The Sun.
London, England, 1847-07-01 00:00:00

IMITTEES, the subject, and be the means of getting a measure passed
with reference to these evils in a future Parliament.
Sir G. GREY said that his Hon. Friend who had just
sat down asked what peril would there be in reading the
Bill a second time? He (Sir G. Grey) asked of what
advantage it would be to read it a second time if it
proceede no further ? (Hear, hear.) The Go-
vernment were fully alive to the importance of the
subject, but he did not think it right that they
should interfere so sweepingly as this Bill pro-
posed to do, for they would' be entirely preventing those
who were most interested in the prevention of those acci-
dents from adopting such steps as it was their duty to
take, and as they would take, in the absence of legislation.
He begged the House to suspend its decision on the Bill
at present, as he believed such a course would lead to
great public advantage, and while he admitted the duty of
some Parliamentary interference, he thought the course
he proposed would be the most judicious one under pre-
sent circumstances.
Mr. BECKETT DENISON was not opposed to the
principles of the Bill, but would suggest to the Hon.
Member for Finsbury to adopt the suggestion of the
Right Hon. Baronet the Home Secretary, and withdraw
the Bill for the present.
Lord HARRY VANE concurred in that suggestion;
for, by those means, time would be given for more
mature consideration and more deliberate inquiry; and
he believed his Hon. Friend would exercise a wise dis-
cretion in adopting it.
Mr. WAKLEY did not know how his Hon. Colleague
could adopt that suggestion. Every one admitted the
principle of the Bill, and yet, because it related to the
interests of the House, there was an extraordinary hesi-
tation manifested to incur the expense of carrying it
into effect. If a Noble Lord lost his life by an explosion
in a mine, he believed it would cause such a sensation
that legislation would take place with regard to such
accidents in the earliest part of the next session, and he
was not sure but that it would not be mentioned in the
speech from the throne.—(Laughter.) He thought they
should not hesitate a moment to legislate upon this
subject, for the cause of humanity demanded it. It was
said there was not time to consider it. He would ask
why there was not time? He saw no necessity for the
House rising on any particular day, and he trusted that
this plea of want of time would not be made with regard
to this measure.
Mr. NEWDEGATE thought the subject was too im-
portant to be disposed of at the close of the session when
there was not time to discuss it properly, and he quite
concurred with the Hon. Baronet the Home Secretary
in the propriety of withdrawing it for the present.
Mr. AGLIONBY did not agree with the observations
of the Hon. Gentleman the Member for Finsbury. If
the Government and the coalowners opposed the Bill
the Hon. Gentleman would be placed in a most
unfortunate position. He thought, therefore, as no
good could arise from proceeding with it in
the present session, that it would be better to
withdraw it, and that the Government and the Hon.
Gentlemen should well consider and revise the measure
during the recess, and bring it forward in an amended
state next session. He had withdrawn the Medical
Registration Bill notwithstanding so many petitions had
been presented in favour of it, and he could only regret
that, on this occasion, he did not adopt a similar course.
Mr. P. HOWARD also considered that the Hon.
Gentleman should withdraw the Bill. At the same time
he considered that the mines ought to be subjected to a
more rigid supervision ; and as this could only be done
properly by the Government, he trusted that they
would support the principle of the Bill, and if he held a
seat in the next session, he promised them his earnest
support.
Mr. FORSTER considered the Bill a most absurd one.
Everything that science or art could supply had been
taken advantage of by the owners of mines for the pur-
pose of protecting those in their employ from injury.
They were not to blame, because nineteen out of every
twenty accidents that occurred were caused by the care-
lessness of the workpeople themselves, and how could he
prevent by this Bill carelessness on the part of
workmen? Whenever an accident occurred the owners
of mines lost several thousands pounds, and this was
surely far greater punishment, if they were guilty of
neglect, than the fine of 100/. Coalowners did not object
to inquiry.—(Hear.) In fact, he thought that inquiry was
necessary in order to set the public mind right in the matter.
But if any interference was necessary it should be in
the hands of the Government.--(Hear.)
Mr. B. OSBORNE said if the Government would
give a pledge that they would bring in a Bill on the
subject, no doubt the Hon. Gentleman would withdraw
his Bill.
Sir GEORGE GREY admitted that interference was
necessary, and that it might be advisable to recommend
legislative measures on the subject. The subject had
received the attention of the Government, and would
continue to receive their attention ; and if, on inquiry,
they found that legislative measures were necessary, the
Government would bring them forward. Many of the
coalowners had shown the utmost desire to aid the
inquiries of the Government.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said it appeared that he had
to contend against a great body of coalowners, against
nearly as large and as powerful a body as the cotton
lords.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member for Durham
(Mr. Liddell) ridiculed his Bill, but he represented the
coalowners—he was a coal-field in himself—(Laughter)
—but when he did so he ridiculed the report of the
inspectors appointed to investigate the causes which had
led to the loss of 73 lives in the Barnsley colliery, who
recommended such a measure as the one he had brought
forward. He had only done his duty in introducing the
Bill; it contained no extravagant provisions, although
some parties might think so. After the statements of
the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of the Home De-
partment he would cheerfully leave the measure in the
hands of the Government.
The Bill was then withdrawn.
LUNATICS BILL.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE moved the second reading of
the Lunatics Bill.
Sir G. GREY trusted that the Hon. Member for
Finsbury would not press this Bill at the present moment,
as it contained provisions so absurd that the Hon.
Member himself would object to be a party to them. It
proposed, among other things, to place the care of' luna
tics in the hands of the bishops.—(Laughter.)
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE must confess that he was not
so confident with respect to this Bill as to the last, but
still the measure contained some excellent provi-
sions, and such as he felt convinced were much
required. No one could doubt that the
.present
lunacy law was most defective, and that under it many
persons were confined as lunatics who were no lunatics
at all. The present Bill was intended to amend the
law, but he was afraid that at the present
period of the session it would be useless to press the
measure. He should, however, keep his eyes fixed on
the commissioners under the present law, and if he
was a Member of the House in another session, tie should
introduce a similar measure.
Lord SEYMOUR defended the conduct of the com-
missioners.
Mr. WAKLEY thought his Hon. Colleague had
acted wisely in withdrawing the measure, and his only
wonder was where he got it.—(Laughter.) The idea
of placing the lunatics of the country under
the care of the bishops was absurd.—(Laughter.)
It was well known that religion often caused insanity.
He was ready to admit that in some, nay in a great
number of instances, lunatics had been improperly, if not
cruelly treated, but he thought nothing of the sort had
occurred since the present law was in -existence.
He thought that private lunatic asylums were objection
able, and he hoped shortly to see the day when they
would be abolished altogether.
Mr. V. SMITH said that the paid commissioners
under the present law had ever since their appointment
had their time constantly employed in visiting lunatic
asylums, and he believed had, by their great exertions,
effected considerable improvement. He agreed that the
sooner private lunatic asylums were abolished the better.
The Bill was then withdrawn.
SEDUCTION AND PROSTITUTION SUPPRES-
SION BILL.
Mr. SPOONER moved the further consideration of
the report on this Bill.
Mr. C. BERKELEY asked the Secretary of State for
the Home Department if he allowed this Bill to pass ?
Sir GEORGE GREY said it was not his intention to
offer any opposition to the Bill.
The report was then agreed to, and the Bill ordered to
be engrossed.
HOLYHEAD HARBOUR BILL.
On the question being put for going into Committee
on this Bill,
Mr. WILLIAMS expressed a hope that the Bill
would not be persevered in during the present session,
because it would involve a useless expenditure of public
money, without producing the desirable object the pro-
moters of the measure had in view. He begged to move
that this Bill be committed that day three months.
Mr. WARD said that he should very shortly answer
his Hon. Friend, for really the subject had been so re-
peatedly discussed, that it would be unnecessary to tres-
pass at any length on the House. It had been proved that
the harbour was a good one, and from the reports of the
engineers, he believed that the termination of the ope-
rations would be satisfactory to the public. Those evils
which had been complained of by the Hon. Member
were founded in error, and perhaps existed only in his
Imagination.
The gallery was then cleared for a division.
On our re-admission we found—
For the motion
(ILO! a emendment
The R;ZasJorlt) for going into Committee —Bl
The vane "":,° 'went into Committee upon the Bill.
Lord G.TBRENII44°-rAtIN
ordered to be were agreed to, and the Bill was
some importance to the orrow.
*tailed to put a question of
He wished to know wheth-ei'
that every man in the %TON STATUE.
etubluntt. and which, he believed,
for knowing that the removal Majesty's Government had nt/16 Noble Lord and her
arch, and the retractation of her
lot the
:mtf
ttildefeel iiieterested
stvono st reason
m the
hat
isasif7tndetahgbfooees,rewfiethwl,
tohwseoevo
geunlrde
subscribed
ba
military
inli
int
a indignityt
rhyt eo dethighestehdaMst
tioan e
tisftgos'il?
memorial
forai
intent
m eoftem:
ettfi
e
morate.
Lord J. RUSSELL--I certainly received info atio n
from a gentleman who called upon me in Downing-street
that the Duke of Wellington had expressed to him in
a,
letter that the removal of the- statue from the arch would
be considered by others as injurious to his reputation—
or words somewhat to that effect. The letter
was written a considerable time ago —in
February—and since that time her Majesty has
been pleased to order not only that a more fittin;
pedestal should be placed for the statue whenever this
House should grant the funds, but also that
whenever this House does grant the funds for that
he, that the arch should be ornamented after
more approved manner in which triumphal arches
were formerly ornamented, and ornamented in honour of
the Duke of Wellington, and, in fact, to mike it an arch

