The Sun.
London, England, 1849-04-16 00:00:00

VaLrnallg

LONDON, MONDAY, APRIL 16 1849.

A more important investigation has seldom taken
place in an English court of justice than that which
terminated on Saturday by the immediate acquittal
of Mr. BARTHOLOMEW PETER DROUET on the charge
of manslaughter, for neglecting to supply the
wretched children confided to his care with proper
food, clothing, and lodging, and thereby, in fact,
occasioning the untimely deaths of many of their
number. Nominally the inquiry was restricted to
the case of one of those little unfortunates, named
JAsfEs ANDREWS, an infant aged six years, but really
and substantially the entire system of child-farming,
as carried on at Mr. DROUET'S establisbment
butat
Surrey Tooting, formed the subject-matter of
the invostigation, by which not merely one,
nearly two hundred helpless children had their suf_
ferings brougvt to a premature termination, from the
state to which their constitutions had been previously
reduced by th.- inadequate diot and clothing, and by
the overe,rowd:ng and ill-venti!ation of the dormito-
ries and (13y-rooms in which the unhappy victims were
confined.

The case was mainly one of first principles, for
happily a Brti,h jury has sEidom, if ever, been called
upon to pronounce an opinion upon a similar pro-
ceediitg. Never, perhaps, has an instance of such
gross negligence and habitual inhumanity been
brought under the cognizance of a criminal tribunal,
and never, we regret to say, has a more narrow or
one-sided view of a case been taken than that
which Mr. Baron PLAIT placed before the jury in his

rind the L.arne4 Baron bet7,n specially re-

ta;lled on behalf of the prisoner, he could nit have
evinced greater partiality or a stronger bias in his
favour. This prejudice was apparent, not only in
his speech when summing up the evidence that had
been adduced, but in his conduct and demeanour
throughout the entire trial, to the eminent
counsel who so ably and temperately conducted
the prosecution, and to the various witnesses, more
especially the medical men, produced in support of
the charge. It was manifested in the peremptory
and overbearing manner in which he cut short the
arguments of a gentleman whose skill and experience,
whose talents, acquirements, and urbanity eminently
entitle him to the high position to which he has been
called (with the entire approbation of his professional
brethren) as one of her Majesty's Counsel. It was
no less painfully conspicuous in the sneering manner
in which he rebuked the medical gentleman who
spoke of the "tumid abdomens" of the unfortunate
children, flippantly remarking that "tumid abdomen
is a very learned phrase for a very simple indication,"
and the levity with which he inquired whether the
witness "had ever heard of cholera being caused by
the itch;" and finally it was exhibited in a charge to
the jury which left no alternative but the instant ac-
quittal of the party accused.

It is a well-known principle of law that a party
who takes upon himself the duty of maintaining
persons of tender years, unable to provide for them-
selves, is bound to afford them a sufficiency of all
necessaries suitable to their condition, and that if,
through any negligence, harsh treatment, or want of
care on his part, the death of these helpless beings
should be either directly occasioned, or even
accelerated, he is criminally responsible, and
guilty either of murder or manslaughter,
according to the nature of his conduct.
In the present instance the minor offence only was
charged, and abundance of evidence was produced to
show that the treatment they received was such as to
debilitate the constitution, and render them peculiarly
liable to any disease which might be prevalent at the
time. The ventilation was defective and bad ; the
sleeping apartments overcrowded, three of the children
being systematically sent to rest in the same bed ;
the clothing was scanty, and inadequate
to maintain a healthy warmth; while the
dietary was bad in quality, and insufficient in quan-
tity. The natural result followed—the wretched
children on their removal were found to exhibit all
the symptoms that would be occasioned by such a
system. Pale complexions—pot-bellies—wasted limbs
and soft flesh were the characteristics of all, while
about two-thirds of the number were afflicted with
itch, sore heads, sore feet, or other cutaneous diseases.
The direct, and positive testimony, was no less con-
clusive as to the manner in which they bad been
provided for, than was the evidence of the scientific
witnesses as to subsequent appearances. It was shown
that a small loaf—a half-quartern—was cut
into sixteen or twenty pieces, one of these parts
being the allotted allowance for a meal ; while the
potatoes supplied on meat-days were generally so
bad and rotten that the famishing children
could not swallow the putrifying esculent,
and were compelled to leave that which constituted
so important a portion of their food wholly untouched.
Mr. WILLIAM WINCH, one of the guardians of the
Holborn Union, who inspected the establishment in
May last, could not find a single good potato out of
more than two hundred. He also proved that " the new
sleeping apartments were badly constructed and
badly ventilated." Mr. REDING, who accompanied him,
asked the boys if they had anything to complain of,
and desired those who had to bold up their hands,
which was immediately responded to by more
than thirty of the number, for which they
were at the moment abused by DHOUET, and
subsequently beaten for daring to speak the
truth. The very presence of the guardians who
made the inquiry was insufficient to make the child-
farmer control his temper when his malpractices
were exposed, and yet this was the man whom some
of the witnesses spoke of as " humane and kind-
hearted."

