The Sun.
London, England, 1849-04-13 00:00:00

SICILY.

a, tn

It is said that the Sicilians have again demanded
the Duke of GENOA as King, and have again been re-
fused. Thy, Duke of GENOA is a descendant of
the royal line of Sicily, which was expelled in
1734 by the BOURBONS for violating the Sicilian
constitution, and whose right, therefore, is superior
to that of the King of Naples, inasmuch as if a
violation of the Sicilian constitution involves a
forfeiture of the Sicilian throne, then has the King of
NAPLES forfeited that throne by such violation ; but
if, on the contrary, such violation does not involve
forfeiture of the throne, then is the descendant of
VICTOR AMADEUS the legitimate King of SICILY, and
the King of NAPLES an usurping intruder.

IRELAND.

(BY ELECTRIC TELEGRAPH.)
TRIAL OF DUFFY.

DUBLIN, THURSDAY EYENING.—MY. BUTT com-
menced his speech for the defence at the sitting of the
Court, this morning, and, it is thought, will speak for
about six hours, after whick one or two witnesses
will be examined, and the Court will adjourn until
to-morrow morning. In the event of there being a
disagreement in the jury-box, it is understood that
the Attorney-General will have a fresh jury sworn,
and immediately proceed to a third trial. The
whole of the panel will, in that event, be called
over, and the heaviest fines that can be inflicted will
be imposed upon such jurors as refuse to attend.

SECONDARIES".—(THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Secondary POTTER.)
WORMESLEY V. DAILEY.
This was an action on a bill of exchange for 151.
There were several pleas put on the record, but the order
for admissions on the hearing was only for the trial of
the " issue."
The COUNSEL for the plaintiff contended, on the'au-
thority a the c Ise "Dennett v. Hardy," Bail Court Cases,
in a hich the facts were similar, that the Secondary had
no jurisdiction to try the issues joined on the record.
The Learned SECONDARY said he would try the case,
but give leave to move the Court above on the point.
The plaintiff's COUNSEL said, if the L,arned Secondary
was of that opinion, he (the Counsel) must be under-
stood not to be attending the trial.
The defendant's ATTORNEY said, that in that case he
should withdraw the record.

BANKRUPTCY.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Commissioner FONBLANQUE.)
IN RE JOHN DE MONTE ARBUTHNOT.
This bankrupt, described as late of Great St. Helen's
and the Albany, Piccadilly, merchant, came up to pass
his last examination.
The bankrupt, it may be remembered, had been ex.
tensively engaged in turf speculations, Ege., and passed
the Insolvent Court; but the present fiat was issued
against him. The accounts—copies of those filed in the
Insolvent Court—having been now filed,
Mr. STEELE, the solicitor to the assignees, said that he
believed they were the best bankrupt could file. Indeed,
he was surprised he had been able to file any at all.
Mr. LEwis for the bankrupt considered the object of
the fiat was merely to add to the punishment of bank-
rupt by suspension of certificate, if his Honour so decided,
for there were very trifling trade debts and nothing bene-
ficial could result to the creditors.
Mr. STEELE said something might be recovered under
the fiat.
Mr. laws said that the bankrupt had lost 40,0001. in
less than four years.
His HONOUR said it was a very lamentable case, but he
would not now express his opinion on it.
The bankrupt was then allowed to pass.

CRIMINAL COURT.-(THIS DAY.

OLD COURT.

(Before Mr. Baron PLATT and Mr. Justice WILLIAMS.
TRIAL OF MR. DROUET FOR MAN-

SLAUGHTER.

Bartholomew Peier Dronet surrendered to take his
trial, charged on the inquisition of the coroner with the
manslaughter of James Andrews, one of a number of
pauper children farmed out to him, at his establishment
at Tooting, by the guardians of the Holborn union,
and who died of cholera in the beginning of the present
year.

The trial gave rise to considerable interest, and severa
ladies were accommodated with seats on the bench.

