The Sun.
London, England, 1840-05-07 00:00:00

PRICE sd.

COURT CHRISTIAN, NORWICH.

On Monday last, the Court again sat, and the Bungay
St. Mary case being called on, the Proctor for the
Churchwardens objected, on the ground of irrelevancy,
to the admission of certain portions of the respondent's
answcr, put in at the last Court, in which be alleged
that as the Judges held Christianity to be part of the
law of the land, and the exaction of Church-rates is re-
pugnant to Christianity, and moreover, as in the Court
Christian the Scriptures must be held to be of para-
mount authority, and these give no sanction to the
jurisdiction of one religious sect over the members of
another, it was, therefore, illegal to levy Church-rates
on hint, a Dissenter, and to cite him to a Court pre-
sided over by a Bishop of the Church of England.
The Learned Judge over-ruled the objection, and
the plaintiff's proctor then produced a witness, Mr.
Spell, of Bungay, collector of the Church-rate, to be
sworn to give evidence.
The Judge informed Mr. Charles Childs, the respon-
dent, that he was entitled to cross-examine the witness
within two days after his examination in chief.
Mr. Childs said 111 was then ready to cross examine
him and with the Judge's permission, would proceed to
do so at once.

The Judge replied that the mode of examination Was,
that the witness went before the examiner, an officer
of the Court, who took his answers in writing, The
deponent was at liberty to give in written interrogatories
which would be put to him in the same way.
The respondent begged that a copy of the exami-
nation in chief might be furnished to him, to prepare
questions for cross-examination. •
The Judge said—No, the examinations thus taken
were not seen either by himself or by the parties until
the case was closed, and the evidence published.
Mr. Childs said he did not understand bow
by such a process the truth could be elucidated.
The use of a cross-examination he took to be to explain
facts which had been imperfectly or income:ly stated,
and to elucidate the truth where, by a suppressio veni,
or a szywestio falsi, it had not been fairly given. It
would be absurd to attempt this where the examination
in chief was unknown, unless he could frame a
set of questions for every possible conjunction
of circumstances, which might be as various as
the possible positions of the letters of the alphabet.
The very first answer given by a hostile witn.ss, or
one with whose impression of facts he was unac-
quainted, might render inapplicable the whole set of in-
terrogatories, however inffbenious!y framed, as no contin-
gency was too minute to divert the current of evidence
into an entirely new channel. He felt that he need not
urge upon the Judge the value of a real cross-ex-
amination as practised in the Common-law Courts,
nor the damage which the truth must sustain
through want of it in the Courts Christian. He
believed he was justified in stating, as he did, under the
correction of the Judge, that although the usage of these
Courts was to take the evidence on written interroga-
tories, there was nothing contained in any canon or sta-
tute to forbid its being taken viva voce in open Court—
the proceedings would not be less formal, nor the judg-
ment less valid, and as each of the Ecclesiastical Courts
was of record for itself, the Judge would give to his succes-
sors a precedent of that improvement which had been so
strenuously recommended by Mr. Kitson, the Regis-
trar, in his intelligent evidence before the Ecclesiastical
Commission. He, therefore, begged that Mr. Spall
might now be examined.

The Judge, smiling, replied, that whether either of
the parties might by a superior Court be held to have
suffered by such a proceeding as that suggested, he
could not tell ; but be should certainly not feel at liberty
on his own responsibility to depart from the practice of
the Superior Courts.
Mr. Childs replied, that he should not then put in
interrogatories for such a cross-examination as the
Court allowed, but when the proper time came, prove
by his own witnesses what he deemed essontial to his
case.
The next Court will be held May 25th.

MARRIAGE OF THE DUKE OF

SUSSEX.

(From the Britannia.)
In the remarks which we are called on to make from
time to time on public men and matters, we have uni-
formly spoken in a public spirit alone ; and we have no
hesitation in saying that this we have done with a large
portion of the public approval. We can have no pri-
vate hostilities, and, therefore, can fairly give no private
offence. Our journal is open to all men, and where we
may have occasionally fallen into error—for we pretend
to no infallibility—we are much more ready to retract
than to persevere in the misconception.
.

