The Sun.
London, England, 1846-09-21 00:00:00

LAMBETH.

SINGULAR DELUSION.—M rs. Susan Lawrence, the
wife of a compositor in the employ went of Messrs.
Clowes and Sons, of Duke-street, Lambeth, appeared
before Mr. Elliott, on a warrant charging her with
threatening the life of Mr. Powell, an egg-merchant.
The complainant stated that in consequence of several
slanderous report:i circulated throughout the neigbour-
hood against him by the defendant, Mrs. Lawrence, he,
on Tuesday evening last, went to see her husband, and
speak to Icrn upon the subject. Upon seeing him the
defendant commenced abusing him in the most unmea-
sured language, and charged him with having, in com-
pany with a respectable cow-keeper in the neighbour-
hood, taken her from her own house to a house of ill-
fame in Westminster, when both of them treated her in
a brutal manner, and threatened to run her through
with a knife. Tier statement, in so far as he, witness,
was concerned, was a gross fabrication, es he could
prove, if necessary, that on the night she had mentioned,
namely the Bth of May last, as that upon which the out-
rage had been committed, he had a party at his bowie
to celebrate his birthday, and had not been away from
home for a single moment.
The defendant, who had frequently interrupted the
complainant, and it was difficult to keep quiet, replied
that his conduct to her had been scandalous, and that
he knew it.

A lod,4er in the house and a police-constable deposed
to the defendant being an habituardrunkard, and that
in the first instance she had accused other parties than
Mr. Powell and the cowkeeper of being her abductors
and the authors of the outrage upon her.
The husband of the defendant expressed it to be his
opinion that his wife's statement was true, but the
Mag;strate, on the contrary, remarked that when the
application was made to him two or three days ago by
the defendant's husband, he thought the statement ex-
ceedingly improbable, and that the defendant must have
been lab4uring under some delusion. lie was now con •
firmed in that impression, and it was his opinion that
she had been removed from the Peckham Asylum a
great deal too soon.
Mr. Powell said he had been subject to great annoy-
ance by the strange fancies of the defendant, and he
feared he should be subjected to much more unless she
was restrained by his won-hip.

Mr. ELLIOTT at first ordered the defendant to find
bail, but finding the extraordinary excesses she pro-
ceeded to in the Court, he desired that she might be at
once taken to the Lambeth workhouse with a view to
her being sent back to the Peckham Asylum.
EXTRAORDINARY RUBBERY OF BANK NOTES.—John
Coffin, who was described as a law stationer, was finally
examined, and fully committed for trial, on a charge of
stealing 501. in bank notes, the property of Mr. Davis, a
law stationer in Castle-street, Holborn. The brief facts
of the case were these:—jn the 21st of last month, the
prosecutor played the part of Richard the Third at an
amateur performance at the Bower Saloon, Stangate, and
in changing his dress, had left six five pound notes, and
two for ten pounds each in the pocket of his tights. The
prisoner, who acted as prompter, was in the dressing-
room at the time the prosecutor changed his dress, and
absconded the following day. On Friday week he was
apprehended near Ware, in Hertfordshire, and upon
being searched, two of the stolen notes, namely, one for
five and the other for ten pounds were found in his pos-
session.

The magistrate refused to take bail to any amount for
the prisoner,

SOUTHWARK.

