The Sun.
London, England, 1847-07-17 00:00:00

the insertion of the clause much incovenience might be 1
saved.
Lord J. RUSSELL said he would be very unwilling
to create a precedent by stating what he would do on the
mere supposition that alterations had been made in the
Bill by the House of Lords. This, however, he would
promise the Hon. Gentleman to do. As soon as the
Bill came down, he should move that it be taken into
consideration on Monday—(Hear)—and he would then
slate what course the Government would pursue.
Mr. FERRAND wished to know if it was to be un-
derstood that the Bill would come from the House of
Lords this day?
Lord J. RUSSELL said he understood that the Bill
was placed in the hands of the messengers yesterday, and
that it would be brought down today.
Mr. FERRAND inquired if the Government would
give a pledge that they would not take the Bill till late
in the evening, in order that Hon. Members might come
up to town, in the event of the Government opposing
the clause.—(Cheers and laughter.)
CHELSEA EMBANKMENT—METROPOLITAN
IMROVEME.NTS.
In reply to Sir R. H. INGLIS,
Lord MORPETH stated that the Treasury had autho-
rised the expenditure of 50,0001. for the purpose of con-
structing an embankment at Chelsea, but the works had
not yet been commenced, owing to the arrangements
which it was necessary to make with persons possess;ng
property on the banks of the river—the Marquis of
Westminster and others. His attention would be
earnestly directed to the subject during the recess.
Lord J. RUSSELL said, it was true his brother the
Duke of Bedford had offered to subscribe a considerable
sum towards the metropolitan improvements, on condi-
tion that a certain sum, for the same purpose, should be
raised by a tax on coals coming into the river ; but the
Government believed, looking at the high amount of the
present coal duties, that they could not have effected
these improvements without subjecting coals to a charge
considerably beyond that now charged by law. It would
be necessary to introduce a Bill on the subject. But
both out of office, and now in office, he considered that
the levying of such a tax was a most objectionable source
of revenue.--(Hear, hear.) His Hon. Friend the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer had given the most careful at-
tention to the subject, and he was of the same opinion.
SIR EARDLEY WILMOT.
In answer to a question from Sir C. DOUGLAS,
Lord J. RUSSELL said that he did not see that there
were any public grounds which would justify the House
in coming to any resolution on the subject of the family
of Sir Eardley Wilmot. He had no doubt that Mr.
C. E. Wilmot was a very deserving person, but ho could
not thence agree in the opinion of the Hon. Baronet
that the House should come to any resolution in his
favor.

hia opinions on the subject remained unchanged. to move
that the clause should be re-inserted in the Bill. With

respect to the clause providing for the admission of the
rate-payers to the meetings of the board of guardians,
which was expunged by the Lords, it was the intention
of the Government to move that the amendment should

be agreed to.
After a few words from Mr. Wakley, Mr. Christopher,
Mr. Borthwick. and Mr. Hindley,
Sir G. GREY suggested the propriety of postponing
any discussion on the subject till Monday next, when the
Lords' amendments would be considered.
The subject then dropped.
MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
Messengers from the Lords brought down the follow-
ing Bills, to which their Lordships had agreed :—Rail-
ways (Ireland—No. 2) Bill—Fishery Piers and Har-
bours (Ireland) Bill—Turnpike Roads (South Wales)
Bill—Canada Consolidated Revenue Fund Bill—Print

Works Bill—Shannon Navigation (Ireland) Bill—
Blackburn Improvement, Market, &c. Bill—Bathwick
Church Bill, without Amendment ;—Poor Laws Admi-
nistration Bill—Duffryn, Llynvi, and Porth Cawl, and
Llynvi Valley Railways Amalgamation Bill—Glasgow,
Airdrie, and Monklands Junction Railway (Cowlairs
Branch) Bill—London Bridge Railway Termini General
Enlargement Bill—Exeter and Exmouth Railway Bill—
East Lancashire Railway (Southport Branch and Pres-
ton Extension) Bill—London and North Western Rail-
way (Kenilworth to Berkswell, &c. Branches and Ex-
tensions, &c.) Bill--Wolverhampton General Cemetery
Bill—South Devon Railway Extension and Amend-
ment Bill—Leeds Waterworks (No. 2) Bill—Leicester
Waterworks Bill—Portsmouth Paving, Lighting, and