-
dedicated to that illustrious personage. I cannot suppose
that the Duke of Wellington can any longer entertain
the feelings which he has expressed in that letter.
Lord G. BENTINCIC begged also to ask the Noble
Lord whether he had not seen, under the hand of that
illustrious personage, since the time when that noti-
fication was given to that House, an intimation
to which he (Lord 'G. Bentinck) had before referred,
and whether he did not know that a letter had been
written, which left no doubt that the feeling of that j
illustrious individual was that the arch should remain
unchanged.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that since the intimation re-
ferred to by his Noble Friend had been first received
from the Duke of Wellington upon this subject, they
had received no further intimation of the feelings
of the Noble Duke ; and, in fact, he did not
himself believe that such was at present the feeling
of the Noble Duke. It was always in the power
of any person to ask the Duke of Wellington what were
his feelings upon the subject, but he believed that the
Noble Duke would consent to that site being made for
the statue which her Majesty's Government thought
most fit for it.

Mr. Wakley, Mr. Hume, and Mr. Newdegate ex-
pressed their belief that it was the opinion of the public
that the statue should be allowed to remain whero it
was. The subject then dropped.
The other orders of the day were then disposed of,
and the House adjourned at Six o'clock.

SERIOUS COLLIERY EXPLOSION
AND LOSS OF LIFE.
On Tuessday, about one o'clock, an explosion of fire-
damp, fatal in its consequences, we fear, to a number
of persons, took place at the colliery, known some-
times as the Hier Patricroft Colliery, but more pro-
perly as the Kirkless Hall Colliery, near the boundary
line of the townships of Ince and Aspull, on the
banks of the Leeds and Liverpool canal, about two
miles from Wigan. The result of the accident,
as far as we could learn, up to five o'clock yesterday
afternoon, was the death of two persons, the very seri-
ous injury of eight or ten others, and the injury, more
or less, of at least a dozen more. From information
hastily collected on the spot, it appeared that the cause
of the explosion arose from the blowing up a quantity of
coal by one of the men, which set it on fire ; and before
the fire could be blocked up or extinguished, the accident
occurred. We must here state, on the best authority,
that the firing of coals by miners, which is doubt-
less practised to save their own labour, is against the
rule laid down by the proprietors of the colliery, and
on this occasion was practised without their know-
ledge or consent. About half-past eleven in the morn-
ing, one of the men had been having a" blow up," and
the consequence was the setting on fire the coal in that
part of the mine, which we are told is of a highly
bituminous and inflammable nature. The under-
looker, George Evans, on the first alarm being given,
directed all his efforts to extinguish the fire, collected
his best men for the purpose, and sent several out of
the pit for safety. The reports in the neighbourhood
being much exaggerated as to the number of persons
in the pit when the explosion occurred, it may be
well to state that the pit is divided into two sec-
tions, one of which only felt the effects of the acci-
dent. In this section, we believe, thirty-two persons
were the full complement employed, or sent down in
the morning. Of these, six or eight were sent up, and had
given in their lamps, and the remaining portion were at
the place of the explosion. After an ineffectual attempt
to put out the fire, all the efforts of the men appear to
have been directed to the closing or building up that
part where the fire was burning ; and the confinement
of the air, and consequent stopping of the usual current
in that direction, is supposed to have caused the
explosion ; but the underlooker being severely in-
jured, and the other men on the spot knowing little
of it, or being incapable of supplying any in-
fiirmation, no positive facts can be at present stated.
Immediately after the accident, the efforts of all were
directed to the getting out of the injured parties, and up
to five o'clock twenty-three had been brought to the top
of the pit ; of these, two or three belonged to the other
section of the mine. It was found, however, impracticable
to prosecute the search with safety until the fire had
been effectually blocked up ; but at five o'clock one man
only was said to be missing. The following is, we
believe, a correct list of all those brought up after the
explosion, none of whom, it is said, escaped unhurt:—
John Cartwright—dead.
Joseph Wilkinson, a boy—said to have died on his way
home.
Robert Wilkinson, father of the above—seriously in-
jured.
John Berry—very badly burnt, with no hopes of reco-
very.
Very badly burnt—John Rhodes, George Evans,
underlooker, Henry Hawson, John Riley, Ashmore,
a boy, and Samuel Eivans.
More or less injured—William Dainty, John llol-
craft, John Bolton, James Naylor, Joseph Penman, Eli
Monk, William Jackson, Richard Currie, John Web-
ster, James Belshaw, John Mills, Thomas Laurenson,
Samuel Simkin.
Robert Southern, the only one said to be missing, and
supposed to be dead.—Manchester Guardian.

STATE OF TRADE.
MANCHESTER, TUESDAY, JUNE 29. —The favourable
change in the weather, the marked decline in the price
of grain, and the advance in the Liverpool cotton market,
have all tended to improve the demand here ; and, to-
day, there has been an extensive inquiry for yarn and
goods. Spinners and manufacturers, however, have
raised their demands to an extent which has materially
limited the amount of business. What has been done has
been generally at an advance, on yarn, of about id. per
lb., and on goods of about lid. to 3d. per piece, with the
exception of fabrics required for the East India trade,
for which, at present, there is little inquiry.
ROCHDALE, MONDAY, JUNE 28.—There have been
rather more buyers in the market to-day, or rather, those
who usually purchase largely have been present. There
is little change in the demand for goods from the two or
three preceding weeks, as on account of wool rathergiving
way the merchants want the pieces for less money. The
wool-staplers complain much of the limited demand for
the raw material.

HALIFAX, JUNE 26.--This is a holiday time, being
Halifax fair ; and the attendance in the hall to-day was
but slack. There is no noticeable change either in goods
or yarn ; and in wool there is, if anything, more doing
in short, at rather easier rates. The low woollen trade
of this neighbourhood is reviving, and prices have
improved, there being a fair demand for the American
market.

HUDDERSFIELD, TUESDAY, JUNE 29.—We have
again had an improved market: fine goods of new pat-
terns are in request, and low goods have found pur-
chasers for next winter's trade. Considerable business
has been done amongst the woolstaplers.
LEEDS, TUESDAY, JUNE 29.—We had an improving
market last Saturday; and there has been also more
doing to-day, both at our cloth halls and at the ware-
houses. Light tweeds and fancy cloakings are in good
demand, as well as the lower descriptions of cloth.—
Manchester Guardian.

HOP INTELLIGENCE.
BRICIITLING, JUNE 26.—1 n this district the bine is
vary growing, and the vermin have decreased within the
last few days.
Bualessu.—The hop plantations continue to be in-
fested with vermin, not only with fly, but with myriads
of lice, and in not a few gardens honey begins to shine.
The bine is still in a growing state, but there are more
farmers who believe in the possibility of a blight than
there were a fortnight ago.
FLETCRING.—The hops in our district are growing
well at the present time ; but some of the gardens have
fly, though very little. There is a little honey-dew in
some of tho gardens.
GARDENER-STREET.—The hops in this parish are
considered to be progiessing favourably, although some
grounds are still affected by the fly. This last week
having been cold for the season, a change of the weather
would be very beneficial.
soe
except
eGte
ehropea otbynit
eehna.
ec rr
;fin
at.
asi .
tt yts eyetOat
oirunf, rag
bphorootal
hept
fieContinuewhich,
s.
ut os
We
ra
el oahwt a
vt fa ha si
as t ,
et an
de.
dew, in some grounds, whilst
others nklei lice,
otso:tlscegoraolaldsb black.
wy hecoal net
llhae
enr-;
shouEldATn D
the vermin
,TUNEroainstie 26.—Thektothema, some Unusually d
for the season of the last week or ten days has consi-
derably retarded the growth Of the bine, especially in
exposed situations, and also where most infested with
vermin. Fly and lice are still very numerous near the
hedges in most gardens, but are comparatively clear, or,
at least, much clearer in the central parts. Some grounds
are looking yellow and cowardly, while others, despite
of the ungenial temperature, are of good colour, and
growing vigorously.
HOESMODEN, JUNE 26.—The bines have made consi-
derable progress this week in some gardens, and wear a
very healthy appearance. In some plantations the fly is
hve e rayg
rmoeorgo uaso,
de ni to!
xtuh
rei awree
hi nocpree atshi na gt ,
tb uwt tllh ee
abri nr
ye
itself through. If we were to judge from present ap-
pearances, we should predict that the crop would be
partial, . -

HURSTGREEN, JUNE 27.—The hop plantations in this
neighbourhood are progressing, and begin to throw out
shoots for fruit. Some grounds are tolerably free from
vermin, while others are much affected, particularly the
low and brook grounds.
NEWICY, JUNE 37.—At present we are in general
looking well for a very fair crop, the branching out of
the bine has a very favourable appearance, but there are
some complaints of vermin.
RYE, JUNE 26.—The hops in this neighbourhood,
generally, are looking quite as well as can be expected,
but they do not make that rapid and vigorous progress
they did during the warm nights of the latter end of May;
neither upon the whole are the fly so numerous.
TUNBRIDGE, JUNE 26.—The bine in this neighbour.
hood is strong and growing well, although the lice and
fly within the last few days have been a little upon the
increase. The hops are generally clean, and no serious
results as yet may be anticipated.
WADHURST.—The hops have made very great pro-
Ryes* in this district, and in some grounds they are quite
°tit qf the reach of the tyers. The vermin are plentiful
Plkt s, but we think not sufficient to cause any alarm
at p
':44.—Susses Advertiser.