Mr. Thomas Babson,a merchant, residing in. Three-
crown-square, Southwark, was brought before Mr.
Clive, charged with committing an assault on Charles
Brown, one of the railway constables
,belonging to the
South-Eastern Railway.
Charles Brown stated that he is a constable belonging
to the South-Eastern Company, and that at half-past
four o'clock that morning, on the arrival of the express
train from Dover, he collected the passengers' tickets.
The defendant being in a first-class carriage, he was
asked for his ticket, when he produced a s,nond-class
one, and being informed that he had to pay 2 more,
being a passenger from Tonbridge, he immediately paid
it, but refused to deliver up the ticket. Ile was told
that the ticket must be delivered, and informed of the
consequences if he did not ; but he still refused to do so.
Finding the defendant determined not to resign posses-
sion of the ticket, witness took him gently by the arm,
upon which, the defendant immediately seized him
round the waist, and threw him down upon his back,
ar d while on the ground, struck him on the mouth.
Witness added, that the defendant was then taken in a
cab to the station-house, where he delivered up the
ticket to the inspector on duty.
In the witness's cross-examination he said that the
defendant told him he bad given up his return-ticket at
Tonbridge. to one of the railway servants, who did not
give it back again. That witness, on hearing it, did not
say to the defendant, " Then you are a d—d fool," but
might have said that it was foolish of him to do so.
The defence was, that on the preceding morning the
defendant purchased a second-class return ticket to Tun-
bridge, from London-bridge, intending to come back the
same evening. When the train arrived at Tonbridge, he
gave his ticket to the policeman on .duty there, in order
to mark it, or " punch it." as it is termed. In the con-
fusion, however, created by the arrival of another train,
the policeman hurried away, without returning the
ticket ; and he (defendant) thinking it would be set
right when he returned to the station, mentioned it to
the clerk, and while the necessary inquiries were making
on the subject, the train he intended to start by left the
station, and he was detained at Tonbridge until half-past
two that morning, awaiting the express-train, the clerk
assuring him that if he paid the fare there, it would be
returned to him, en his explanation of the matter at the
terminus. He did explain it all at the London-bridge
station. and refused to deliver
paid double tare—until he saw
deliver up the ticket without some
The ticket
av
however was still demanded.
tahcekuster ewrieetdagr)in..ent rrhl
and as he refuses d to part with it, he was seized with vio-
lence, and in resisting they both fell to the ground.
Mr. CLIVE, addressing a gentleman in atten•lence on
the Act of taking the defendant
the part of the South-Eastern Company, asked what
einlatousceuswtoodu3l.d, justify
fusihng to deliver up his ticket ?
The by-laws of the company were produced, by
which it appeared a power was given for that purpose ;
but Mr. Clive, an referring to the Bth Victoria, chap.
20, said that even suppos‘ng it was proved the defendant
intended to have defrauded the company by refusing to
deliver up his ticket, still he did not %think it would
justify his being taken into custody, much less when it
did not appear that he had any such intention, but
merely wished to retain it, to have a portion of the fare
restored to him when the matter would be investigated
by the secretary. Under the circumstances, therefore,
lie (the magistrate) should dismiss the complaint against
the defendant.

'I he defendant's solicitor expressed his client's deter-
mination to enter an action immediately against the
South-Eastern Railway Company, to prevent acts of the
above description being perpetrated on the public who
travel on their railway.
William Staunton, a porter, belonging to the South-
Eastern Railway Company, was brought up for his ex-
amination charged with stealing a live crab out of a
basket from Ashford.

It appeared that on the arrival of an early train from
Ashford on Monday morning, the prisoner, whose duty
it was to help to unload the trucks, was observed to have
something bulky under his coat. lie was followed to
the entrance gates b... Mr. Shaw, the superintendant,
who, suspecting that he had taken something, insisted
on an examination, and discovered that he had a large
live crab under his coat. The prisoner at first said he
only had a few apples, but when the crab was discovered
he beggad hard for forgiveness, and wanted to replace
the crab in the basket from which he had taken it, but
he was prevented, arid given into custody.
Mr. limy said that extensive depredations were
committed on the property intrusted to the company for
conveyance, and that an example was intended to be
made on a discovery.
The magistrate committed the prisoner for trial.
MARYLEBONE.