It is manifest that the case cannot rest in its pre-
sent position. If the law laid down by
Baron PLATT be correct, there is a virtual immunity
for all such offenders, and it will be utterly useless to
bring them to trial for any neglect or bad treatment
they may exhibit towards the children under
their charge. It must, therefore, be ascertained
whether the opinion of the Learned Baron be sup-
ported by his judicial brethren; and if so, a Legislative
remedy must be provided for the deplorable insufll•
ciency of the law, that so palpable a failure of justice
be not rendered probable, or even possible, on another
occasion.

" Oh! that mine enemy would write a book," ex-
claims the Psalmist. Let therefore Mr. &men re•
joice, the Bishop of EXETER bath written a letter, and
never in the annals of cool—we mean " modest
assurance," hath such an instance of the exercise of
that most useful quality been chronicled, as is this in-
stance of the Prelatical epistle re SPORE, addressed to
the Archbishop of CANTERBURY. The Bishop would
fain make it appear that he is the persecuted, and
Mr. SHORE the persecutor, and with a self-pity and
a self-laudation, marvellous to contemplate, " regards
it as one of those trials to which all who attempt to

do their duty in administering the discipline of the

Church are in these days necessarily exposed." On
reading this passage we naturally inquired, what is

this trial which, with Shylock-like meekness, the
suffering Prelate hath borne with a " patient shrug ?''
And our mind reverted to the Assize Hal! of Durham,
and the case of the QUEEN V. WlLLrams, and to the

Assize Hall of Exeter and the case of
the QUEEN W. LATINIER ; but it is evi-
dent from the context that neither of these is
the trial to which the Bishop alludes, and referring

back to his own account of the transactions between

Mr. SH,)RE and himself, it appears that it (the trial)
occurred after the manner following. According to
the Bishop's own showing, Mr. Suoas had, by the
refusal of the renewal of his licence (and no cause

was assigned, save the mere " sic eels sic juieo "
of the old Bishop and the new rector) been placed in
"a fearful strait." "I have no doubt," says the Bishop
in his letter of 25th November, 1843, " that every
clergyman in this diocese would feel in a fearful strait
under such circumstances." Having thus placed Mr.
SHORE in a " fearful strait," rendering it impossible
fur him to officiate in the Church, the Bishop, on Mr.
SHORE'S attempting to quit the Church, instituted
legal proceedings, and having succeeded at length in
incarcerating him in the gaol of St. Thomas, Exeter,
our Prelatical STIOOINS at once " gives himself out
as a persecuted individual," because his victim has
ventured to complain.
In the Bishop's letter to Mr. SHORE of the 25th of
November (quoted in this letter to the Archbishop),
we find a passage, which when compared with the
Bishop's own statement of what had previously
passed between himself and Mr. COSEN9, the new
Rector of Berry Pomeroy, throws a remarkable light
upon the Phillpottian tactics in this case. In address-
ing Mr. SHORE he says—
" You may state to Mr. Cosens what I authorised
you to state to him in my letter of the 13th instant ;
it was to this effect, ' that I have no personal feelint,
whatever in the case ; that if, after making what he
shall think due inquiry, he shall consider you a fit
person to whom he may intrust the spiritual instruc-
tion of a large and important part of the people, the
care of whose souls was committed to him at his insti-
tution,' I shalt receive his nomination with full confi-
dence that he has conscientiously given it, and shall
then proceed to make more particular inquiries than I
have yet thought it necessary to make into your conduct
and doctrine."

------- -
oisfh.mopr.haEdDlwicAeßnsDesd,
Mfr. N
So wu
Rseßeiunpgonthatthein
nominationß
sion had grossly neglected his duty by g g a
it would appear either that the Bishop on trhaanttioncca-
licence without instituting the necessary inquiries, or
that during the interval a change had taken place in
the Bishop's own doctrines ; that in 1843 he regarded
ai heresy that which in 1832 he considered as ortho-
doxy, and that HENRY PHILIA.OTTS, like HENRY
TUDOR, was not content to be blorwn about by every
wind of doctrine himself but must force every other
person to follow him in his theological vagaries. But
let that pass. Having read the above passage from
the Bishop's letter to Mr. Suoitat, dated November
1843, let us turn to the Right Isteverend Prelate's
narrative of his interview with Mi. COSENS (a rank
Puseyite) in the month of August' preceding. The
Bishop of EXETER, in his letter to, the Archbishop,
thus describes this interview with Mr. CI:OMNI{ :
"In our conversation (as he recettpy informed me

