The Sun.
London, England, 1849-03-29 00:00:00

. _,.....k;Y

unr>iirn

°a: .. _

sti cii6sulved the thee Ling shertiy
after four o'clock.

THE REV. JAMES SHORE

" We have received (says a morning contemporary)
the following letter from Mr. Bouverie, accounting f'or
the discrepancy between our statements and his own
with reference to the case of Mr. Shore. The expla-
nation afforded, whilst it admits the statement which
Mr. Bouverie impugned to be substantially correct,
amply exonerates him fr, m the blame of wilful or pre-
cip:Aate misrepresentation":—

Sir,—l am very unwilling to obtrude on you, or to
occupy your valuable space with a personal matter; but
I owe it justly to you, still more than to myself, to
refer to your article of this morning, in which mention
is made of my name in connexion with the proceedings
against Mr. Shore in the Arches' Court.

-In it you reiterate, and confirm, by reference to
proper sources of authority, the statement of an article
which appeared in your columns some days ago, and
the accuracy of which I thought it right to question, in
the House of Commons, on Wednesday last. The state-
ment was this—that the Bishop of Exeter had proceeded
against Mr. Shore to depose him; and I owe it to you
to acknowledge that I find, by reference to " Robertson's
Reports" (vol. i., p. 390), that, though the articles against
Mr. Shore certainly did not pray his deposition, yet the
counsel against him did, in the course of the proceed-
ings in the case, submit that he ought to be deposed
from the ministry.
I find too, in the report of Sir H. J. Fust's judgment,
the following passage, as correctly extracted by you :
" When the case came originally before the court, the
prayer at the conclusion of the articles was, that he
should be admonished to abstain from performing eccle-
siastical duties or divine offices in the chapel in question,
be canonically punished according to the exigency of the
law, and be condemned in the costs. As I understand, the
prayer now made to the court is not to the same effect;
but I confess I am not prepared to go beyond that which
is a canonical punishment."

I am boundto admit that I think this sufficiently war-
rants the statement which I contradicted.
I owe it to myself, while apologising to you for having
given the contradiction, to satisfy you that I had ample
grounds to justify my doing so.
I enclose to you a copy of the printed " Case on be-
half of the respondent," in Shore v. Barnes, laid, on the
part of the Bishop, before the Privy Council, from
which (with the other documents laid befbre that Court,
embracing the proceedings in the Arches' Court below),
I drew my knowledge of the case in the ecclesiastical
courts.

A copy of Sir H. J. Fust's judgment in the Arches'
Court, authenticated by Mr. Robertson, is given in this,
the Bishop's case, submitted on his behalf to the Privy
Council, from which I extracted the following passage,
which, after referring to the articles of the charge, I read
without comment in the House, as the ground for my
contradiction of your statement.
" When the case came originally before the court,
the prayer at the conclusion of the articles was, that he
should be admonished to abstain from performing eccle-
siastical duties or divine offices in the chapel in question,
be canonically punished according to the exigency of the
law, and be condemned in the costs. As I understand,
the prayer now made to the court is to the same effect,
and I confess I am not prepared to go beyond that which
is a canonical punishment."
You will observe that there was a "not" absent here,
which is to be found in the other report, quoted by your-
self, and that " and" in this report appears as " but" in
the other; consequently the fair inference from the one
is exactly the reverse of that from the other.
The contest inclines me to the opinion, that the judg-
ment as given in the " Reports" is correct, and that given
in Mr. Barnes's " case for the respondent," is wrong;
but I had every reason to induce me to rely on the accu-
racy of the latter, or I should certainly not have made
the statement I did, nor have thus given you the trouble
to read or insert this.—l am, your most obedient servant,
March 26, 1849. EDWARD P. BODVERIE.

FROM THE LONDON GAZETTE
OF TUESDAY.
DECLARATION OF DIVIDEND.
J. Peake and T. Hall, Lichfield, ironmonger, 5s 7d.,
on Thursday, March 15, or any subsequent Thursday,
between eleven and threo, at the office of Mr. Valpy,
Birmingham_

PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED.
T. Riley and B. Stott, Manchester, bookbinders and
stationers—J. Whittaker, W. Whittaker, and J. Whit-
taker, Sowerby-bridge, Yorkshire, ironfounders and mill-
wrights—W. J. Cannon and W. P. Browne, solicitors t.nd
attorneys—J. M'George and R. G. Rose, drapers, St.
John-street-road—W. T. Miskin and R. White, Water -
lane, City, ship and insurance brokers, and Custom
House agents—J. Lewis and T. Turpin, Brighton,
timber and coal merchants—C. Taylor and 11. Aylmer,
Manchester, commission agents for cloth and yarns—T.
Walker and E. Holmes, Keighley, Yorkshire, manufac-
turers of amions and other worsted goods—Mary Usborne
and R. Dickeson, Dover, wholesale and retail grocers,
teadealers, and cheesemongers—C. W. Greaves and W.
Greaves, St. John-street, Clerkenwell, teadealers and
grocers—W. W. Brown, J. Whitaker, E. Janson, T. C.
Janson, H. Oxley, and E. Whitmore, jun., London and
Leeds, bankers (so far as regards E. Whitmore)—C. E.
E. Mousiey and F. Lonergan, Port St. Mary, Spain—
Jane Vigor, Mary Vigor, and Matilda Vigor, Bristol,
schoolmistresses (so far as regards Matilda Vigor)—
W. Yeo and G. Shapland, Barnstaple, Devonshire,
teadealers and grocers, dealers in wines, spirits, and
compounds, and ales and porter—W. White, S. Green-
well, W. White, jun., C. G. Collins, and C. Dear,
Watling-street (so far as regards S. Greenwell)—
W. White, S. Greenwell, and W. White, jun., and C.
G. Collins, Cheapside (so far as regards S. Greenwell)—
W. White, S. Greenwell, D. L. Hubbard, and J. Ro-
binson, Blackfriars-road (so far as regards W. White)—
P. W. Fry, J. Loxley, and P. S. Fry, Cheapside, solici-
tors—W. Gardner and R. Cordner, Stanhope •in-Wear-
dale, Durham, iron, fire, and freestone quarrymen—W.
Welton and D. Gledden, Sunderland. wharf, Rotherhithe,
and Greenwich, timber merchants, and dealers
in fire•bricks, tiles, slates, stones and coals
—G. L. Graves and W. T. Graves, Iron-
monger-lane, woollen warehousemen—G. Brough-
ton and R. Noakes, Fenchurch-street, button
manufacturers and hardwaremen—T. B. Tyetil and H.
Luscombe, Plymouth, stock and share brokers—A. San-
derson and W. Thompson, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, gro-
cers and tea dealers—E. Staunton and T. Cromer, jun.,
Great St. Helen's, general and commission agents.
INSOLVENT PETITIONERS.
John Humber, Potteries, Staffordshire, clogger and pat-
ten maker.
John Punchard, Bootle .cum-Linacre, Lancashire, hair
dresser.
George Chalklen, New Brompton, Kent, beer retailer
and baker.
Thomas Kent, Longton, Staffordshire, beerseller.
Edward Clemmy, Manchester, joiner and builder.
Thomas Hewick, Manchester, boot and shoe maker.
Harry Alexander Small, Haversham, Buckinghamshire,
clerk.
Joseph Towler, Manchester, hatter.
Thomas Fry, Uleonab, Kent, farmer.
William Edmeads, Mereworth, Kent, farmer and fruiterer.
John Collins, Lenham, Kent, innkeeper.
John Pigott, Marton, Cheshire, farmer.
Isaac Smith, Keresley, Warwickshire, market gardener.
John Risley, Northampton, baker.
John Payne, Coventry, ribbon weaver.
John Cooper, Coventry, sub-contractor.
Henry Coleman, Spilsby, Lincolnshire, common carrier.
Edward Dawson Stones, Burgh in the Marsh, Lincoln-
shire, ironmonger.
Frederick Gurnell, Horncastle, Lincolnshire, coach and
carriage maker.
William Johnson, Horncastle, Lincolnshire, coach and
carriage maker.
Thomas Halliday. Huddersfield, Yorkshire, currier.
John Marshall, Horncastle, Lincolnshire, brewer's dray
man.
Joseph Cliffe, Huddersfield, Yorkshire.
Jonathan Swallow, Almonbury, Yorkshire, merchant.
Matthew Crossley, Halifax, Yorkshire, boot and shoe
maker.

Morgan Robinson, Shotton Colliery,:Durham, coal miner.
Ilwrnard Caotlo, Durham, stra' bon-
net manufacturer.

John Henry liadcoek Gurney, Paul, Cornwall, solicitor.
George Line, Steeple Ashton, Wiltshire, blacksmith.
Thomas Simpson, Leckhampton, Gloucestershire, road
contractor.
George Tinkler, Cheltenham, cooper.
SCOTCH SEQUESTRATIONS.
G. Young, Glasgow and Dundee, merchant, to meet
within Cowrie's Royal Hotel, Glasgow, April 3 and May
1, at one.
D. M'Arthur, Greenock, woollen draper and clothier
to meet within Melvin's Temperance Coffee-house
Greenock, March 31 and April 24, at twelve.
Janet Dunsmore, Cults, Wigtonshire, shipowner, to
meet within Mrs. Hawthorn's Inn, Whithorn, April 3
and 24, at two.

BEGGING IN THE STREETS.—Yesterday afternoon
an inquest was held before Mr. W. Baker, jun. Deputy
Coroner, at the Plough, Plough-yard, Shoreditch, re-
specting the death of an infant named Michael Donovan,
aged nine months, who was alleged to have died from
starvation and exposure to the cold air. The deceased
was one of twins, and the mother was constantly in
the practice of begging in the public streets, with the
two infants in her arms. She generally left home about
ten o'clock in the morning, and remained out all day
with her two children until late at night. She usually
sat upon the steps of doors in Finsbury-square, for se-
veral hours together, exciting the sympathy and
commiseration of the public, who frequently gave
her money, as she appeared in deep distress.
In January last the deceased was attacked with
a pulmonary disease, and an order was issued
by the medical officer of the union, who directed
that the child should be properly attended to. The
surgeon visited the child daily until the 6th of March,
but the mother heeded not the surgical advice, and again
exposed the two children in the streets. The surgeon
discontinued his visits after the 6th instant, and the
deceased gradually becarie worse. The mother never
applied for the assistance of a surgeon, nor stated that
her child was worse. On Friday last the deceased was
apparently dying, but the mother took him out with the
other infant, and did not return home until the evening.
The deceased became worse, and expired early on Sun-
day morning. Mr. Hall, surgeon, said he attributed
death to chronic disease, which might have been accele-
rated by the frequent exposure to the cold air. After a
short consultation, the jury returned a verdict of
" Death from chronic disease, aggravated by exposure
to the cold air." The Coroner, by the directions of
the jury, severely censured theheartless mother, and
cautioned her to take proper care of her remaining child.

The SHERIFF declared the result to be the adoption
of tho Kinendmoilt.
Msjor CURT