The India nail was conveyed from Boulogne to
gation Company's
Dover, yesterday morning, by the General Steam Nail-
froth leaving Boulogiu, until the mail was landed at
Dover having been 1 hour 55 minutes only.
A STIBURTON—..It is with continued pleasure that
steam-ship Star; the time occupied
we can report tnost is
of the growing crops of
potatoes in this part--not the smallest sign of the dis-
ease; The early sown potatoes are being taken from
the ground, and are of an exceedingly fine flavour and
excellent quality.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, .111,1 e 30.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius at Westminster, before Mr. Jus-
tice WIGHTMAN and a Special Jury.)
THE QUEEN v. SEPTIMUS RAMSAY, CLERK.
Upon this case being called on, only two special jury-
men answered to their names. The absentees were
fined 104 each. A tales was then prayed on behalf of the
defendant.
Mr. Sergeant Shee and Mr. Bodkin appeared for the
prosecution, and Sir F. Thesiger and Mr. Boville were
eounsel for the defendant.
This case excited the greatest interest. The Bishop
of London, and several other gentlemen were on the
bench.
Mr. Sergeant SIZEE, in opening the case, stated to the
jury that this was a case of the very highest importance,
and he begged their most calm, and patient, and dispas-
sionate attention to it. The defendant is a clergyman
attending St. Michael's Church, Burleigh-street, Strand,
and he was called upon to answer a charge of having in-
decently assaulted Mrs. Emmerson. It would appear
that the husband of this lady had formerly been in
business at Bristol, but was unsuccessful, and, his wife
having a very fine voice, she determined to take advan-
tage of it, and she accordingly engaged herself in the
choir of several churches in London, and thus obtained a
livelihood for her family. She was about 29 years of
age, and the mother of five children. In 1845 a proposal
was made to her by the defendant to leave her then
situation, at the church in the Savoy, and accept an
engagement to lead the choir in his church. She acceded
to this, first to sing-only in the evenings, and afterwards
mornings and evenings, in St. Michael's Church. She
had not been long there before the defendant sent for
her to the vestry, and, upon that occasion, he endea-
voured to take improper liberties with her. It was to
be regretted that she had not at once disclosed this to her
husband, but, feeling that if she did so she must lose
her situation, and her children must starve, she refrained
from doing so, and the defendant had taken advantage
of this, and had several times repeated his conduct, until
it had arrived to such an extremity that she felt she
could no longer keep it from her husband, and she at
once charged the defendant with his conduct, the matter
was brought before the churchwardens, and then this
indictment was preferred.
As we give the evidence at great length the speech of
the Learned Counsel, which was merely a statement of
the facts, is abridged.
The following evidence was adduced :
Charlotte Emmerson—l have been married twelve
years. My husband was formerly in business in Bristol,
and was unsuccessful. I then turned my talent of sing-
ing to account. I was leader of the choir at the Savoy ,
Chapel from 1843 to 1845. In the latter year I made
an engagement with the defendant to sing at his
church in the evening. I attended there, and after.
wards gave up the Savoy Chapel and attended alto-,
gether at the defendant's. After I had been at the
defendant's six or eight months, in July I was sent for
to the vestry, and I went there; it was in the evening of
a Sunday. In the vestry I found Mr. Ramsay. I was
talking to him about making arrangements to sing in the
morning. He had his surplice on. He said h must
have a kiss. He kissed me, and behaved indecently to-
wards me. I told him to remember the position he was
in, for I thought some one would come in. I rushed
from him, dragged myself from him, and went up into
the organ loft. On the fallowing Wednesday he sent
for me, and I went down into the side aisle, and Mr.
Ramsay came to me there. He said he had very nearly
got into a dreadful scrape through last Sunday evening;
that he had received a letter stating that he had been
seen taking liberties with a lady in the vestry, and that
that lady was one of the choir, but that I need not be
alarmed, as, though the letter was addressed to Mrs.
Ramsay, he had got hold of it and had answered it in
the name of his wife, stating that the lady was his
cousin. He said he believed the letter had been written
by one of Deville's men. I was then residing in Liver-
pool-street, Walworth. The defendant called there about
two months after this, between three and five o'clock.
A person of the name of Manning was at my house
on that occasion. lie was an acquaintance of my
husband's, and was in the kitchen at the time.
I opened the door, and showed the defendant into
the parlour. I went into the front parlour with
him ; the folding doors were open. The defendant
said he was very happy to think he had got my
husband into a situation, at Mr. Hunt's, 10, White-
hall, and he should only expect me to pay him by
giving him a kiss. He then endeavoured again to take
indecent liberties with me. I resisted. The strusgle
lasted about five minutes. He then turtaxl it off, and
began to talk, and begged me not to say anything about
it. My husband afterwards went to Mr. Hunt's., The
defendant was in the house altogether about half an
hour. Mr. Manning afterwards questioned me as to
what had taken place, and I told him of the defendant's
conduct. I was at that time pregnant. I bad four
infant children living. I saw the defendant on
the following Sunday. He said that on going home
from my house on the Wednesday a little boy
had struck him with a crowbar, which had made
him very ill. I was confined in April, 1846. The de-
fendant called at my house about three months after my
confinement. I was then living at Warwick-place, Pim-
lico. He then stayed about twenty minutes or half an
hour. He. then took liberties with me by kissing me
and pulling me about. He came again in October, at