Improvement Bill—St. Ives (Huntingdon) Improvement
Bill—Bingley Improvement Bill—Edinburgh and Nor-
them Railway (St. Andrew's and Newburgh Harbour
Branches andißoad Crossings—(Newport Railway Ex-
tension) Bill—Direct London and Portsmouth, Brighton
and Chichester, London, Brighton, and South Coast,
and London and South Western Railway Bill—Lynn
and Ely, Ely and Huntingdon, and Lynn and Dereham
Railways Amalgamation Bill—Liverpool Corporation
Waterworks Bill, with Amendments ,—Foor Relief
Supervision (Ireland) Bill, with an Amendment.
BISHOPRIC OF MANCHESTER BILL.
The order of the day for the adjourned debate on this
Bill was then read.
Mr. HUME was surprised to hear that no answer
had been made to the speech of the Right Hon. Baronet
the Member for Dorchester. He should most certainly
do all in his power to oppose the Bill; it was a most
scandalous breach of the compact already made. With
respect to the division which took place upon the mea-
sure last night, he could see that there were in favour
of the Bill 00 Tories, 30 members of the Government,
and only 28 Liberals. He thought that the Noble Lord
was only allowing himself to be made a cat's paw by the
Church to get another stick, which they would use here-
after to break his own neck with ; for it was his (Mr.
Hume's) decided opinion that every new Bishop he added
to the ranks of the Church would be a stick to break his
own head with eventually. Ho should move as an
amendment on the motion, that the Speaker do leave
the Chair—that he should leave it on Monday next.
Sir W. MOLESWORTH would do all that lay in his
power to oppose the Bill by every fair means in his
power. He disapproved of the purpose of the Bill, for
he thought that the existing Bishops were well able to
perform the duties allotted to them. He should, however,
oppose anything like a factious opposition to the Bill.
Mr. COLLETT would support the motion of the Hon.
Member for Montrose.
Mr. V. SMITH thought that if the House was not
pledged, as was stated by the Noble Lord last night, by
any compact that had been entered into, then it was per-
fectly unnecessary to keep those words in the preamble,
and in the same clause which had reference to the crea-
tion of three new bishoprics, if the Government would
consent to expunge those words, he would have no fur-
ther objection to go into Committee en the Bill. He
would, therefore, wish to know from the Noble Lord
whether he would consent to the proposed alteration?
Sir J. GRAHAM said, that if the alteration proposed
by the Hon. Member were acceded to, he would still have
an objection to the preamble of the Bill. He should still
move to omit the words, " regard being had to the cir-
cumstance that her Majesty did not contemplate the
issue of her writ to the new bishops to sit and vote as
Peers of Parliament, except as vacancies should from
time to time occur among the bishops of England and
Wales, now so sitting and voting."
Lord J. RUSSELL denied that this Bill was any
violation of the compact entered into by the Government
in the year 1836. The Hon. Member for Montrose had
quoted the Right Hon. Baionet the Member for Dor-
chester (Sir J. Graham) as an authority in his favour;
but he omitted to state that that Right Hon. Baronet
was in favour of going into Committee on the Bill, and
would not offer any opposition to the creation of a new
bishop for Manchester. With respect to the question of
the Hon. Member for Northamptonshire, the Govern.
ment had come to the conclusion that instead of one
bishop four bishops ought to be created, and her
Majesty had been advised to appoint a commission to
inquire into( and report upon the necessities of
the various parts of the country most requiring the
appointment of a bishop. He thought that it would
be placing the Church in a vety unfair position
if her Majesty alone were to be interdicted from in-
creasing the power necessary for its own government.
It was a principle invariably recognised to increase the
power of the head or governing department, whether ec-
clesiastical, civil, or political, as the sphere of its opera-
tions was enlarged. Considering the importance of the
words relating to the four new bishoprics in the preamble,
he should depart from the original mode adopted with
respect to Bills in Committee, and should move, instead of
the preamble being postponed, that it be taken into con-
sideration at once. With respect to giving the new
bishops seats in the House of Lords, the Government
had come to the conclusion that it was not advisable to
give them seats in the House, as they considered that
the Church was already sufficiently represented in that
branch of the Legislature, but the new bishop would be
entitled to take his seat in the House upon any vocancy
occurring in the number of bishops. He had no objec-
tion to expunge the words having reference to the four
new bishops from the second clause, but he would not
consent to any alteration in the preamble of the Bill.
Mr. TRELAWNY took an objection to the Bill, on
