The Sun.
London, England, 1847-02-01 00:00:00

17DAY EVENING,''FEBRITARY 1, 1847.

verted to the circumstances under which that in-
quiry was made—the circumstances which occurred
at it, and questioned the authority of the court
martial, and those who sat at it—a line of conduct most
reprehensible in one filling a judicial situation. Therefore,
he repeated, that he was not entitled to the protection of the
Court. The affidavit went on to set forth that an advertise-
ment had been published in the Lancet, which he (Mr.
Healey) believed was inserted for the purpose of raising
subscriptions for Mr. Wakley, for the way in which he had
conducted the inquiry. Ile might truly say, that Mr.
Wakley was the proprietor of the paper. Then Mr. Wak-
ley had adopted an excellent plan to combat the statements
put forward in the Medical Times, as, in reply to a question
from Mr. Craven Berkeley in the House of Commons, he stated,
no doubt well knowing that it would find its way to the
public that the alleged libel " was written by a stupid
lawyer, who knew as much about medical matters as the
Hon. Member, judging from the way in which he had read
it." The next affidavit was that of Dr. Reid, who was one
of the army medical staff, and who stated that the man had
died from pleura, or inflammation in the lining membrane of
the heart, and complaining that the conduct of Mr. Wakley
had caused the evidence of the medical gentlemen to be
looked upon with suspicion. Next there was the affidavit
of Mr. Day, who was the surgeon first appointed by the
jury. He stated that he examined the body with Mr.
Wilson, and that they agreed as to the cause of
death ; and that, remembering that concurrence, he
was surprised at the testimony which ,Mr. Wilson
gave at the inquest, namely, that the contraction of the
muscles during the punishment had caused inflammation,
which ultimately led to the unfortunate man's death. He
also complained that Dr. Warren and the other medical
gentleman were not treated with that courtesy which they
had a right to expect from a court of justice. The medical
gentlemen were not allowed to be present in the court
during the last day, thus again acting in opposition to the
usual practice, and casting suspicion on their testimony,
whereas Mr. Wilson was ushered in with a sort of flourish,