one or two o'clock. He then proceeded in the same style
he had before. He endeavoured to pull me on to his
knee. I resisted him very strongly, and he said he
would soon take that modesty out of me, and exposed
his person. It is impossible I can state what else he
did. He did nothing more. My husband was then in
the employ of Messrs. Ackerman*. in the Strand. The
defendant had procured that situation for him. One of
the firm was a member of Mr. Ramsay's congregation.
In the beginning of the present year some differences
arose between the choir of Mr. Ramsay's church, and I
addressed him a letter ; and the defendant shortly after-
wards called upon me, and destroyed the letter I had
written him. I wrote to him in consequence of my
saliry having been some time due, and I told him that
I had been very ill, and it had cost me Bd. every Sunday
to go to the church ; that he had very much reduced
my salary, and I thought it would be better for him to
have paid my salary, for I had heard many things about
his character that had astounded me. He told me he
had come to ask me what I had referred to about his
character. I told him I had heard he had ruined his
nursery-maid, and sent her to Canada ; that she had
since applied to come home, but he had sent her 501. to
keep her there. I told him Mrs. Ward, the pew-opener,
had said so. He made no reply. I then said I hail
heard remarks about him and Mrs. Ward. He asked
me if I thought it was likely ; that if she had been a
young woman
,of thirty it would be a different case. He
said he thought he should turn her out of the church.
I told him to be careful what he did. I then told him I
had heard her say if he did discharge her she would
blow him to the devil. He said, " Well, I must be
careful what I do, and I had better burn this letter "
(alluding to my letter) ; and be then burned it. This
was on Monday or Tuesday. I went to the church next
Sunday, but did not sing, and the choir was discharged.
A. letter bad been sent me, from-Mr. Jones, the church-
warden, dismissing the choir, and I then wrote the de-
fendant this letter:—
" In answer to Mr. Jones's letter, I wish you distinctly
to understand that we have given the choir an engage-
ment far twelve months. As regards myself, I suppose
you have been calculating whom it would be most expe-
dient to get rid of, me or Mrs. Ward, but if you do not
pay the 25/., you will find to your sorrow the result, and
unless matters are arranged to my satisfaction before
Sunday I shall make my husband acquainted with all
your conduct, and I would rather see you in the claws of
a lion than in his."
I then received a letter from Mr. Manning, the de-
fendant's solicitor's :
" 9th of January, 1847.—1 have been consulted by
Mr. Ramsay and his friends on the slanderous reports
raised by you, and particularly respecting a very extra-
ordinary letter which Mrs. Ensmerson addressed to Mr.
Ramsay-, and which, if brought before the proper au-
thorities, would lead to the conclusion that it was an
attempt to extort money. As the offencecharged is a
very serious one, I would caution you in a friendly spirit
to avoid a repetition of the same, but, at the same time,
in justice to the character of Mr. Ramsay, I must call on
you and Mrs. Emmerson to retract, in writing, all your
slanders and reports against that gentleman ; otherwise,
it will be my painful duty to adopt such proceedings,
both civil and criminal, as will lead to ruinous conse-
quences. With regard to the salary, I shall be in a posi-
tion to transmit it.
That letter was received by my husband. On the Sun-
day afternoon another letter came from Mr. Manning :
" In furtherance of the view we mutually took of the
matter, yesterday, and with a desire to afford an oppor-
tunity for explanation, I have arranged a meeting with
Mr. Ramsay, Mr. Ackermann' and the chapelwardens,
at my office te-morrow; and I beg to invite you and Mrs.
Emmerson in a friendly spirit to attend such meeting.
I shall not act professionally, but only assume the part
of a friendly mediator."
My husband and myself attended at that meeting at
Mr. Manning's house- We did not take any friend
with us. I found there Mr. Ackermann, Mr. Ramsay,
the two churchwardens, and Mr. Manning. Upon our
going in Mr. Manning said my letter insinuated many
things against the character of Mr. Ramsay, and they
had met to know what was the fact. He said it ap-
peared to him it was the effusion of an angry woman
because I could not
gain my end. It was then pro-
posed, that if I did not like to state all the facts before
all the gentlemen, he would request my husband to re-
tire with two of the married gentlemen. Mr. Manning
had asked me if I could adduce anything against Mr.
any liberties with you?" I said "Yes." He then Hatnsay. I said I could. He said, " Has he ever taken
pro-
posed my laaving the room with two married gentlemen.
regard for his own character and the church as I had
I then said to Mr. Ramsay, "If he had had as much
he would never have brought me to that meeting; that
he had brought me there, and that I was bound to
speak the truth as he had tasked me to it."
He made no answer. I then retired with the
two gentlemen, Mr. Manning and Mr. Junes. Down to
that time my husband was not aware of the particulars
of what had taken place. I made a statement to the
two gentlemen, and they retired into another room, and
then into the room of the meeting. The defendant was
in the latter room, and Mr. Manning then said that Mr.
Emmerson had a wish that all I had said should be de-
tailed before all the gentlemen. That was done, and I
asked the defendant if lie could say it was untrue? He
made no reply, and Mr. Manning repeated the question,
and the defendant said, "Of course I deny it." This
was in January last.
Cross-examined.—l can't fix the time when I was first
engaged at the defendant's church. I was singing at
the defendant's church in the evening only up to the lat-
ter end of July, 1845, and it was the last Sunday in
July, I believe, that the conduct of the defendant first
took place. My salary was 51. a year for singing in the
evening at the defendant's church. It was on the 30th
of July that I entered into the engagement, mornings