the ground of its favouring one sect more than another,
and the Bill did not state of what religion these bishops
were to be ; they might belong to the Catholics, Wes-
leyan, or any other body. He thought that for the best
interests of religion it would be better to leave the
Church of England like other bodies, to be supported
upon the voluntary system ; the effect of endowments
was only to make a number of useless clergymen and
apathetic congregations. He thought that the better
plan would be to postpone this Bill until the next ses-
sion, when more time would be given for such a full
vindication of the measure as its importance suggested.
Mr. ENTWISLE thought that so long as the
Church was bound to the State by the thong of the
constitution, it ought to receive some degree of atten-
tion from the House. With respect to this Bill, he
thought it would be much better permanently to ex-
clude the new bishops, than to deprive the ancient sees,
as it was proposed by this Bill, of that temporal dig-
nity which for centuries attached to them. It was his
intention to vote for the retention of the second clause,
and if that clause were agreed to, he would move to
expunge from it all words having reference to the rota-
tion in which the Bishops should occupy seats in the
House of Lords.
Mr. ROEBUCK thought that there was already a
very extensive suspicion abroad with respect to the con-
duct and influence of the bishops, and he thought it
very unwise to make any further addition to the num-
ber of these irresponsible Legislators. The bishops
were not like the hereditary nobles of the House of
Lords; they were in all cases sent up to that place in
consequence of some peculiar family connexions, neither
were they persons representing the public opinion of the
country, and it was his opinion that they were of very
little service in the cause of legislation. He wished to
know whether the minds of the people of England were
to be better employed in making these four bishops r
in devising some proper means of payment for the
working clergy. This measure was the worst that could
possibly be devised for the Church of England, as it was
one likely to bring it into that disrepute which they were
so anxious to avoid. He would not trespass any further
upon the time of the House, but he would conclude by
strongly urging upon the Government to reframe and
remodel thi;Bill.
Mr. BROTHERTON deprecated any factions pro-
ceeding with respect to this Bill. Ho thought that
there would be ample opportunities for the House ex-
pressing its opinion on the future stages of the Bill.
Mr. B. ESCOTT thought that there was no necessity
for the proposed measure, and he had heard no argu-
ments in favour of the measure sufficient to induce him
to give his support to it.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, the House
divided, when there appeared—
For going into Committee 63
Against it lB
Majority for going into Committee —45
The House then went into Committee.
Mr. COLLETT moved that the Chairman do report
progress, and obtain leave to sit again.
After a few words from Mr. Hume, Mr. Osborne, Mr.
M. Philips, Mr. Escott, and Mr. Roebuck,
Mr. BROTHERTON rose and deprecated the course
of the Hon. Member, on the ground that the House
having sanctioned the principle of the Bill upon repeated
divisions, the more legitimate course to adopt would be
to endeavour to amend the Bill as much as possible in
Committee.
Mr. WAKLEY thought that the minority of the
House would be acting perfectly right in taking advan-
tage of all the rules of the House to defeat the Bill, and
it would incur a great responsibility if it did not adopt
all the means which the forms of the House permitted
to defeat the measure.
Lord J. RUSSELL thought that if the minority were
to have the exercise of this power in their hands, it
would be impossible to pass any measure to which there
was any opposition, and the minority would have the
power of dictating to the majority, and neither the Re-
form Act, nor the Act for the repeal of the corn-laws,
could have by this time been the law of the land.
Mr. AGLIONBY requested, the Hon. Member to with-
draw his motion.
After a few words from Mr. Roebuck, Lord Clements,
Mr. V. Smith, Mr. Hume, and Sir W. Molesworth,
Strangers were ordered to withdraw, but no division
mtoeonktplace, as the Hon. Gentleman withdrew his amend-
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said ho had come to the
conviction that no necessity existed for an increase in
the number of bishops, and that it would be much more
advisable to increase the number of parochial clergy in
proportion to the increase in the population. He was,
however, opposed to the creation of any bishops who
should not have a seat in the House of Lords. He con-
tended for it, that the times we live in, and the power
which the bishops bad over their clergy, made it neceF
nary that they should be held responsible for their con'
duct in 6 House Of rarliaruent. 130 had eeeu the 54111.