as a most competent person to speak to the nature and ap-
pearances of the human skin ; he was first asked if he had
not published some books on the subject. He said he had,
adding that they were out of print, and that he could not recol-
lect their titles. Might it not be affirmed, with considerable
truth, that Mr. Wakley knew the opinions of Mr. Wilson on the
subject of corporal punishment, and that he employed him in
order to destroy the testimony of the other medical gentle-
men ? After some further remarks, he concluded by trusting
that the Court would discharge the rule.
Mr. BALLAWTINE followed on the same side. Ho referred
at length to the summing up of Mr. Wakley at the inquest,
and held that his conduct, in the whole matter, was more
like that of an advocate than of a judge ; that
he had influenced and prejudiced the minds of the jury, and
that his great object was to create for himself popularity,
and not the promotion of the ends of justice. When he read
the report of the meeting at Exeter Hall, it struck him that
the address which he delivered placed him wholly beyond
the interposition of the Court. Dr. Hall, from whom an affi-
davit could not be obtained on account of his being at the
Cape of Good Hope, agreed with the other medical gentle.
man that Mr. Wakley bullied them, and completely nullified
their testimony in the minds of the jury. Then the speech
at Exeter Hall contained terms as strong as those of the
article of which he complained.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL then proceeded to address the
Court in support of the rule. He said he was more inclined
to believe that the sentiments of his Learned Friend (Mr.
Ballantine) were those of his !client than sentiments in
which he could participate with any sincerity, because he had
charged Mr. Wakley, if not with having committed perjury,
with having sworn jesuitically. A direct attack had been
made upon Mr. Wakley in his capacity as coroner; but he
should show that the conduct of Mr. Wakley, in this re-
spect, was above reproach, and he should prove this by the
. "
work," Dr. Wilson; and with seeking popularity in order to
help his fortunes at the next election? Did Mr. Healey mean
very tests which his Learned Friend (Mr. Ballantine) had
applied, as he should refer in proof of it to the reports
of the proceedings which the defendants had had
verified on oath. Now the libel was published two days be-
fore Mr. Wakley had arranged to sum up the evidence, and
to bring the inquiry to a close. On first meeting the jury,
Mr. Wakley stated that the line of investigation he should
pursue was this—first, to inquire into the man's health at the
time he was punished ; and next, into the punishment itself.
The inquiry proceeded, therefore, in its natural course—in
the course laid down at the commencement. On that occasion
lie stated that he considered it most important that the spine
should be examined, as the man's legs had been paralysed two
days before his death. Mr. Day was appointed, but on being
examined he stated that he could give the reason of his
his death without such an examination. But the jury con-
sidered that the spine ought to be examined, and desired the
coroner to nominate a proper person to do so, and the inquiry
was adjourned.
Lord DENMAN said it was admitted that the inquiry was
properly conducted, and that the summing up of the coroner
was proper and temperate. The proceedings were be-
fore the Court, and were verified by affidavits. Now,
he did not think that there was anything in
these proceedings proving misconduct of any kind.
He thought, therefore, the Court might save the Learned
Counsel a deal of trouble by informing him that they consi-
dered his conduct in that particular respect unimpeachable;
therefore the question would turn upon the conduct of the
coroner towards the medical witnesses.
The ArromarEv-GENEnar. thanked the Court for this inti-
mation, and proceeded to deal with that part of the subject.
After reading the alleged libel at length, and commenting
upon the various expressions used, he asked what they could
think of the conduct of the defendant in publishing
such an article on the very eve of the close.
of the Inquiry to which it referred—an article
which charged Mr. Wakley with hinting conjec-
tural replies to private soldiers, with wishing to bring a
charge of murder to the door of a respectable medical
practitioner (Dr. Warren), and, failing lain), the commanding
officer, and, failing him, the farrier ; with traducing the cha-
racter of a justice; with dividing fees with his man of all
to set up that he did not know who wrote the article which
imputed such motives?
Mr. BALLANTINH said he had sworn that he did not.
The ArroaNET-GENERAL said much stress had been laid
upon the speech which Mr. Wakley had delivered at Exeter
Hall. It was very natural for Mr. Wakley to have adopted
such a mode of making his sentiments known ; few,
he apprehended, in that court would like to retract
such expressions as those used by Mr. Wakley on that oc-
casion. Then, the medical gentlemen were excluded from
the'inquest and from the post-mortem examinatien, by the
wish of the jury. But even if that was indiscreet, did that fur-
nigh Mr. Healey with any pretext for publishing such a libel ?
He apprehended also that the Act referred to with respect to
the examination of medical men had not been unheeded but
complied with. He concluded by expressing a hope that the
Court would make the rule absolute.
Lord DENMAN said lie was at loss to understand why the
medical men who had first seen the body, and who were
ignorant of the fact that the man's legs had been paralysed
two days before his death, were excluded from the last ex-
amination
were
excluded
body. ne w
that paralysis had taken place.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said the medical gentlemen
who
The jury considered that the examination should be made
by a medical man from London, and that none save Mr.
Wilson should be present.
Mr. BRAMWELL briefly addressed the Court.
The COURT took time to consider their decision, and
desired to have the affidavits on both sides, which were
handed in.

The LORD MAYOR—Have you any acquaintance with
Mr. Disraeli? The Poet—No, my Lord, but I know
the sort of writing which he admires, and I think I can
hit it off to perfection. Ile and Mr. Briscoe took seve-
ral volumes of a work which I published seventeen
years ago; in that book I did justice to Mr. Briscoe,
the Member of Parliament, for his humanity in perse-
vering till he succeeded in abolishing the cruel system
of the treadmill in the case of poor unhappy females.
The LORD MAYOR—But if you have been so unlucky
as not to have made a livelihood by the use of your peu