and evenings, to sing at the defendant's. It was about
a fortnight before that that the first assault took place.
It was ten minutes before the defendant was about to
commence the duties of the evening. I struggled, but I
did not call out. There is a door that leads from the
vestry into the church—it was shut, but not locked.
Any one could have walked in. After this occurred I
went and performed my duties, as did Mr. Ramsay. I
was to have 161. per annum for singing morning and
evening. My husband was not a singer, but his name
was nominally used. On the next occasion, in Liver-
pool-street, it was the 10th of . September, 1845,
between three and five o'clock. Mr. Ramsay did not
go through the kitchen to go into the parlour, but he
could see Manning smoking in the kitchen whea
he went into the parlour. There was a window in
the parlour looking into the garden. There was a very
large flower-stand before the window, which was painted
in imitation of ground glass. I struggled from five to
ten minutes. 1 did not call out at all. I knew Manning
was near at hand, and that was the reason for not calling
out, as I did not wish to expose Mr. Ramsay, and, from
the situation I was in, I knew what the end of it would
be if I raised any report; and the feelings of my husband
formed another reason. I was able to defend myself, and
therefore did not need assistance. My gown was torn out
of the gathers and my hair disturbed when I came nut
of the room, and Manning said there had been something.
wrong, and therefore I told Manning, but begged him
i.ot to tell my husband. At Christmas, 1845, my husband
presented Mr. and Mrs. Ramsay with a turkey. I never
consulted Mrs. Ward as to what would be a suitable pre-
sent to make to Mr. Ramsay. After Christmas, 1845,
four of my children were christened by Mr. Ramsay.
Manning was godfather for one. My children are all
fair- haired. They were christened with my maiden
name Sugden first, as "Sugden Emmerson." There are
two or three days that I have not been asked about. I
mentioned what took place three months after my con-
finement, at the meeting. I wrote a narrative after the
meeting. I said Mr. Ramsay had called several times,
but I did not state particular dates. His conduct was
repeated six or seven times. I did not present a purse
to Mr. and Mrs. Ramsay on the day following the 27th
of October, when he took very great liberties with me.
I had made purses some time before, and my husband
asked me for them, and he gave them to Mr. and Mrs.
Ramsay. I have some at home now.
Sir F. THESIGER—I don't care about that.
Mr. Sergeant SHEE—That's to show it was not made
for Mr. Ramsay.
Sir F. TUESIGER—I don't think my friend has a right
to interfere.
Mr. Sergeant SUEE—Because I don't think you are
treating the witness fairly.
Sir F. THESIGER—I would appeal to your Lordship
whether I am acting unfairly.
Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN—.I think you are not acting
unfairly.
Sir F. THESIGER—I have a very difficult task to per-
form in examining this witness.
Mr. Sergeant SHEE—And my friend must recollect
that the witness has a very difficult task to perform.
Witness—l have not spoken in high terms of Mr.
Ramsay since October, 1846, either to Peters or Mrs.
Ward. I attended to my duties afterwards, because it
was my bread and cheese. Mr. Ramsay has lent my
husband 101. My engagement on the 30th of July was
, by the churchwardens, but I have a written engagement
with Mr. Ramsay. After we had indicted Mr. Ramsay,
we called upon Daville's men, but what took place be-
tween them and my husband Ido not know. I did not
say that I had written the letter in anger, and that if
Mr. Ramsay had paid me I should not have said any-
thing about it. The proposal to go out with two married
men was not my proposal. I showed great reluctance at
having to give these details before men. I did not state
the particulars myself to all the men at the meeting
when I returned into the room. Mr. Manning said
that if it had only been a kiss he should not have
thought anything of it ; but as it was so black a
charge he could not be a party to a compromise. He
said that any man would take a kiss from a woman
where he thought it would be well received. Mr.
Clark, the organist, told me to go to Mr. Hobler, and I
should have justice done me. I know Mr. Braithwaite;
he has sung in the choir at St. Michael's. I was at Mar-
gate, singing, about five or six years ago, at the Tivoli-
gardens; I sung there as Miss Sugden. I don't know
that Wright was the cash-taker at those gardens. I
have seen him to-day. No complaints were made of my
conduct to men in those gardens. I never heard of such
a thing in my life. I was not discharged in consequence
of my bad conduct. I know Mr. Walton; he is here.
I never asked him to introduce me to men, but he en-
deavoured in every way to seduce me; and he told me if
I would submit to him he wouldlntroduceeme to,alrthe
noblemen and gentlemen in London; and because I
would not he has done all he can to injure me. I never
offered him a percentage, and said that rich old men
were best. Oh God! it is too bad; it' is shameful. ' I
never walked with a man in my life at the gardens.
They tried to defame my charactereand could not succeed;
and when my husband threatened to horsewhip them
they begged his pardon. I had before that sung at
Belgrave Chapel. I was not dismissed, but in conse.
quence of my sending a deputy the clergyman said I
must come myself. We lived in the house of a Mr.
Mitchell; we left before the last quarter was due. He
afterwards came drunk, and demanded his rent, and I
charged him with brutal conduct to me. I never told
Mr. Reekes. &
that a Mr. Blatch, of mem% was the
father of one of ray children. I fOrnierly sang at the
Opera; I was discharged in consequence of my refusing
to sing alto instead of treble. I did not state that Mr. Costa
had taken liberties with me. I did not tell Mrs. Ward