,TRE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING,

tary effect of such a regulation. He was convinced that
the proposition contained in the preamble of the Bill was
not conducive to the good of the Church. He objected
to the proposed increase in the number of bishops, and
also to the fact of any bishops being created who had
not a seat in the House of Peers. He, therefore, pro-
posed the amendments of which he had given notice.
Mr. COLLETT said he would press his amendment,
which he had been induced to give up on the suggestion
that the words in the preamble were merely words of
recital, if the Right Hon. Baronet proceeded with his

amendment.
After a few words from Mr. ROEBUCK,
Sir J. GRAHAM repeated the words, and the line
in which they occurred, which he meant to have omitted.
The CHAIRMAN said it was competent to the lion.
Member for Athlone to move his amendment.
Mr. J. COLLETT then moved the omission from the
preamble of the words relating to the sees of St. Asaph
and Bangor.
Mr. AGLIONBY said he thought that the proper
time for moving the amendment of the Right Hon,
Baronet the Member for Dorchester would be when they
came to the enacting part of the Bill. He would ask
the Hon. Gentlemen the Chairman whether he thought
the Right Hon. Baronet had then a right to move his

~,
amendment ?
The CHAIRMAN said that it was his duty to put the
amendments
,of Hon. Members, and that he could not
undertake to decide on the course which they ought to

pursue.
Mr. V. SMITH said he understood the Noble Lord at
the head of the Goveenment to have declared that he
did not mean to establish any principle by that recital.
Lord J. RUSSELL said he considered that the words
recited in the preamble would not bind Parliament to
adopt the measure therein referred to. But, at the
same time, they were words of considerable importance
because they were introductory to the enacting part of