William Bardwall, an architect, residing at 49, Great
Clit-en•street, Westminster, was charged with having
wifully damaged one of the public baths recently opened
in George-street, Euston-square.
William Ward, an attendant on the baths, deposed
that
the previous evening he prepared a second-class
bath for the prisoner, and, upon his coming out, witness
smelt something unpleasant in the bath. Upon looking
in, he found that a great portion of the wall had been
blackened, and a part of the enamel of the bath danataged.
He then gave directions that the prisoner should be
stopped. lie considered the damage to have been done
by some very powerful liquid.
Sergeant Neeld, 3 S, who was called in, said that he
asked the prisoner what he had got in his pocket? to which
he replied. " Nothing ; if you touch me you shall suffer
for it." Witness then searched the prisoner, and found
an empty half-phial in one of his pockets, but the
prisoner refused to say what it had contained.
Mr. Thomas Harrii, superintendent of the baths, said
that the damage, which was evidently caused by some
extremely strong acid,
amounted to no le.;s than 41. The
act must have been of a wilful nature. Nothing what.
ever was used in cleaning the baths but. soap and water,
and the room was pert ectly clean before the prisoner
wentinto it.

The prisoner said that he had used nothing in the
bath but a solution of sulphur, which he was in the habit

of washing himself with. Ho had often been in baths
before, but had never been complained of. He deli.. d
doing any intentknal harm.

Other evidence wa, then i:iven, confirmatory of the pre-
ceding, in respect to the amonnt of damage, and the pri-
soner was ordered to pay 41. He did so, ar.d wai liberated.

POISONINGS AT CLA-VLRING.

ADJOURNED INQUEST —The adjourned inquest into
the deaths of Joseph and Jatues Chesham, the children
alleged to have bet -n poisoned by their mother, was re-
sumed on Saturday morning at half-past ten o'clock,
before C. C. Lewis, Esq , the coroner, at the Fox and
Hounds.

The following evidence was adduced, in addition to
that which has already appeared in The Sun, respecting
this singular ease:—
Mrs. Ann Deardes was recalled—She hail omitted to
state that one day as she was passing Chesham's house,
the accused woman accosted her, and said, " I count I
shall son hang upon Chelmsford gallows, and be buried
beneath it." This was after the death of the children.
Since that event Mrs. Chesham had appeared wild and
comical. Tier eves always appeared as though they were
starting out of her head, and she was constantly crying
about her bop,.
Charles Cole, a labourer, was called, and manifested
great reluctance to b ing sworn, repeaied!y declaring
that he "Ktiow'd nothing about it." having at length
been prevailed upon, he deposed, in answer to the coro-
ner, that he had had some conversation with John
Chesham, the second son of the accused woman, but
what passed on that occasion " had quite slipped out of
his memory."
James Low, a ratcatcher, repeated his testimory that
the woman Chesham had asked him for some arsenic,
but whether that was before or after, the death of the

children he could not recollect, although he thought. it
was before. He did not give her any, because he thought
he should not get paid for it.
A juror asked the surgeon who had attended the boys
whether he had ever given the accused woman reason to
believe that the boys had died from inflammation of the
lungs ?—The burgeon said he had not.
Susan Green stated that on the Thursday night, pre-
vious to the last sitting of the jury, she heard the boy
John Chesham talk to Cole about the evidence he was
to give on the inquest. The boy replied, "Oh, I know
what to say, for my muster has told me." Cole works at
Mr. Thomas Newports.—(Sensation.)
The boy John Chesham was confronted with the wit-
ness, and denied tbat he made such a statement. Ile
said, " Cole spoke to me, And told mo to mind what I
said a 6 the inquest. I made no reply." No persuasion
or threats could induce him to say another word on the
subject.