(rum nnte; merle by him) I hail askod whether he know
4r. Shore; and on his i.,ns•sering niat ' had hodx
we% e. very troublesome pt.rsou,' 1 abLzait.ed 'row mai..Log
any remark whatever."
A silence that spoke trumpet-tongued. Dull, in-
deed, must Mr. COSENS have been, if he could not un-
derstand this broad hint. Who can mistake the mean-
ing of this most eloquent silence ? " The dodge," for
it deserves no other appellation—" the dodge " be-
tween COSENS and PHILLPOTTS is evident. The Bishop,
in the course of his letter, thinks it decent to sneer at
the conscientious scruples of those who, like Mr
SHORE, feel compelled to quit the church of HENRY,
Lord Bishop of Exeter. The speech of the Rev.
THOMAS BINNEY at the great meeting held at Exeter
on Wednesday week, affords a complete answer to the
episcopal insinuations. That Rev. Gentleman said :--
" I have very little doubt now that there must be
something lying at the bottom of this Mr. Shore's case,
connected with Mr. Shore's want of sympathy with those
certain peculiarities of opinion which distinguish a cer-
tlin section of the Church—l suppose there is something
in that.—(Hear, hear.) Sir, it is a very serious matter,
indeed, the state to which we are coming at present.
Separation from the Church, sir! Why, a young man
may, 20 years ago, have conscientiously subscribed the
articles and bound himself to_the Church of England on
entering it; but now, sir, if you talk about his leaving
the Church, I say he is not leaving the same Church—
(Hear, hear.) It has become so altered in its spirit, in
its opinions—there has been such a rise, such a gigantic
rapid growth of it all the land over; the ecclesiastical
spirit of this country, or of the Establishment of this
aouiitry, has become altogether a different thing from
what it was 20 or 30 years ago; and I can conceive,
therefore, that a man who had signed the articles and
gone into the Church at the age of 23, with great sim-
plicity and seriousness of mind, may now, sir, at the age
of 43 or a little older, with all his matured experience
and inward life and feeling, look upon the state of things
with which he is mixed up, and wish from the depth of
his soul to depart from it, as a duty towards God—and
he ought certainly to have the power of doing so."
Not only was there in Mr. SHORE'S case a want of
sympathy for " those certain peculiarities of opinion"
by which the Bishop of EXETER sets so much store,
but there was also " a private grief," for a knowledge
of which we are indebted to the searching cross-
examination of the Bishop by Mr. Coexist:um, in the
case of the QUEEN v. LATIMER. The Bishop, on his
cross-examination, said "he had no difference with
Mr. SHORE, but on one occasion he had reproved him
in reference to the part he had taken in the Chudleigh
election, in which place the inhabitants have a right
to elect the minister. Mr. SHORE having been a can-
didate, with Mr. PALL and Mr. CUMMINGS, had ad-
dressed a circular to the electors, resigning in favour
of Mr. PALL. He reproved him." He " had particu-
larly cautioned Mr. COSENS with regard to Bridge-
town, and probably advised him to make inquiry as
to Mr. SHORE. He had not given the same caution
to Mr. BROWN" (the former rector), "although he had
continually seen hits from time to time. The
time that he had given the caution was after the
Chudleigh election." After this it is scarcely neces-
sary to state that Mr. PALL was a clergyman of
evangelical principles, like Mr. SHORE, and that had
both stood, the Puseyite candidate would have been
elected. In the Western Times of Saturday we find
the following letter from the Rev. JAMES SHORE :
" St. Thomas's Gaol, April 13, 1849.
" Dear Sir,—l write you a hasty line, just as your
paper is going to press, to tell you that I have this
morning received a pamphlet, written by the Bishop of
Exeter, on my case.
" lam glad that the Bishop of Exeter has taken this
step. We shall now be able to test his statement by the
facts, when it will be seen that the Bishop's letter greatly
damages his own case as it regards myself. He begins
by admitting that the law ought to be altered, and yet
he has been enforcing against me a law which he now
condemns by that admission.
" The Bishop has endeavoured to make out his case
with his usual ingenuity, but ingenuity is badly exer-
cied, if it be not accompanied with candour. The
Bishop has mutilated my correspondence, leaving out
parts the most important, and entirely misrepresenting
the matter throughout as it regards myself.
" What his Lordship states on the authority of a me-
morandum from Mr. Cosens, is entirely a fabrication, so
far as I am concerned, from beginning to end.
" I reserve myself for a full answer to these misrepre-
sentations. " I am, &c.,

" JAMES SHORE."