The prisoner, accompanied by his bail, entered the
court a few minutes before ten o'clock. and shortly
afterwards the Judges entered the court.

Mr. Montagu Chambers, Q.C., and Mr. Clarkson ap-
peared to conduct the case for the prosecution ; and the
prisoner was defended by Sir Frederick Thesiger, Mr.
Ballantine, Mr. Challoner Smith, and Mr. Crouch.
The Clerk of Arraigns then read the indictment
which was an exceedingly voluminous document, to
which the prisoner pleaded not guilty, remarking at the
same time that his name was not Peter Bartholomew
Drouet, as stated in the indictment, but Bartholomew
Peter Drou,t. He was informed by the Clerk of Arraigns
that the transposition of the Christian names was not
material.

i with At the suggestion of Mr. Baron Platt the prisoner was
accommodated
ithachair
Mr.
M. cAx ERs proceeded to open the case for the
prosecution. He said he appeared before the jury at the
instance of a public body of men for the purpose of pro-
secuting this inquiry, not with the view of pressing any-
thing unfairly against the prisoner at the bar, but of
firmly standing up for the due administration of the law.
He had stated that he appeared as representing a public
body. The prosecutor in this case was the beadle of the
parish of St. Pancras, but the parties who instructed him
(Mr. Chambers) were the governors and directors of the
poor of the parishes of St. Andrew and St. George-the-
Martyr, Holborn, who had deemed it their duty to insti-
tute that inquiry. He wished to be distinctly understood
as representing the governors and directors of the poor
of the parishes of St. Andrew and of St. George-the-
Martyr, Holborn. This inquiry arose out of some very
painful circumstances with regard to the farming out of
poor intant children; and the prisoner was charged with
the manslaughter of James Andrews, who was described
in the indictment as an infant child, of the tender age of
six years. In substance the prisoner was charged with
the criminal offence of omitting properly to feed, lodge,
and clothe the child in question, according to his duty.
For seven years past the prisoner had kept an asylum
at Tooting, called Surrey Hall, for the farming and main-
tenance of pauper children. Ira 1847 the guardians of
the Holborn Union entered into a contract with Mr.
Drouet for sending some of the children of that
union to be taken care of by him in his
asylum at Tooting. The children went thither
from all the parishes of the union, and among
others from those of St. Andrew and St. George-the-
Martyr. Among those children the child James An-
drews was sent to the prisoner's establishment in the
year 1848. The Learned Counsel was proceeding to
state the circumstances of a visit to the prisoner's esta-
blishment in May, 1848, by a Mr. Winch and Mr. Mairs,
when he was interruped by

Sir F. THEISIGER:who submitted to their Lordships
that the Learned Counsel was not at liberty to go into
circumstances connected with the prisoner's establish.
ment previous to October, 1848, when the child, James
Andrews, was received therein.

Mr. Baron PLATT was understoed to rule that the
counsel for the prosecution might go into a statement
showing the condition of the establishment at Tooting
previous to October, 1848.
Mr. M. CHAMBERS continued—lle deemed it abso-
lutely essential to the due understanding of this case, and
to a correct conclusion being arrived at, that he should
state to the jury all the circumstances connected with the
management of that asylum. There had been a visit to
this establishment in May, 1848, by Mr. Winch and
Mr. Mairs, which had an important bearing on this case.
Mr. Winch, who was a builder, was desirous of making
useful inquiries with regard to the treatment of those
children in Mr. I)rouet's establishment. On that occa-
sion Mr. Winch and Mr. Mairs went through the house
at Tooting, and it struck them that the building was
not at all adapted or suitable to the healthy treatment
of those children, and Mr. Mairs took the opportunity
to remonstrate with Mr. Drouet on that circumstance;
also, on passing through the establishment and seeing a
number of boys upstairs, Mr. Winch was desirous of in.
quiring of the children themselves whether they were
satisfied with their treatment, and he desired those boys
who were notso.tisfied with their treatment to hold up their
halids, on which a number of the boys held up their