CoRoNER—It is very evident to me that you have
been tampered with in the most unjustifiable manner,
and it is confidently stated that yeeir master is the person
who has interfered with you. It appears that your
master is a person named Wisbey, and at the present
moment sitting in this room as a member of the jury.
Mr. Wisbey declared that he had said nothing to the
boy further than counselling him to tell the truth.
Mr. Spencer, a juryman, said—Mr. Wisbey, it seems
to me that you allowed your servant to take a liberty
with you which no servant of mine would dare to take
with me. When that boy, John Chesham, left this
room on the last inquiry, he touched you on the arm,
looked up in your face, and smiled. You then said, " Well
Alone, boy, you did it very well."—(Much sensation
among the jury.)
CORONER. (to Wisbey)—l have no doubt you made
that remark to the boy, and that could not have been
done without an object. It was a strong remark to
make, because it was the conviction of all present that
the boy had committed perjury. Has any one men-
tioned the subject to you ? Wisbey—No.
CORONER—Not either of the Newports ? Wisbey—
No ; I never spoke to them on the subject.
CORONER—Hare you not been up there occasionally
of an evening to talk about this subject ? Wisbey—
Yes, I may have been up there to talk about it sometimes.
CORONER—Was anything said about the boy ?
Wisbey—Not that I recollect.
A Juror—Did Thomas Newport say anything about
arsenic? Wisbey—Yes, he said something about it,
but I forget what.
Mr. Spencer, a juryman, expressed his conviction
that the conduct of Wisbey had been disgraceful, and
that his criminality had been increased by the fact that
as juror he had sworn to do justice.
Mrs. Chesham, the mother of the accused woman, upon
being recalled, declared that she had never said she was
not going to tell the jury all she knew about the deaths
of the two boys.

Mr. Spence-r, a juror (addressing the witness), said—
Mr. Newport told me you had said so in the presence of
fifty people:
Mrs. Chesham—lt is false, and Mr. Newport dares not
come here and make that statement while I am present.
The CCRONER said it now became his duty to off,:r to
the jury a few observations respecting the very import-
ant and mysterious inquiry in which they had been en-
caged, prior to the consideration of their verdict. They
had it clearly proved that the deceased Joseph Chesham
died on the 19th January, 1845, and his brother James
on the 22d January, but three days afterwards. It had
also been proved beyond dispute that both these children
had died from the effects of arsenic, and it would be the
duty of the jury, if posiible, to say haw or by whom the
poison had been administered.
The evidence having been read over, the Court was
cleared, a•,d the jury remained for a long time in deli-
beration, when
The CORONER said—From certain circumstances
which have been disclosed, and of which until just now
I was perfectly' ignorant, the jury as well as myself feel
that a further adjournment is necessary, in order that
evidence may be obtained, which will in all probability
prove of a very important and conclusive character.
The investigation was adjourned fur five weeks.

A GANG OF SWINDLERS
CAUTION TO MANUFACTURERS.

From the following particulars we are led to believe
that a family who have Inr many years been " dropping
upon" the merchants of Manchester, with great assiduity
and no less success, are trying another district and
another name. Having occasion to call on a friend, at
Littleborough, on business, last Thursday, our informant
found that a per Son of respectable appearance had been
there passing himself off as Mr. Henry, of the firm of
James Henry and Co., of this town, and, unds.r such
pretence, obtaining samples of goods manufactured at
Littleborough and in the neighbourhood, which, on being
obtained, were taken to a car he had with him and car-
ried away. Two ea...es were made out distinctly in which
this had been accomplished, and there is little doubt that