the Bill.
Mr. DISRAELI said he could not think that it was
at all desirable or even desirous that they should leave
out an important recital, on which the enacting part of
the Bill was founded.
Mr. HUME said it appeared to him that the recital
was illegal. An Act of Parliament was at present in
existence by which Manchester was to be erected into a
bishopric ; and he considered it to be illegal and uncon.
stitutional that her Majesty should offer a recommenda-
tion opposed to the provisions of the Act of Parliament.
He thought they ought to leave out the whole of the
recital, and proceed in that case in the usual way, by
confining themselves to the clauses of the Bill.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said, that even if they
were to leave out the words of which the Right Hon.
Baronet the Member for Dorchester had proposed the
omission, those words would, nevertheless, continue in
the report of the Commission. The preamble only
stated a certain fact, which those who had drawn up
the Bill had thought it only proper to introduce, as it
formed the foundation of the measure. It appeared to
him that such a course of proceeding was the most
honest and ingenuous that could possibly be adopted.
The object of the recital was to show that, although the
Bill referred to the establishment of only one bishopric,
there were considerations which might hereafter lead to
the establishment of other bishoprics also.
Sir J. GRAHAM said he agreed with the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman, that the recital was honest and in
genuous; but it contained an avowal of a determination,
to perform a further act, which appeared to him some-
what extraordinary. By an Act of Parliament which
had not yet been repealed, it was provided that the
Bishop of Manchester, whenever appointed, should
enjoy all the rights of the episcopacy, among which
rights was a seat in the House of Lords; and he could
not help thinking that it would be very unusual—he
bad almost said it would be very unseemly—that it
should be declared, in the recital of that Bill, that her
Majesty would do that which Parliament had said should
not be done.
Mr. LAW said he was surprised to find that the
Right Hon. Baronet had been caught by the very loose
Argument of the Hon. Member for Montrose, with re-
spect to what the Hon. Alember had called the illegality
of her Majesty's consulting her constitutional advisers
as to the propriety of modifying or repealing an existing
Act of Parliament. Why, that very course was pursued
every time that a Bill was introduced for amending or
repealing an Act of Parliament; and he could not un-
derstand how such a proceeding could be considered un-
constitutional or illegal.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. ROEBUCK said he found it laid down by Coke
that the King might hold a Parliament without any
spiritual Lords; and in fact there had been no bishops
in the two first Parliaments of Charles 11.
After a few words from Dr. NreatoL and the
ATTORNEY-GENERAL,
Sir F. THESIGER said he thought they had been
brought into a difficulty, in consequence of their not
having adopted the usual course, which was to postpone
the consideration of the preamble of a Bill until after
the clauses should have been discussed. It appeared
from a statement of his Hon. and Learned Friend the
Solicitor-General, that they had not before them the
whole of the recommendations of the Commissioners.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that they had the
whole of that report ; but the Commissioners might
make a further report.
Sir F. THESIGER continued—The question was not
what the framers of the Bill had thought proper to
introduce into the preamble, but the question was,
whether it was expedient that the House should then
adopt the preamble.
Lord J. RUSSELL said he admitted that it was per-
fectly competent for any Hon. Member to move in Com-
mittee the omission of the recital of any fact. But he
had been much surprised by the statement of the Hon.
Member for Montrose, that there was something illegal
or unconstitutional in her Majesty's appointing a com-
mission with a view to submit a certain measure to
Parliament.—(Hear, hear.) He had never before heard
that an Act of Parliament was something so very sacred
that her Majesty would not be justified in directing her
confidential advisers to prepare a measure for altering or
repealing any Act. That was a coarse which was very
frequently pursued, as the House must be aware. When
they came to the question about the omission under de-
bate he should be ready tociduiessctuiosns,iitt would be advisable
it.
Mr. NEWDEGATE would suggest to the Noble