t:::::

z th

-
tloft appeared to have been Satisfied with whas they saw
on that occasion. It would appear from the statement
of some of the boys whom he would call, that after the
visit of Messrs. Winch and Main; some of the boys were
called to account by Mr. Drouett for the course they had
taken, and some of them were actually punished. That
was in the month of May, 1848. He would now pass
on to the period when the fearful c.lamity fell on the
establishment. On the 28th of October in that year the
child James Andrews was placed in that establish-
ment, and was at that time in a good state of health,
he (Mr. Chambers) believed, for a pauper child.
About this time, or shortly afterwards, Mr. Kite, the
surgeon. on visiting the establishment, found several of
the children were infected with the itch, and were not
septratad from the rest, the consequence of which
would be, he reported, that the rest would be contami-
nated. Mr. Kite would state to the jury that the house
was badly ventilated, and that there was never sufficient
space appropriated to the children's sleeping
berths. He would also inform them that although there
wore then the seeds of disorder visible in the establish-
ment, and also some of the premonitory symptoms of
cholera, Mr. Drouet took 200 other poor children from
the parish of St. Pancras into his house, notwithstand-
ing that the dormitories of the children were previously
over-crowded. Many of the children were infected with
cholera, and no doubt could be entertained that there
was a fearful calamity about to take place in the estab-
lishment. In fact, between the 29th of December and
the 13th of January 150 children died of that awful visi-
tation. On the 31st of December one David Kelly, a
pauper, who had two of his grand children in
the establishment at Tooting, called there to
see them, when he found that the younger of them
was infected with cholera. In consequence of an in-
timation given to Mr. Drouet and others by David Kelly,
inquiries began to be made respecting the appearance of
cholera in the establishment, and, on the sth of January,
Mr. Grainger, a medical gentleman of great eminence,
was sent to visit the plaee. He saw the way in which
the children were treated ; he looked at the building,
and made inquiries with reference to the children's food,
and their general treatment ; and Mr. Grainger came
to the conclusion that, unquestionably, the course of treat-
ment of the children in that establishment had conduced
to place them in such a situation with regard to their health,
that they were liable not only to be seriously but mortally
affected ifeholera should find its way into the establishment.
He found the establishment in a very had state. There
was only one nurse to attend the children, and he re-
presented to Mr. Drouet, that, considering the awful
state of the children, he ought to engage three or four
additional nurses, and increase the accommodation of the
building. In a few days afterwards Mr. Grainger called
again, but what was his surprise to find that, not only had
his recommendation been disregarded as to the increas-
ing the number of nurses, but some of the larger children
were performing the office of attendants on the sick, and
be, therefore, felt it his duty to make a representation to
the guardians of the Holborn Union, who immediately
had their children removed, and those that were ill were
very charitably admitted into the Royal Free Hospital,
where it was found that they were in a most lamentable
condition—that not only their dress, but the physical state
of their bodies had been neglected; but he need not
trouble the jury at any length on this part of the case, as
it would be fully explained by medical evidence. He
must now touch upon the nature of the dietary which
these children had been subjected to. It would appear
that it was the practice in Mr. Drouet's establishment to
cut a small loaf into 16 parts, while the potatoes which
had been served out to the children were generally in so
rotten a state that they not unfrequently went untouched
by the children. It would be proved by competent medi-
cal authorities, in fact, that the children had been literally
starved, and that when they were removed from the esta-
blishment they e xhibited the usual signs of starvation, such
as swollen stomachs, thin legs, and pale features. With re-
gard to the state of the building itself, it would be proved
that in a sanitary point of view it was sadly defective, while
' the mode of managing the dormitories was so defective
that the utensils used by the children at ❑i;ht were con-
verted in the day time to water vessels for cleansing the
floors, and the disease of which these poor children died
could be traced almost to the filthy state of one
of these articles of use. With regard to the
clothing of the children, it would be shown that
many of them when they entered the estab-
lishment were excellently well supplied with wearing
apparel, but when they were found in the deplorable con-
dition ho had already adverted to, the clothes upon
their backs were not sufficient to keep them
warm and resist the effects of the atmosphere.
These were the principal facts of the case, which he
could not conceal from himself was one of considerable
importance to the public, and he now came to the law
bearing upon the subject. Their Lordshios would tell
the jury that if Mr. Drouet, by his mode of treatment,
absolutely precluded the children from escaping from his
custody, and that by their not escaping they died of
a terrible disease, induced by neglect, he was guilty of
manslaughter, if not of murder. In this ease, like that
of the ill 'usage of an apprentice, it was difficult to esta-
blish the malice of the master, but if the jury thought
the children died from wilful neglect on the part of the
defendant, for the sake of securing some pecuniary
gain, then a sufficient motive in malice would have been
made out to justify them of convicting the defendant of
the capital offence. The evidence, however, would place
beyond all doubt that he had been guilty of the minor
offence of manslaughter, and, therefore, leaving the law
of the case to be further explained and elucidated by
their Lordships, he should refrain from troubling them
further, and proceed at once to the examination of wit-
nesses.