or Mr. Case so. I never told Mr. Braithwaite that I
was passionately fond of Mr. Ramsay and adored the
ground he trod on, or that Mr. Ramsay had kisied me,
and my husband knew of it, but did not care, or that I
was intimate with Manning and had been out a week
together with him, or that I had been in France with
him. Manning sometimes called for me at the church.
I know Mr. Clark. I never threatened Mr. Ramsay in
Clark's presence. My husband said at the meeting that
if he found anything wrong between his wife and Ram-
say he would turn him out of the church or rot in a
gaol. loslid not, state to Walker that Ramsay slept one
night with Mrs. Ward, and the next with her daughter.
I know. Daniel M`Cormack, the bellringer at the church.
I sent to a beer-shop for him, as I wanted to ask him a
question. I asked him if he ever saw Mr. Ramsay
taking liberties with me in the vestry through the sky-
light ; he said he had seen nothing of the kind. I did
not offer him a purse and say, " Always make a friend
when you can ; you had better take this and witness
the vestry for me, and I will take care you shall be well
rewarded." Nor did I tell him that I had plenty of
money, and bad a friend who had plenty, and that we
were determined to spend the last farthing in exposing
Ramsay, unless I was reinstated. I was not present
when my husband charged Mr. Jones, the churchwar-
den, with taking liberties with me. My husband was
discharged by Mr. Ackermann after we indicted Mr.
Ramsay. I have had two situations in churches since,
and through Mr. Ramsay's insinuations I have been
turned out. I have been told so by Staples, the organist
of St. Mary's, in the Strand, and I have his letter to
prove it. I never heard from my husband that he had
told Ramsay that he was a needy man, and if he gave
him 2001. he would hush up the matter.
This witness was four hours under examination, and
conducted herself with extreme propriety.
She was about to leave the Court, when Sir F.
Thesiger called out, "Don't let ber go out of court."
One of the jury interposed, and said such an examina-
tion was no joke, and she ought to be permitted to go
out and get refreshment.
Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN said—Yes, with an officer,
because she should not communicate with the other
witnesses. .
James Manning—l am a bookseller. I know Mr.
and Mrs. Emmerson. In September I was in the house
when the defendant came there. Mrs. Emmerson
opened the door to him; they went into the back
parlour. I was attracted by the child crying, and I
went and listened at the parlour door, and there I heard
a bustle or struggle. It continued for ten minutes or a
quarter of an hour. I heard nothing said. I then re-
turned to the kitchen, opened the yard-door, and knelt
down on the step and looked through an opening in the
window, and I saw Mr. Ramsay pulling Mrs. Emmerson
about, and pulling her towards him; she was endeavour-
ing to get away, and at last, by a desperate effort, she
succeeded in getting from him, and sat down in a chair,
and took the child, and appeared to be much exhausted.
I then saw her putting up her hair. When she came
out of the room I perceived the gathers of her gown
were torn out. She looked confused and exhausted.
She said, " I'm glad the fellow's gone." I then asked
her about it. She said, "He has been pulling me about,
and that it was not the first time." I said, " Where
was it, then?" She said, "In the vestry." I asked her
why she did not tell Mr. Emmerson? She said, "If
Emmerson knew it, he would pull him out of the pulpit,
and he would lose his place, and my family be deprived
of bread." She went on her knees, and begged me not
to tell Emmerson of it.
Cross-examined—On the previous Sunday I had pro-
mised Emmerson to go to the rehearsal at Burleigh-
street, and I called on my way. I drop in as it suits me
to take my pipe. When before the grand jury I made a
mistake in my description of the window. When I
heard the bustle in the parlour I did not go in, because
it was no business of mine; but I went to the parlour
window to satisfy my curiosity; and I then saw she was
sufficiently master to gain the victory, and therefore
there was no necessity for me to interfere. I never was
in France.
Emmerson was put into the box by the prosecution.
Sir F. THESIGER said, as he had been in the Court all
the time, he should not ask him a question.
This was the case for the prosecution.
Sir F. THESIHER then addressed the jury on behalf of
the defendant, and said, as they must be aware, he did
so under circumstances of some difficulty, because this
case had occupied a considerable portion of their time,
and he had been engaged from the time of the Court
sitting that morning, and he must necessarily be to a
certain extent exhausted and incapable of performing
satisfactorily the important duties devolving upon him;
but still he felt they must all be sensible of the extreme
importance of this case, that they would consider how
much depended on their determination, and would exer-
cise their own careful judgment and discretion upon all
the circumstances, and form their judgment out of their
own minds rather than from the imperfect view he might
be enabled to give them. He had the honour to appear
before them as 'counsel for a gentleman who for a long
series ofyears had held the highest character, and bad per-
formed in a most exemplary manner all the sacred duties
he had been called upon to discharge. There never had
been the slightest blemish on his reputation; but was
now called upon to answer charges which, if the jury should
come to a conclusion adverse to him, would
_naot °
oanasy
render it impossible to continue his sacred faati ,
but would prevent his entering into any state of society.
He most earnestly entreated their most painful and most
careful consideration of all the circumstances of this
case. He called upon them, as the best safeguard and
protection that innocence could have, to consider the