be.
Lord, as the words had led to so much discussion, and
to involvedi.postpone.r.
Af a
PHILIPS
jet rhlyeLi
pllpesao
mrt
had
important
been led astray, he hardly knew
how—ho had heard a quantity of what might be very
good law • but he really confessed he did not understand
whether they were now in a situation to proceed with the
preamble of the Bill or not.
Mr. DUNCONIBE wished the Chairman to state to
the House where it was with respect to the Bill.
The CHAIRMAN here stated the position of the
question.
Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT proceeded to define the
particular wishes of each Hon. Gentleman, and after
fitting these, he asked how it was possible to go on with
the discussion of the preamble, when it had thus been
divided into some hundred pieces. He should therefore
propose that they postpone the preamble altogether.
Sir G. GREY s,
aatmihd tnl ao trdt
Chairmanhe
re
,yahi adsdalindaostwshe
that
tt r
trhhi
he had
t ahadte
rtfehaaacdtt
portion of the preamble—
e
Mr. HUME— I say that no portion of the preamble
eNteElnce, and paragraph by paragraph, to the
ihsa
mssobr.e.eGn
GREENS,
sHenoutesnec, eanbdy the House had offered no interruption.
' Mr. Dc COMBS and Lord CLEMENTS recommended
the Chairman of Committees to leave the chair, as
his duty must be a very onerous and diagreeable one.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that he would be prepared to
defend the preamble, if it were gone into, but despite the
Hon. Member for Finsbury he was prepared to go on,
and if the opponents of the Bill thought fit to divide on
the whole measure they might do so.—(llear.)
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment
Against it
Majority
99
Mr. MARK PHILLIPS moved that the words " For
establishing forthwith a bishopric be left out."
Mr. NEVILLE opposed the amendment.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE wished to know why it was
that the Noble Lord at the head
notio
aotftethneGn to theovern oimventoeof
had
given the city of Manchester an enfranchisement under
the Reform Bill,nifhee paid
Manchester. They declared against a new
theb i
s peoplehova
of
he m
did
od
e,ch
not reply to their petition.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that although the people of
Manchester might not now appreciate the benefits of a
bishopric established among them, yet they would, no
doubt, at some other time, understand the benefits.
After
PHILIPS, some m e remarks from Mr. HUME and Mr. M .
chair and report progress,
*
discussion followed, when the House
Mr. ROEBUCK moved
stnhdatastkheleCavheaitromsaitnalgemaivhe the
A desultory
divided, and there appeared—
..................... 12189
---111
it to the Noble Lord to
Mr. B. OSBORNE would put
ho attended in the House
18
say whether Hon. Members w
FA ogra
Against
Majorityimt
.o. motion o.
....................
were to go on till some later hourh
having to attend to
Lord J. RUSSELL said that e
much inconvenienced as any Hon
public business, was as
ul and therefore move.
at three o'clock, and sat till that
ihnouthrewmitohrohuintgd. inner,
Member in that House. He should
thatteto-morrow
theo rr chairmanow
(this
House adjourn till
Mr. HUME moved that the
Monday.
STehvee ral
galleryH on . this proposition.
balthea h
be cleared, pout g
daryes.ort progress,ask leave to sit
re-admittance,
sion took place. On our re-tul
he should
Mr. J. COLLETT said that most assuredly
this Bill, this House
move, that on the third reading of
the reporters were kept out a considerable time, no divi-
sion
called. wMaaem orderedbers oP pt
sed
vered in, he should, when the order of the day
the state lof
moved for, call the attention of the House to
ledges, the
the administration, the violation of t
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said that if theheßdillywweraespaegrase.n-
-pies on which the administration was
e of the
hereafter. He would prevent the recurrenci
h I ouse do
principles on which they had proceeded,toanhdetchoenpdruientceid-
thing, for that evening, by moving that t o
now adjourn.
Lord After
JOHNs me
R u observationsss RUSSELL
froms a
said
desire to
press a sitting on Saturday (this day), if non.Mem-
bus would promise fairly to discuss the preamble and
the clauses, clause by clause. several Ahll7l.22bers,_
After some further observations strangers were or-
dered to withdraw. It was arranged, however, (without
any division), that the discussion on this Bill should be
businei s should be taken at twelve on Saturday (to-day.)
taken on Monday at three o'clock, and that unopposed
The other orders of the day were then agreed to, and
th a t
I the House adjourned at Half-past One o'clock.
)s- --•"""