Except as far as Mr. SHORE is himself personally
concerned, we think that he may save himself the
trouble of writing an answer to the statements con-
tained in the Bishop's letter. That letter consists
chiefly of a history of the negotiations with the Duke
of SOMERSET on the subject of Bridgetown Chapel,
and is merely a repetition of the statement made by
the Bishop in the House of Lords, and subsequently
deposed to by him as the principal witness for the
prosecution in the case of the " QUEEN v. LATIMER ;"
a statement which, after the verdict of the jury in that
case, needs neither refutation nor contradiction.
That case, it will be recollected, was a prosecution
instituted at the instance of the Bishop of EXETER
against the proprietor of the Western Time: news-
paper for the publication of a libel. The defendant
admitted the publication of the libel, but pleaded that
he was justified in uttering the alleged libel because
it was true, and that the publication of it was for the
public benefit. The case was tried at Exeter on
the 27th March, 1848, before Mr. Baron PLATT and a
special jury, the special jury having been struck by
the desire of the Bishop. Mr. CROWDER, the counsel
for the prosecution, having gone through the history
of the persecution, secession, and prosecution of Mr.
SHORE, proceeded to state that after the failure of Mr.
SHORE'S attempt to procure a prohibition from the
Court of Queen's Bench to stop proceedings in the
Court of Arches, that gentleman petitioned the
House of Lords, his petition being presented by Lord
BaouGnam. "Having presented the petition," said
Mr. CROWDER, " Lord BROUGHAM made some obser-
vations in the House of Lords, and in consequence of
those observations the Bishop of EXETER conceived it
to be his duty to make a statement, in the course of
which he said that he had originally granted a licence
to Mr. SHORE upon receiving the assurance of the
Duke of SOMERSET, first, that he would endow the
chapel referred to, and secondly, that the building
should only be used for Divine worship accord-
ing to the rites and ceremonies of the
Church of England. He (the Bishop) was
grieved to say that his Grace had departed from
his engagements." After relating the proceedings
which the Bishop had instituted against Mr. SHORE,
Mr. CROWDER continued—" A short time afterwards
Lord SEYMOUR, son of the Duke of SOMERSET, and
Member for Totnes, called a meeting of his consti-
tuents, for the purpose of adverting to certain mis-
statements that had been made in the House of Lords
respecting the Duke of SOMERSET. At that meeting
Lord SEYMOUR addressed them, and in the course of
his remarks charged the Bishop of EXETER with
having uttered a deliberate falsehood in the state-
ment he had made in the House of Lords. This
speech was afterwards inserted in the newspaper of
which the defendant is the editor, and upon which the
editor commented. The comment of the editor upon
that speech is the subject of the present indictment."
Mr. COCRBURN, the counsel for the defence, said in the
course of the trial, "that as the real question at issue
was between the Duke of SOMERSET and the Bishop
of EXETER, it would be for the jury to decide which
of these exalted persons had been guilty of misstating
the facts connected with the case ;" and Mr. Baron
PLATT in charging the jury, said, that " if they should
be of opinion, on the second issue, that the Duke of
SOMERSET had broken his engagement with regard to
the chapel at Bridgetown, in that case, as the Bishop
would have uttered that which was perfectly true in
the House of Lords, the justification of that libel
would fail, and it would be their duty to find a verdict
for the Crown on the issue." The jury (a special
jury, be it remembered) found a verdict for the
defendant on the second issue, which was, ac-
cording to Mr. Baron PLATT, tantamount to finding
that that which the Bishop had uttered in the House
of Lords was not perfectly true, and which was really
and in express terms finding that the defendant was
" justified in publishing the libel charging the
Bishop of EXETER with deliberate falsehood,' be-
cause it was true, and the publication of it was for
the public benefit." After this solemn decision of a
jury, it is surely unnecessary to notice further any-
thing that may be said by the Bishop of EXETER on
the subject of the Duke of SOMERSET, Lord SEY-
MOUR, Mr. SIIORE, or Bridgetown Chapel.

ME. WILSON, THE SCOTTISH VocitusT.--This
gentleman's career in the United States is marked with
the same brilliant success which distinguished his former
visit to America. Charleston, Savannah, Colombia, and
Camden have lately been the scenes of his triumphs. In
the former city, so great was the enthusiasm with which
his entertainments were hailed, that he paid three visits
there. lie states in his letters to his friends, that the
recitation of Tam O'Shanter " told well" at Charleston
and Savannah ; and that the entertainment on Scott's
worksboth
ttoh
ektlast
wilaaecs
caeonqudun at
Nei
eyiwt
seemswc
oa rr m l e laynt
shr.ea ct ei
Th veheewd
period
at r
iabout
of places.
to
hisr proceede t
return
i n
to England is not yet fixed.