AMMO,
.7
f.cts before them, and the circumstances under which
t' ley were produced. The Learned Counsel then went
t lrough the evidence given by Mrs. Rmmerson, eom-
' menting upon almost every sentence of it, urging that
her conduct was not that of an injured woman ; that
no one could for a moment imagine that a woman who
had been so treated would continue to attend a church
where a man who had acted in so base a manner
preached the Gospel, and this for the paltry pittance of
16L a year for the services of herself and her husband.
He contended that her whole story was such that no
one could believe it. Would any woman have permitted
her husband to make presents to the man who had en-
deavoured to seduce her? But, as the case was without
support, so must it be without contradiction. The de-
fendant, however, must endeavour to destroy the credit
of the only witness upon whom the charge rested. In
1843 she was a singer at the Tivoli-gardens, and dis-
charged for her immoral conduct, making overtures of
the most disgusting description.
Mr. Sergeant SHEE said, his Learned Friend could
not go into such matters.

Sir F. THESIGER said, until he was told he was pur-
suing an improper course he should proceed j,o show the
utter worthlessness of her character. He would show
this woman tampering with witnesses, and endeavouring to
induce them to giveldse testlinony,andifhe found awoman
endeavouring to pollute the pure source of justice what
must she be, and what credit could they give to her—
and doing this for the purpose of ruining a man against
whom, except from her polluted lips, the breath of ca-
lumny never issued? When he found such a woman,
whose reputation was so blasted, thus charging a man
of so good and excellent a character as he should prove
him to be, he felt it his duty to call upon them to dis-
miss him with the same high character he had hitherto
enjoyed.

Tremendous applause followed the address of the
Learned Counsel, which was delivered in the most ener-
getic manner.