,he parties victimised are not the only sufferers, though
at present other cases have not come to light. In one of
these instances an invoice of the goods was received, and
thus the affair assumed the complexion of a contract
debt, but in the other there was no such invoice passed,
and, therefore, a piece of swindling was complete. In
the one case four pieces of flannels, worth about 8/. or
101., were obtained ; in the other, three pieces of finer
texture, worth about 11/. or 121. One of the persons
who had thus unwiltingly given up his goods to this Mr.
Henry, determined to pursue the fellow, and tracked him,
in company wi:h a friend who entered into his feelings
heartily, and a- police officer, to Halifax, where the
scheme developed itself. There the gang (for there can
be no doubt of more than one individual "conducting
the business") had, about five weeks ago, taken a ware-
house in a back street, but so situated with respect to
a train street, that in speaking of it they could say it, was
behind such a street, naming a well-known thorough-
fare, and thus gain a further appearance of respecta-
bility of position from the locality of the ware-
house. This Owe Mr. Henry had had five weeks,
and had scarcely entered or been seen in it five
times since he took it, wed when examined,
it was quite empty, the sample goods having taken their
departure to other premises. Further inquiries showed
that there was another firm (suspected to be the same)
carrying on an equally advantageous business, and their
warehouse too was empty: in this second case the faci-
lities for transfer of goods were greater than in the first,
for there was a back door, which the other premises had
not. But the enterprising fellows had not confined their
attention to Lancashire only, but seem to have practised
to some extent upon the unwary among the manufac-
tures at Nottingham, from which place large and heavy
bundles of lace and hosiery have been received per
railway. With the material thus obtained a shop was
opened for the sale of bankrupt stock, and an old woman
was employed to dispose of it; but this ramification of
their scheme has been closed, having no doubt proved a
highly profitable concern for the two months it was
open. One link in the chain of circumstantial evidence
proving these to be a pack of swindlers at work, is the
great eagerness displayed to get the various parcels into
their hands as they arrived per rail. A person was on
the spot almost always, and teazel the railway porters no
little respecting the goods, so much so, indeed, that it is a
wonder that in a town like Halifax suspicion was not ex-
cited, and the motions of the worthies watched. That they
are adepts at their work, and determined to stop at
nothing to compass their end, is proved by the manner
in which they victimised a too-confiding member of a
religious body. The unwitting man was called upon,
business was transacted, and an invite to breakfast given
and accepted ; the table was well spread, and, as it was
the host's practice to ask a blessing upon his food, the
swindler, knowing his man, wieh all the coolness imagin-
able, gratified the honest soul, by stringing together for
the occasion a number of very appropriate terms, eat his
breakfast, and then walked off with his ill-gotten sam-
ples. These are the particulars we have at present, but
we understand the matter is in the hands of the indefa-
tigable gentlemen who conduct the business of the Man-
chester Guardian Soci, ty ; and we would further im-
press upon our contemporaries in Halifax, Bradford,
Nottingham, Derby, and other menu-
Leeds, Wakefield,
lecturing towns, the duty of making the circumstances
known. If the party.are they whom we suspect them to
be, we knew them well ; they are very old birds—in
common parlance, they know a point or two, and are not
likely tai be caught readily, so that the greatest security
to manufactursrs will be found to be cautiousness, and
the avoiding of all connexion with such persons.—
Mancheiter Courier of Friday.

TIM MODERN TASTE FOR ANTIQUE FURNITURE.
—'! he furniture and the panels of rooms, in the Louis
XIV. style, of which there are so many examples in
the ships of deal rs, are remarkable for a degree of
elegance to which at this day we seldom approach. It
is not only in their forms that these are to be admired,
but some of them have great beauty of design in the
arrangement of different kinds of wood and other
materials. We do not allude to the imitation of leaves
and flowers, by woods of different colours—a curious
branch of art still practised, but which has never in our
mind a satisfactory result, but to the geometrical pat-
terns formed in the veneering. Mahogany and rosewood,
or mahogany and ebony, are frequently combined with
great taste, it a manner now seldom attempted, except
in professed imitations of old works.— The Builder.

• ANDOVER UNION.
A copy of the depositions taken before Mr. Pigott,
the Assistant Poor-law Commissioner, at the late inves-
tigation into the conduct of Mr. M`Dougal, junior, the
schoolmaster of the Andover Union, has just been laid
before Parliament, pursuant to an order of the House of
Commons, dated 28th ult. The evidence given by the
several witnesses has already, in effect, been published
in the journals at the time of the investigation. The
following letter, however, will be read with interest, as
it contains the remarks of Mr. Pigott upon the entire
case
INQUIRY INTO THE CASE OF JOSEPH WDOUGAL, SCHOOL-
MASTER OF THE ANDOVER UNION.