William Robert James was then called and examined
by Mr. CLARK ox—He said he was clerk to the Hol-
born Workhouse. In consequence of the overcrowded
state of that workhouse the guardians entered into an
arrangement with the defendant, with the approval of
the Poor-law Commissioners, for boarding and lodging
the children of the Holborn Union. This was in 1847,
when he was requested by the guardians to procure an
asylum for the children, and knowing that Mr. Drouet
farmed the children, he sent for him, and after con•
versing with him on the subject he requested him to go
home and forward him a written communicatio❑ of his
terms. In consequence of that conversation he received
a litter to the effect that the children he took under his
care were well attended to, and brought up to indus-
trious pursuits, and that his charge was 4s. 6d. a head
per week. In reply to that letter he wrote to Mr.
Drouet, stating that it was the opinion of the
guardians that, as their boys were industrious
and earned a good deal of money, they
thought 4s. per week would be a fair
price, but that, nevertheless, they agreed to his terms,
and about 90 of their boys would be placed under his
charge. In a few days afterwards Mr. Drouet attended
at the workhouse, and 81 boys were handed over to him,
whose ages varied from 12 to 15. They took care not
send out children under six years of age. I❑ about a
fortnight afterwards some 30 more were sent, tut he
must explain that a sort of debtor and creditor account
was kept, and as children went out their place was sup-
plied by others. He had understood from Mr. Drouet
himself, that his establishment could provide accommo-
dation for 1,200 children, but at the time in question,
October, 1847, he had only 800 in his custody.
Mr. Baron PLATT —Did you ever go over the building
or the wards? Witness said he did.

Mr. Baron PLATT—WeII, did you think the place
large enough to accommodate 1,200 children? Witness
said he did.