_
in poetry, you must have had some trade, or profes-
sion, or occupation by which you have been enabled to
live? The Poet—l am by trade a hoot-closer, but my
eyes are bad, and that sort of game is unprofitable.
The LORD MAYOR-But it is better than that which
produces nothing? The Poet—Scarcely; all I could
get by it was six or seven shillings a week, and that
vi ithout hope. But what is that compared to 1,5001. a
year, with hope in the extreme?—(Laughter.) •
The LORD MAYOR said the applicant was a very re-
markable instance of a persevering spirit under all the
discomfiture of hungry labour and aggravated disap-
pointments, anti requested his, acceptance of some silver
for his present exigencies.
Ths poet was grateful fur the donations but it was
quite evident that the advice of the Lord Mayor to prefer
a positive to an imaginary good, passed away with the
breath that uttered it. It was impossible to help smiling
at the resolute determination of the poor fellow to con-
tinue in the service of the muse, hard and unthankful as
that service evidently was. Those who witnessed the
scene were struck with the fact that the applicant,
although one of the genus irritabile, was a remarkable
retainer of patience under the most afflicting disappoint-
ments to which a poet can be subjected.
" What am Ito do, my Lord, if I cannot get the
copies of my poetry ?" said he. " Shall I go into the
Shoreditch workhouse ?"
Mr. Goodman—l am suae that Mr. Roberts will treat
such a man as you with kindness, and that the guardians
will not neglect your application if you make it through
him to them.
CHARGE OF STEALING COPPER.—John Moore, ware-
houseman in the Copper Mines Royal Company, was
charged with having stolen a quantity of copper, the
property. of the company. The prisoner had been in
the service of the .prosecutor between thirty and forty
years ; and Louisa Moore was charged with having re-
ceived the copper.
Suspicions having been attached to the prisoner Moore,
Mr. Kirkman, one of the directors of the company,
instructed Hayden, a very active policeman of the City
force, to watch his movements. The officer accordingly
went to work, and was almost the companion of both
prisoners in a coffee-shop and a public-house, and a but-
cher's shop, into all of which they went. He saw the
male prisoner give the copper to the female prisoner ;
and all the other evidence necessary having been given,
both prisoners were committed for trial.
WORSHIP-STREET.

CONVICTION UNDER THE FACTORY ACT.-011 Satur-
day, William Roberts, apparently a mechanic, appeared
before Mr. Broughton, to answer an information at the
instance of Mr. James Bury, a sub-inspector of factories,
charging him with having altered a certificate of bap-
tism, with intent to defeat the provisions of the Act of
the 7th and Bth Victoria, for the registration of infant
labour in factories, whereby he had incurred a penalty
of 20/., or six months' imprisonment.
It appeared from the evidence gone into, that the
defendant being anxious to obtain employment for Abel
Roberts, his son, a boy of twelve years, in the factory of
Mr. James Austin, the proprietor of the steam cotton
and flax mills iu Princes-street, Finsbury, and knowing
that the boy would not be employed unless he was
thirteen years of age, went on the 24th of November
last to Mr. Foster, the vestry clerk of Wandsworth,
whose wife (Mr. Foster being from home) he asked for
a copy of the certificate of baptism of his son, who was
born in that parish, and having told her the object for
which he desired it, asked her if there would be any
harm in his altering the date, so as to enable him to get
the boy off his hands; on which she cautioned him that
such a proceeding might probably subject him to trans-
portation. The correct certificate was sent him the
next day, and on the 28th of November he obtained
employment for the boy in the factory on the faith of
the certificate which he had altered so as to represent
his son to be upwards of thirteen years old. The boy
remained there until the 18th inst., when Mr. Bury
visited the factory, and the discovery took place which
led to the present proceedings.
The Defendant pleaded poverty and distress in ex-
tenuation of his offence.
lie was fined in the mitigated penalty of 405., or 14-
days' imprisonment.
SOUTHWARK.
Mr Osbaldiston, the lessee of the Victoria Theatre,
was summoned a second time by Wyatt, the informer,
for selling spirits in the saloon.
Mr. Games appeared in behalf of Mr. Osbaldiston and
pleaded Not Guilty.
The Court was crowded with theatrical people.
Wyatt, the witness, proved having been served on the
morning of the 6th instant, with sixpenny worth of gin
in the saloon of the theatre.
Mr• Col-axonal% the magistrate, asked Mr. Games
whether he denied the fact ? Mr. Games said he did
not, but his client had been fined 265. at that Court so
late as the 15th instant, at the suit of the same parties
for a similar offence on the sth, and he pointed out the
injustice of the present proceedings.
Mr. COTTINGHAM said Wyatt ought to have laid the
' present information at the time he did the former one.
It appeared to him that he was endeavouring to get
money from the defendant. Such proceedings were un-
fair to the magistrate and to Mr..osbaldiston. He
would, therefore, on the present occasion, dismiss the
summons on the defendant paying one shilling and the
costs.