitzkugelbuchse,' from the share of the bullet which
and forms a cone of considerable acuteness at the fore
part. The length of the barrel is about 30 inches, the calibre
your present
56
Prussian,
0r.577 English inches, exactly the bore of
Government rifle, the so-called Minid. The
rifling, consisting of four grooves, Is also the same. Tile bul-
let enters the muzzle very freely, and is male to fill the
strokes from an iron ramrod hollowed at
;movesfew
m
end,bssy being`oaat spread out upon the plug of the breech
6not to injure the point of the bullet, anti
to keep it straightm the very axis of the bore. In this
respect it has a slight advantage over the Minie, where
the expansion of the bullet is intrusted to the force of
the exploding powder acting upon the hollow base of the
bullet. The small number of men hit by these bullets is
Prussianb barrel ha
as r become
m army,
where
another proof of the incorrect shooting to which all rifles
with loosely fitting bullets are liable, especially after the
erfeouthl continuedebdyictatesothe fiarciniegn.ce
olfnthe
gun-
nery are carried out practically, without regard to pre- ;
Pdice or expense—witness the management of the
Turkish artillery by Prussian officers—such guns have
been discarded since 1848."