Mr. Baron PLATT—Did the guardians never make
any stipulation in the arrangement about the dietary of
the children?
Witness replied that before the children were sent a
committee of the guardians inspected the establishment,
and satisfied themselves that it was properly managed in
all respects, including, of course, the dietary ; and with
oue of the communications made to the guardians at the
time by Mr. Drouet, there was forwarded a printed copy
of a dietary table.
Mr. Baron PLATT —For 4s. 6d. a-week they were to
be supplied with food, clothing, and everything.
Witness—Everything. The deceased, Andrews, was
forwarded to the establishment in October last, and
he remained there until January in the present
year, when he was removed to the Royal Free
Hospital. It was the practice of the guardians
to nominate a committee monthly to attend to Mr.
Drouet's establishment and report on the condition
of the children—the reports of these committees, from
December, 1847, to January, 1849, expressing satisfac-
tion at the treatment of the children, and stating that
their food was good, and that they were in a clean and
healthy state. The last report was dated 4th January,
1849, and stated that at the period of the inspection the
cholera was raging dreadfully, and it recommended that
certain alterations and additions should be made to the
dietary, clothing, and bedding of the children. The re-
port of the 9th May, 1148, stated that the inspectors had
found the establishment in an unhealthy state, bad
smells pervaded the building, and upon it being put to
the boys whether they were satisfied with the treatment,
about 40 hands ware held up to indicate that they were
not, whereupon Mr. Drout became very violent and
called the boys liars, threatening at the same time to
carry out a suggestion which had been made to him to
thrash them. The report of the 30th of May was,
on the other hand, favourable to Mr. Drouet'
sthtaetee
t.inspectorsthenheilxdprerenssainngd tthheemirsterlevaetsmweenitl palneadseendnavetythede'
to the board, on behalf of Mr. Drouet, the expression of
his regret that, at the previous visit of the
monthly viit-
ing committee, ho had exhibited too much warmth in
his behaviour towards the children. On the Ist January
last, in consequence of a communication conveyed to
him by the master of the workhouse, he wrote a letter
to Mr. Drouet, and on the Wednesday following he re-
ceived a report in reply, which he laid before
the board that evening. Subsequently he saw
Mr. Drouet, but he did not learn from him how
many of the children were sick, but on the Thurs-
day morning Mr. Whitfield made a report to the
board, and, in consequence of that report, be was
sent down to Tooting with the proper authority to re-
move the children. When he got down to Tooting he
found Mr. Drouet surrounded by medical men and
guardians of the other unions, and he had not an oppor-
tunity of speaking to him. He, however, ascertained
that fifteen or sixteen of their children had been at-
tacked with cholera. At that time there were
about 191 children of the Holborn Union in the
establishment, 25 of whom were too ill to bo removed.
He took 155 of them away, amongst whom was the de-
ceased Andrews, who was conveyed to the Royal Free
Hospital, and died on the 6th of January. A report
from Mr. Drouet, dated the 30th of November,
was forwarded to him on the 3d December,
stating that four of their children were suffering
from a severe bowel complaint. Subsequently
another report was received from Mr. Drouet
calling attention to the forthcoming Christmas
treat of the children, adding that it was usual for his
parishes to allow him sixpence a head for that purpose,
and stating that the children were getting better.

• , .
by sir. Dcovet was suhtnitt.•d to the medical
ciiicer of the Ilolborn Union. It was in some respects supe'
rior and in others inferior to that used in the workhouse.
In his opinion it was ample for all purposes. The boys
had rep-ated opportunities of complaining to the inspec-
ing committee if they had wished to do so. For his Own
part he had only ohs« rved one little cause of complaint
against the management of the 'rooting establishment,
and that rel Acel to some air gratings which had been
twen stow_ d up, but the cause of complaint was after-
wards retuov, d. The children removed from Tooting
those who were considered to be untouched wits
chob•ra.

Re-examined by Mr. M. CHAMBERS—The quunti•
ties in Mr. Diouet's dietary were in sonic respects
doubtful.

Mr. William Winch, one of the guardians of the Hol-
born Union, examined by Mr. CILLMBERS—On the 9th of
May I went down to Mr. Drouet's establishment, and
found the children at dinner. They had forms and
benches. I looked at the potatoes, and out of 200 i
could not find one good one. I told Mr. Drouet that I
thought, he ought to change the diet. I went afterwards
river the whole of the establishment, and found
the new sleeping apartments badly constructed
and badly ventilated. I afterwards saw the boys
in the school-room. Mr. Reding asked the boys of
Holborn Union if they had anything to complain of, and
told them it they had they were to hold up their hands.
About thirty then held up their hands. I thought tikety
very much altered in their appearance; they were lean
and haggard.

Sir F:THESIGER objected to the examination, on the
ground that the state of the other boys had nothing to
do with Andrews.

Mr. Baron PLATT—Why did the guardians not re'
move them at once when they were in such a state?
Mr. CuAMBERS—I don't appear for the guardians.
and I apprehend, however culpaple the other parties may
be, that does not relieve the prisoner of responsibility.
My Lord, I appear for the public.
Mr. Baron PLATT—You appear for the beadle; and
I must say again that the guardians ought to have
taken a way the children when they were seen to be in
such a state.