" Southampton, July 25.
" Gentlemen,--I have the honour to report, that in
pursuance of the instructions conveyed to me in your
letter of the 29th of June last, to inquire into the truth
of certain allegations which had been made relating to
the conduct of Joseph M'llougal, the schoolmaster of
the workhouse of the Andover Union, towards the
pauper children therein, and to the sale of provisions by
him, and conformably to the information conveyed to me
in your letter of the Bth of July, that the allegations in
question were made by Jane Grace, formerly an irmate
of the Andover workhouse, and by Sarah Muspratt, re-
cently an inmate of the same workhouse, and that two
persons of the name of Matilda Coleman and Elizabeth
Saunders could give evidence on the former point, I ap-
pointed, with your sanction, the 23d of July for com-
mencing the inquiry, that being the earliest day which
pressing official engagements left open to me, and. it
being uncertain also whether the presence of Jane Grace
and Sarah Muspratt could be obtained previously to that
time.

Accordingly, bn the 23d of July, in the presence of a
board of the guardians of the Andover Union, specially
summoned, I proceeded to the investigation of the fol-
lowing charge against Joseph M'Dougal, viz.:-
- That the brother of Sarah Muspratt had been severely
beaten and bruised by Joseph M'Dougal, with a leather
strap with a buckle at the end of it, and that he was
struck with the buckle-end of the strap ; and that two
other boys, named Harry and Isaac White, were also
beaten at the same time, and that blood flowed from the
nose of Harry White.
At the outset of the inquiry, an objection was taken
by one of the guardians, that Joseph M'Dougal was-not
the schoolmaster of the Andover workhouse.; that he
had never been regularly appointed by the guardians,
nor his appointment, such as it is, sanctioned by the
Commissioners. It appeared that the minute-book of
the guardians was with the Committee of the House of
Commons. The clerk, Mr. Lamb, was not present at
the meeting ; neither were the chairman, vice-chair-
man, nor any guardian, prepared to give evidence on
the subject. On searching the books containing the
rough minutes of the board, from which they are fairly
copied into the minute-book, an entry was found, of
which I inclose a copy.
It appears that Joseph M'Dougal, who is now only
twenty years of age, has been continued in his situation
during nearly three years, under this provisional ap-
pointment, which it was stated had never received the
sanction of the Commissioners.
As, however, the appointment, whether provisional
or per saeent, entailed, as regarded the care and treat-
ment of the children entrusted to the charge of the indi-
vidual accepting the appointment, the same duties and
resposibilities, I did not consider the objection of a
nature to affect or stay my proceedings.
I ,inclose the depositions, taken upon oath, of Sarah
Muspratt, of Thomas Charles Westlake, Esq., of Charles
Muspratt, of Robert Thomas Latham, Esq., of William
Austin, of Charles Pilgrim, and of Mr. James Blythe,
the present governor of the workhouse; from which it
clearly appears that towards the end of October, a short
time before Mr. Price, the lat, governor, was succeeded
in his office by Mr. Blythe, on a Saturday, the day of
meeting of the board of guardians, the two boys, Charles
Muspratt and William Austin, being then both more
than 14 years of age, were violently beaten bey Joseph
M'Dougal, the former with a cane, the latter with a
cane and a strap having a buckle at the end of it ; that
Harry White, an older lad, having interfered to prevent
Joseph M'Dougal from continuing the castigation, a
squffie ensued, during which Harry White and Isaac
White, his brother, received blows on the nose and
mouth from Joseph M'Dougal, and that Charles Muspratt
was thrown with his head on the stone floor; that the
noise and clamour brought to the school-room various
persons, viz., Sarah Muspratt, Elizabeth Morrison, the
nurse, Mrs. Price, the matron, and Mr. Price the
master; that about this time the board of guardiars had
assembled; that Sarah Muspratt applied to Mr. Price to
be allowed to go before the board, to state what had hap-
pened to her brother; that Mr. Price promised that he
would call for her at the proper time, but that he did
not do so, and that she did not subsequently make any
complaint to the visiting Committee, or to any one else,
on the subject, until she appeared before the Committee of
the House of Commons. It appears also that the reason
why Joseph M'Dougal chastised Charles Muspratt and
William Austin was, that they had not learned by rote
a certain task set to them as a punishment on the pre-
ceding day. Lastly (on the statement of Mr. Westlake
and Mr. Latham), that the blows inflicted on the back
and head were severe blows, although not of a nature to
require medical treatment.