The case was then adjourned until to• morrow morning,

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
WORSHIP-STREET.
A lady named Nowlan, the proprietress of an edu-
cational and boarding establishment at Upper Clapton,
made application to Mr. Broughton for his advice under
the following circumsnces.
The applicant stated, that in the early part of this
year a man, of very respectable appearance, called at
her establishment, accompanied by a little boy, and,
representing himself as a merchant in the City, handed
her his card, and requested to be made acquainted with
her terms for the board and education of a child of the
age of the one he had with him. She laid before him
one of her prospectuses, and having drawn his attention
to a note there, specifically mentioning that the money
would be payable quarterly, the terms, about thirty
guineas per annum, were acceded to, and the child
received. On the first quarter expiring the account was
sent in to the residence the parent had given, but no
notice was taken of it, and, all subsequent applications
having met a similar result, She made a personal appli-
cation at the house specified on the father's card, in
Fenchurch-street, and found that no such person lived
there. By means of an acquaintance of the parent,
however, she had succeeded in again communicating
with him, but had been unable to find out his real
address, which he carefully concealed, and although she
had written occasionally to him, desiring that he would
fetch his son away, or she must herself adopt measures
to get rid of him, be had made nothing but paltry
excuses, evidently with the intention of leaving the
child upon her hands until the vacation expired, when
she felt satisfied he would place it in some, other estab-
lishment and defraud the proprietor in the same manner,
and she therefore wished the magistrate's advice how to
act, as she did not like to turn the poor child into the
street, even if she were justified in so doing, and it was
evident the father did not care what became of him.
Upon hearing this statement Mr. BRJUGHTON directed
Holland, the warrant officer, to make inquiries into it
with a view to induce the parent to come to terms, and
prevent a further exposure, and
Holland now stated, that he had called at the residence
the father had given, which he found to be a most re-
spectable mercantile house, and on obtaining an inter-
view with one of the partners was informed by that gen-
tleman that the person complained of had certainly had
chambers there formerly, but that he had vacated them
a long time since, and was wholly unjustified in giving a
reference there, as he was certainly a person not to be
trusted even to the extent of 101.; and, from what he
had heard of him, he was convinced that he was in the
habit of practising similar impositions. He (the
officer) had also used his endeavours to ascertain the
man's residence, but had not succeedectin-doing sn, and
he felt assured that he was keeping out of the way in-
tentionally:
Mr. BROUGHTON told the applicant that she should
have made proper inquiries as to the father's respecta-
bility before she received the child into her house, and
as it was now quite manifest that she had not the re
motest prospect of obtaining her money, he would advise
her to apply to the parish officers of Stoke Newington,
and, upon laying a statement of the circumstances before
them, it would be their duty to receive the child into
their workhouse.
The applicant thanked the magistrate and quitted the
court, and Holland yesterday announced that Mr. Dos-
sett, the overseer of the parish, had given directions for
the child to be placed in their union on the preceding
night.
The magistrate requests us to acknowledge his receipt
of 1/. Os. Gd. from " X. Y. Z." for the poor-box, which
the donor desired might he noticed in this paper.
TH A M E S.
Caroline Mitchell, a young woman who has given
much trouble to the magistracy, tise police, and the sur-
geons of the London Hospital, by her repeated attempts
to commit self-destruction, was brought before Mr.
Yardley, charged with making another attempt of the
same kind, in which she had very nearly succeeded.
A respectable woman named Clark stated, that on
Monday night, at half-past eight o'clock, she saw the
prisoner running towards the swivel bridge, over the
London-dock entrance in Old Gravel-lane, exclaiming,
" I will—l will do it." In a moment the prisoner slipped
under the chains on to the pier head, and plunged into
the water, which is there more than twenty-four feet in
depth. Witness was thunderstruck, but as soon as she
recovered from her surprise she screamed aloud for
help, and the servants of the dock company and others
procured the drags, and threw ropes towards the prisoner,
who sank twice, and came up again, when the prisoner
caught hold of one rope, and a young sailor was lowered
down by the side of the perpendicular wall, and, while
she faintly held on, he seized her round the waist, and
saved her. The prisoner was taken to a public-house
near, and after some time had elapsed she was restored.
When the prisoner came to her senses, she raved and
said, " Why did you not let me go to the bottom ? I will
destroy myself."
John Putt, a police-constable, 177 K, said the pri-
soner once threw herself into the Thames, and after a
great deal of trouble was resuscitated, and since then
had made other attempts on her life. On Monday
night he met the prisoner in Old Gravel-lane. She
was then drunk, and said " I intend to do it, I will ;"
and ran away from him. The prisoner was a woman of
the town, and had just come out of prison, after being
confined in default of finding sureties to keep the peace,
in consequence of her having attempted to commit
suicide. He knew that she had made, similar attempts
repeatedly.
James Wittleton, a police-.constable, No. 173 K, stated,
that the prisoner was charged with attempting to drown
herself about three months ago. She then selected the
same place as she had done on Monday night, and was
with difficulty saved by the medical attendants and others.
After she was locked up in the station-house, he heard a
rattling in the throat during the night, and upon open-
ing the door of the cell in which she was confined, he
found a lump of oxalic acid in her mouth, which he
took from her, and he had got it now. She was taken
to the London Hospital, where she remained for several
weeks before she was cured.
The prisoner, who treated the affair with much uncon-
cern, said she had nothing at all to say.
Mr. YARDLEY doubted whether the prisoner was a fit
person to be at large at all, and said, that the public
ought not to be shocked by these repeated attempts on
the part of a woman to commit suicide without taking
some measures to restrain her. He should commit the
prisoner for trial for the misdemeanour in attempting to
commit self murder.

SOUTHWARK.
Thomas Buck% was charged with breaking into the
premises of Mr. William Jeakinaon, leather merchant, of
York-place, Kent-road, and stealing forty-five dozen of
dressed skins.
On the night of the 16th ult. the complainant's pre-
mises were forcibly entered, and forty-five dozen of
dressed leather skins carried off. Two days afterwards
nine dozen of the skins were discovered in the house of

a man named Armfield, a tailor in Bermondsey, who
with his son, a young man in the leather trade, was
taken into custody on suspicion of being concerned in the
robbery. After undergoing two examinations, however,
the Armfields were discharged, it appearing, that three
days subsequent to the robbery the prisoner Buckly met
the younger Armfield, told him that he had forty•five
dozen of dressed skins to dispose of cheap, and entreated
him to become a purchaser. The latter, however, by
his own account, declined having any dealings with him,
and they separated on that understanding. The pri-
soner, however, not deterred by the refusal, the same
evening conveyed nine dozen of the skins to the house
of the elder Armfield, informing him that he had
had one interview with his son, who agreed to become
the purchaser of them, and adding that he should leave
them there for him, to be paid for on another opportu-
nity. Armfield senior expressed his unwillingness to
have the skins deposited in his house, but the prisoner
hurried away, and, as already described, in a day or two
afterwards they were traced to the place by the police,
and both father and son were apprehended on the
were taken before the magistrate
charge. When they
they related precisely the manner in which the skins
came into their possesston, and gave such information
on the subject that they were admitted to bail until
means were devised for the apprehension of the real
offender. This, however, was not effected until within
the hot few days, the prisoner since the burglary and
robbery of the complainant's premises having ablilenit(to
pick d
himself from his usual haunts. He, however fell
the hands of the police by having attempted to
n
gentleman's pocket, and, when he was taken before
magistrate at one of the \Vest-end police-courts, he was
identified by a constable who happened to be present as
the man who had absconded and was " wanted" upon
the present charge.
When th© prisoner was asked what he had to say in
answer to the charge, ho admitted taking the nine dozen
skins to Armfield's house and leaving them there by the
m h
desire of his son, who, from price he (prisoner)
offered them for, must have
the
eown they were not
honestly come by. The prisoner also asserted that he
was not concerned in the burglary, and
in accounting for
sthesesi;ovnay,
sildwthbiacht
otnhe
thstoe 17th ult.,
came into his pos-
th ult., as he WAS standing