Mr. CHAMBERS considered that he was entitled to show
that negligence existed before Andrews was sent there.
Mr. Baron PLATT—The guardians were the respell'
sible parties
Mr. CHAMBERS—The prisoner is responsible on 1315
contract.

Mr. Baron PLATT—yes; upon his contract, but there
was a dietary, and it was the duty of the guardians to
see that it was carried out.
Sir F. THESIGER briefly replied, and
Mr. Baron PLATT said, in the present state of the case,
it was impassible to allow this evidence to be given. The
present inquiry related to the death of a boy in January
last, and how could evidence with reference to a trans'
action i❑ May have anything possibly to do with it,
unless some connexion was shown?
Mr. CHAMBERS —I will show the connexion.
Mr. Baron PLATT—Then call your witnesses. I can-
not hear another observation from you. Sir Frederick
Thesiger has replied, and I have decided that the evi-
dence cannot be received.

A little boy named Shaen was then called. He said
he was a poor boy belonging to the Holborn Union, and
had been in Mr. Drouet's establishment at Tooting three
times. He remembered the last time he was there be'
fore he left• in .January last. He slept in a bed—
Sir FREDERIcs. THESIGER again objected to this
evidence.

Mr. BARON PLATT said that the witness ought to be
examined only with reference to the treatment of
Andrews.

Alter some discussion,
Richard Woodson was called. He said he was a boy
belonging to the Holborn Union. and remembered the
deceased Andrews. He did not sleep in the same room
with him at Mr. Drouet's. He went there about three
months before last Christmas, and Andrews came after
that. About two or three days before they came away
they both slept in the same room over the surgery.
Andrews slept with his brother and another
boy. There were about twelve beds in it, and
three slept in each bed. Andrews was ill when he came
to the room. Andrews, himself, and other boys came
together in a van to London, and Andrews felt sick ott
the way. He (witnes) was quite well when he went to
Tooting.

Cross-examined by Sir F. THESIGER—Andrews told
me he felt sick. The vau was a closed one, and it was
a very cold night.
The Court here adjourned for twenty minutes.
On the re-assembling of the Court,
William Derbyshire, a lad, was called and examined
by Mr. CLARKSON—He was one of the boys sent to
Tooting. He knew the two Andrewses. He slept in the
same bed with them a short time. He did not knout
how many beds were in the room. The bedroom was
net on the attic floor, nor did he know whether there
were six beds in the room. He remembered James An'
drews being taken ill when he was removed from the
room. He was sleeping in the same bed with
him, but he did not know where he was
taken to.; There was a place called the Sick Ward,
but he did not know whether he was taken there. He
did not return to the same bed again. He remembered
his coming to London ; but he did not know where be
had slept the night before.
By the COURT—He came up to the Free Hospital
iII
a van. The van was full, and James Andrews came up
in the big boy's van.
William Macdougal, another lad, examined by Mr.
CHAMBERS—He was fourtee❑ years old, and came up
in the van. He was at Tooting between eight and nine
months. James Andrews was in the same van with
him; he sat o❑ his knee. He said he felt sick, and ap-
peared very ill. He was at Mr. Drouet's all the time
Andrews was there. The little ones was not along with
the big ones.
By the COURT—He was a big one.
Examination continued—Andrews was one of the
little boys. He never saw him in bed. The little
boys were dressed in the same way as the big ones.
When they went their clothes were taken from them,
and kept till they went away again. The clothes sup'
plied to them in return kept them warm. Out of
school hours they went into a yard, but they could not
go in doors. Sometimes the little boys came in, but not
often. They had their supper about six o'clock, and
then went to bed. The big boys and little ones went
into a separate hall to sup. They had different clothes
on a Sunday to what they had on the week-day, which
were much warmer.
Cross-examined by Sir F. THESIGER—When they'
came to the Free Hospital they had a supper of bread
and cheese, but little Andrews did not eat the supper.
Those who were well were put to bed early. Andrews
was put iu the same room with him. No doctor attended
them that night.
J. aeph Andrews, the brother of the deceased, examined
by Mr. CLAnxsosr—He was eight years of age, and
had been st Tooting. He slept with his brother and
Derbyshire in the same bed. There were about a dozen
beds in the same room.
(The trial was proceeding when our report left.)