On looking over our observations in our last week's
paper, on the case of Sir Augustus and Mademoiselle
D'Este, as detailed in the letters of Sir John Dillon, we
desire to disclaim, in the most candid and complete
manner all idea of personal molestation to the feelings
of any one of the parries. The topic having been
brought before the world by recent circumstances, and
become the direct subject of controversy in the columns
of the Morning Chronicle, how is it to be supposed
that the subject is either an interdicted one to all Jour-
nals but those of the Government, or that we can have
any interest in the discussion ? As journalists, we are
bound to our readers to notice the prominent topics of
the day, rod to speak of them neither in the spirit of
sycophants,. nor of personal enemies.
As to his Royal Highness himself, we cannot con-
ceive any offence to be taken in the matter. We have
so often heard him pronounce the freedom of the press
to be the lifeblood of British liberty, and the right of
even the broadest and boldest inquiry into the acts of
public
characters to be an heir-loom of our established
freedom, that we can scarcely conceive it possible to sec
on individual of his prominent rank exposing himself to
the charge of nullifying the declarations of a long life,
and exhibiting, in practice, the direct contradiction to
principles which he Lai so often pronounced that he
would carry with him to the grave.
Again, we say that, if personal offence be taken in any
instance, whether of the lowest or of the highest rank
—from the peasant to the blood-royal—we arc ready
to apologise. If eircninstanees are stated on authority,
which afterwards appear to he unsound„-se e are as per-
fectly to ntlinit the refutation ; or, if we have
drawn • a hasty conclusion from facts, we have not
the slightest objection to be argued into better
logic. Tile greatest names of England have been,
and still are, constantly assailed with the most unre-
strained epithets. But they suffered those attacks to
pass by, and regarded them justly as part and parcel of
the tax which every public man must be prepared to
pay for pre-eminence in rank and popularity. How
often was William Pitt called traitor, robber of the
nation, destroyer of the British empire ? But how
often did he cover himself with the win,g of the At•
torney-General ? Never ! Vigilant for the public
honour, he was justly contemptuous of the assaults
of his personal fame. He knew that he could live them
down. Sir Robert Peel and the Duke of Wellington
arc hourly assailed by the Whig and Radical prints;
they are, probably, as susceptible as other men ; but
' they know that true refutation clnnot be touched by
such missiles, and they sleep without invoking the
guardianship of the Queen's Bench.
We are not of the Duke of Sussex's political opinions,
and must combat them where they come in our way.
But there we stop. We have nothing to say of his pri-
vate habits, nor of those of any other person. With us
every man's house is his castle ; and when the Duke of
Sussex shuts his door, it shall never be violated by us.
We acknowledge, too, that however erroneous his poli-
tics, he has, for many years, been an active and influ-
ential supporter of the metropolitan charities, a culti-
vator of learning, and a friend and encourager of many
learned men. All this is much to the credit of a person
barn to a rank which seems generally to preclude as
much the inclination as the necessity for public effort of
any kind, and this praise we fully concede.
The friends of his Royal Highness will see in this lan-
guage that it is wholly impossible to conceive any wish
on our part to give personal pain. In this and all cases,
where our statements are opened to refutation, we are
perfectly willing to insert that refutation in our journal.
If individual sensibilities have been offended, none shall
go before us in regretting to have given an offence of
which we explicitly disclaim all intention.

DESTRUCTIVE FIRE AT TITEVITRIOL, SALT-
?ETRE, AND WHITE LEAD WORKS, 1-tOTHERIIITHE. A
dreadful fire, involving great destruction of valuable property,
occurred on Monday at the great vitriol, saltpetre, and white
lead works of Messrs. Brandram (brothers) and Co., situate in
the Lower Deptford-road, Rotherhithe. The manufactory is
considered, for its extent and completeness, and for the great
variety of operations carried on within it, one of the most im-
portant in the metropolis. The works are entered by a large
meadow, opposite Old Rotherhithe workhouse, and situated
100 yards from the main road. The premises occupy a largo
space of ground, about 260 feet in length, and 160 feet in depth,
and are surrounded by several reservoirs of water. The fire
commenced in that portion denominated the colour manufac-
tory, and it was discovered by the watelmrin employed on the
establishment. A mounted express was immediately despatched
to the different fire stations in London, and in the course of
half an hour afterwirds no fewer than eight large engineesirof
were
on the spot. They were all got to work from reservoirs
water that surrounded the works; but the flames extended to
several ether manufactories (separate building-s)
joining,
how-
which were destroyed. The west and castings were.
, ever, saved. The firemen were unable toloss is estimated,
obtain any particu-
lars
concerning the origin of the fire. The
by competent judges, at 10,0001. The firm are insured in the
Imperial, Guardian, and Roy
al Exchangeanexplosion of saltpetreFire-offices, to the
amount of 40,000/. Some years ago
occurred on the works, and serious consequences ensued.
' There is no truth in the statement that Lord
Charles J. F. Russell has declined to oppose Lord Stanley's
Irish Registration Bill, and will therefore vacate his seat lR Par.
hammt,