The Bishop of Adelaide had an interview ye
with Earl Grey at thoacsnial-aace.

THE CHESTERFIELDT
....
RDER.
APPREHENSION AND COMMITTAL OF A
TRADESMAN OF CHESTERFIELD.
No little surprise was manifested in Chesterfield,
Derby, and Belper, on Monday night, on its becom-
ing known that r. Robert Statham, a respectable
master butcher, of the Market-place, Chesterfield,
had been apprehended on the charge of aiding and
abetting John Platts in the execution of the murder
of George Collis, and for which Platts was convicted,
and suffered the extreme sentence of the law. As is
usual, rumour, with her thousand tongues, was busy,
and the most absurd and alarming reports were im-
mediately circulated all over the town and neigh-
bourhood, and the greatest excitement prevailed
throughout this generally dull and quiet town. The
following, however, will, we believe, turn out to be
correct, the authenticity of which may be relied on.
It may be within the recollection of our readers,
that Platts when apprehended by Inspector Cotteral
on the charge of murder, loudly proclaimed his in-
nocence, and which he stoutly maintained up to the
hour of his conviction. The prisoner Statham came
forward in the most zealous manner on behalf of the

murderer, and confidently predicted that Platts
would be acquitted, he also afforded Platts great as-
sistance during the period of his incarceration in
Derby gaol, and furnished the principal part of the
funds for the defence. Statham on various occasions
let fall several remarkable expressions relative to the
murder, which were thought nothing of at the pe-
riod, but it was afterwards attributed to his warmth
in endeavouring to defend Platts, whom he had
known from a child, from so foul a charge. Platts
had also been in the service of Statham.
After the conviction of Platte, the convict
made a long rambling statement to the chap-
lain and visiting magistrates, which he styled
a confession, but which was regarded by the pri•.
son authorities as a tissue of falsehoods, and which
turned out to be the case, for before the expiration of
twelve hours, the convict contradicted that statement,
and made another totally at variance with the former
one, and in which he stated that three persons were
concerned in the murder ; but as far as the actual
deed went, he declared he had no hand in the affair,
but admitted he was present in the shop when it was
planned on Sunday morning, during the period of
Divine service. Platts implicated Morley, who died
at. Chesterfield shortly after the murder of a brain
fever, and a man known by the cognomen of " Lanky
Bill." Shortly before his execution, Platts made
another confession; but as the greater part of it was
inconsistent with the truth, the prison authorities
placed no confidence in the contents, and it was wholly
discredited in Chesterfield, as being totally at variance
with the evidence at the trial, for had the confession
been true, the testimony of several witnesses must have
been false. Sufficient, however, was gleaned from
the convict to induce the magistrates to pursue the
investigation, which was carried on after the execu-
tion of Platts in a most determined, but exceedingly
quiet manner. So secret was the matter managed,
that not the slightest suspicion was excited, and it
was generally thought by all parties, except two or
three persons, that the affair had altogether dropped,
until about a fortnight ago, when Antony Lant was
arrested on the charge of aiding in the murder, for
which he now awaits his trial. On Friday last the
police, who have been most active in their endeavours
to bring other parties to justice, obtained some most
important information, and also were successful in
obtaining a connecting link in this dreadful deed,
which had been long wanting. The result of their in-
quiries deeply implicated Mr. Statham, and the evidence
was at once laid before E. G. Maynard, Esq., Mayor,
who is also a county magistrate. No farther step was
taken until Monday, when further testimony relative to
Statham's movements and conduct was laid before the
Mayor, who at once issued a warrant for his appre-
hension, and he was lodged in the Chesterfield lock-up
the same night, and on Tuesday underwent a long
and searching examination before the Mayor. The
prisoner appeared deeply agitated, but denied his
guilt. Mr. Maynard said that there was sufficient
evidence to warrant his committal as an accessory be-
fore the fact, and on application of the prisoner's soli-
citor, his worship refused bail, which was offered to
any amount, it being understood by the police that
further most important evidence would be produced
at the trial. It is also said that Lant, since his com-
mittal, has made some revelations which casts further
light on the affair, and goes to prove that the confes-
sion of Platts could not possibly be true. Statham
was lodged in Derby gaol on Tuesday ; he was ex-
ceedingly dejected in the train, and merely observed
that it was a hard thing for an innocent man to suffer
for so dreadful a charge. Statham up to this period
has always been considered a most respectable man,
was highly esteemed by his fellow-townsmen, carried
on a very lucrative business, and was considered to be
in very comfortable circumstances. The circumstance
of the prisoner being charged as being directly im-
plicated in the above revolting murder, has caused a
, far greater sensation than when the murder was first
committed, and has since Monday been the all-ab-
sorbing topic of conversation.