NEW COURT.
(Before the RECORDER.)
The grand jury, having concluded their labours, ens
tered the court with a number of true bills, two of which
were against John Cutts fur forgery, who is at present
out on bail for 20,0001.
THE CONDUCT OF THE POLICE.--The foreman said he
was requested, on the part of the jury, to express their
entire satisfaction with the conduct of those members of
the police force who had been called before them. The
Court was aware that a great number had been sum' mooed before them, and they felt that they had ac-
quitted themselves with a great degree of intelligence
and had given their evidence in a most satisfactory way.
The RECORDER said he had great pleasure in dis-
charging them after the performance of their duties
which must have been very arduous, they having ai-
vanced into the fifth day of the session, and the
Court could bear testimony to the diligence and atten-
tion which they bad shown throughout their labours.
With regard to the police it was always extremely gra-
tifying to hear from the grand jury their good opinion
of the conduct of that_ body, who had always much in
their power and upon whom in a great degree depended
the due execution of the law. The Court looked strictly
to the conduct of the police and entirely concurred in
the sentiment expressed by the jury; those who bad
the management of that large body were always very
diligent in removing improper persons from it.
The grand jury were then discharged.

THE LONDON INDISPUTABLE LIFE POLICY COM"
PANY.—We would earnestly invite the public attention
to the novel feature in the principle of life assurance,
disclosed by " The London Indisputable Life Policy
Company," whose advertisement will be found in
another column. For the first time, we believe, in the
annals of insurance, policies are declared to be inde-
feasible and indisputable. Whenever the assurance has
once been effected no further question can arise. There
can be no danger of that vexatious and protracted litigation
that has proved ruinous to many families, whose parent
had fondly supposed that he had fully provided for their
future provision. All inquiries must be made in the first
instance. The investigation will take place before the
policies are issued from the office. There can be no
carelessness or laxity, or the least possible chance of
defeating claims, that could never have arisen if due
care had been exercised before the insurance was ef-
fected.

The soirée given to the English party at the Hotel
des Princes last night went off admirably. About 400
persons were present. Many of the French were in the
uniform of the National Guard. The orchestra of
Strauss at ended, and played " God save the Queen,"
which was loudly applauded by the French. The " Mar-
sellaise" was then called for byithe English. A speech:to
the English was delivered by M. Combier; and Mr.
Lloyd, in the uniform of the Warwickshire Yeomanry.
addressed the French. The cries of " Vivo la France!"
on one side, and " Vive l'Angleterrer on the other, were
loud and hearty. Refreshments, consisting of sand-
wiches and pastry of every kind, and of champagne with-
out limit, were provided. The party remained till a late
hour in the morning. The Arabic saloon of the hotel,
which has been fitted up with great splendour by M.
Privat, the proprietor, whose kind and liberal attention
to the guests was the subject of general eulogium, was
crowded. When the company broke up, the English
said, " Adieu!" but the French cried, " No, no, au re‘
voir!"—Galignani of Wednesday.
THE ENGLISH IN PARlB.—Previous to the visit of
the English to the Opera Comique on Wednesday even-
ing, it was proposed by one of the body that each person
should take with him to the theatre a large bouquet of
cammelias to throw on the stage as a tribute to the ac-
tresses. The proposition was, however, abandoned on
the advice of Mr. John Warton, of Stratton-street, 1.1 e;
cadilly, that 500 bouquets thrown on the stage would
totally prevent the continuation of the performance.