Joseph M‘Dougal does not deny the facts thus deposed
to, nor has he brought any witnesses to disprove them,
although furnished by my instruction, on the 16th of
July, with a statement of the charges about to be
brought against him. _ • _

Joseph 'Al'llnugal, therefore, has been clearly proved
guilty of an infraction of articles 47. 48, 49, and .51, of
the workhouse rules, in the cases of Charles 141uspratt,
William • Austin, William Taylor, and James Taylor,
althouA it does not appear that the statement made by
Sarah Muspratt is literally correct.
It further appears; that upon other occasions and
recently Joseph M•Doug,al has been in the habit of strik-
ing the boys for trifling faults, without reporting the
same to the master of the workhouse, as prescribed by
article 51 of the workhouse regulations.
On the other hand, it does not appear that in other
respects the children have been ill-treated or neglected
as regards their instruction. Their progress in writing
and arithmetic has been considerable under Joseph
261‘flougal, and is above the average attainment in these
respects, of children even of a higher class. I inquired
of the children, out of his presence, whether any of
them desired to complain of any ill-treatment on his part;
but none were disposed to do so, although the question
was put repeatedly. lam inclined to attribute the con-
duct of Joseph M'Dougal rather to youth and want of
proper control, than to a harsh or tyrannical disposition.
The next charge brought against Joseph M'Dougal was,
That provisions had been sold by Joseph M'Dougal,
and that the sister of Jane Grace had bought bread from
him.

It. appears on the oath of Jane Grace, that about four

years tigo she saw her sister, then fourteen years of age,
and an inmate of the workhouse, in the girl's class, a
short time before her supper, give Joseph APDougal,
who was not at the time in the office of schoo!master, one
penny for a square piece of bread, which she supposes
to have been one of the women's supper rations.
Joseph Al‘Dougat denies the fact, but it does not ap-
pear probable that Jane Grace, against whose character
there is no rept'oach, would deliberately perjure herself
by making such a statement falsely. She adds, more-
over, that she never knew or heard of another ease in
which Joseph M‘Douv,al had sold provisions of any kind.
I am of opinion, therefore, that Joseph M'Dougal did
about four years ago, holding no official situation at the
time, sell to Jane Grace's sister a certain piece of bread
of about six ounces weight, for one penny, whether be-
longing to the provisions of the house or not does not ap-
pear ; and that there is no proof whatever of his having
sold provisions the property of the guardians on this or
any other occasion.

It appears, lastly, that about the same time, viz., be-
fore he was appointed to the office of schoolmaster, and
holding at the time no office of any kind under the Poor-
law Commission. Joseph M'Dougal did commit an as-
sault upon Jlne Grace by beating her, and also upon
William Waldron ; but as I have no authority to in-
quire into offences committed by persons not employed
in the administration cf :the poor-laws, I did not feel
justified in making further inquiries into these cases,
nor indeed was it necessary to do so, to carry out the
instructions received by me from the Commissioners.
The evidence given in support of the first charge ap-
pears to me sufficient to show that Joseph M'Dougal
has forfeited all claim to one of the most essential qua-
lifications of a workhouse schoolmaster, namely, a com-
mand of temper ; but the evidence of his zeal given by
the progress of the children under his charge, and the
testimony of the master of the workhouse as to his ge-
neral good conduct, to which may be added the consi-
deration of his youth, will probably induce the Com-
missioners to be satisfied with accepting his resignation
without inflicting on him the serious stigma and conse-
quences of a dismissal.

- I wish to call the attention of the Commissioners to
the fact that neither the schoolmaster nor schoolmis-
tress of the Andover workhouse reside in the work-
house ; a circumstance which I consider as very disad-
vantageous to the children.

I have, &c.,
(Signed) G. PIGOTT,
Assistant Poor-law Commissioner.
The Poor-law Commissioners. Lon,ion.