The Sun.
London, England, 1851-03-31 00:00:00

MARRIAGE.

Mr. Sergeant Allen and Mr. Gray were counsel for
the plaintiff; and Mr. Whateley and Mr. EX. Richards
, for the defendant.
Amelia Mary Grace Harrison was the plaintiff, and
William Morgan was the defendant. The plaintiff was
the daughter of an attorney's clerk living in Monnow-
street, Monmouth; and the defendant was a malster
living in Inch-lane in the same town; and the action
was for a breach of promise of marriage.
The only plea was that the defendant did not make
the alleged promise.
Mr. Sergeant ALLEN having stated the plaintiff's case
in a very eloquent and feeling address, the following
witnesses were called:—
William Henry Steele Harrison, examined by Mr.
GRIY—I am managing clerk to a solicitor in this town,
and father of the plaintiff. She was twenty on the 6:h
of this month. The defendant is a widower in
this town, and carries on the malting business, and is
a member of the town council. First became personally
acquainted with him in May, 1848. At that time he
declared himself a suitor for my daughter's hand, and
continued down to November last year to visit her. His
visits were received in that character. She was allowed
to walk out with him, and ho occasionally took her to
church. In October last I received a letter from Mr.
Thomas Hancock, an Excise officer, and showed it to the
defendant. Upon receiving that letter I wrote the next
day (on the ith October) to the defendant. I posted
the letter myself. (The letter was here called for, but de-
fendant's counsel said they had no such letter.) The
effect of the letter was, that I had received a letter
from Mr. Thomas Hancock, offering marriage to my
daughter; that I thought it fair to him to mention it;
that I wished to know his intentions respecting my
daughter; and that he could not again see her till he
had given such explanations as I should think satisfactory.
On the 12th October my daughter came out and called me
and my wife into the parlour. The defendant was there.
Mrs. Harrison said to him, " I hope your are now pre-
pared to give your answer;" and he said, " I came
here on honourable terms." She said, " I knew that
from the first, and, if not, you would not be allowed to
visit her." I said, " Mr. Morgan, that is no answer.
Do you mean to marry her, and when?" He said he
would marry her in December. Mrs. Harrison said,
"This is the first week in October. Suppose we say
the first week in December." He said, " Very well, the
first week in December." I said, " Mr. Morgan, we
have only your word for it," and he said, " My word is
as good as my bond." He then added, " Will you new
shake hands?" and ho shook hands with us all. I said,
Now, Mr. Morgan, I will give an answer to Mr. Han-
cock." I had shown him previously Mr. Hancock's
letter. I wrote on the 14th to Mr. Hancock, declining
his visits, as Mr. Morgan was my daughter's accepted
suitor. The letter to Mr. Hancock was mentioned to
him. Down to the 21st of November, he continued Mk
visits. He took her to church the next Sunday after the
14th of October. Previously to the 21st of November
some wedding dresses were made up. I had a conver-
sation with him about the wedding cake. Mrs. Harrison
said, "It was time to order a cake." I proposed Mr.
Bowen. Mrs. Harrison proposed Mr. Barnley, and the
defendant said, "Mr. Barnley, by all means, as he
came out like a trump at the last municipal elec-
tions."—(Laughter.) I heard the wedding dresses talked
about in plaintiff's presence. I asked Mr. Barrett, the
governor of the gaol, to be of the bridal party. I asked
Mr. Dennis to act as bridegroom.— (Laughter.) On the
21st of November I heard that a message had come from
defendant by his housekeeper. I and Mrs. Harrison
went immediately to defendant's. The first thing we
said was, " Mr. Morgan, what do you mean by the mes-
sage you sent by your housekeeper, that you do not
mean to marry my daughter?" He said he had never
promised to marry her. Mrs. Harrison said, " You are
a villain of the blackest dye." He said we wanted to
force him into a marriage. Mrs. Harrison got into a
passion, and repeated the phrase, that he was a villain
of the blackest dye, two or three times. He said, "You
have not it in writing; do your best—do your worst." I
said as I was going away, " If there is justice to be had
in the land, you will be made to suffer for this." When
my daughter heard of the defendant's refusal she became
very ill, and did not take her clothes off for three days
and nights, and has since contined very delicate. A few
days after that he got into the room where my daughter
was, and she screamed, and I and my wife ran into the
room and there saw her fainting. I said to him, " You
see what a wreck you have made, you villain;" and he
answered, " You need not put yourself in a passion, all
will be right yet."
Cross-examined by Mr. WIIATELEY—Have been
clerk for 12 years to Mr. Owen. I was in the medical
profession before that, in the wholesale drug line in
Hertfordshire, and was dispenser at the same time to
the West Herts Infirmary. Defendant used to come to
our house frequently, and when he wanted a glass of
spirits he sent out for it. I never drank any; Ido not
drink spirits. He was generally sober —al‘saya sober.
I never saw him drunk in all my life. My daughter
told mo she had seen him a little drunk. I have heard
that he is given to intoxication. I never saw him drunk.
I heard that he was very often drunk, and he is drunk
now, I dare say.—(Laughter.) When he came to our
house he used to go with my daughter sometimes into
the parlour, sometimes into the kitchen. Mr. Han-
cock is not here to-day. He never entered my
door; he never was in my garden. Before he
went away he came to my door and said I
had written a most gentlemanly letter. I never saw
him but once. I live in Monnow-street. I write my
letters in the office and post them as Igo home. It was
not quite so near to go to his house as to the post-office.
Mr. Gabb lives with Mr. Price, next door. Mr. Gabb
never jumped over our garden wall. Mr. Morgan was
foolish enough to fancy that he saw it. He was so jea-
lous that he would be jealous of a dog. My daughter
went to Bristol in May, 1850, while Mr. Morgan was in
Scotland. She stopped at Mrs. Grossnige's, in Charlotte-
street, Queen-square. Mrs. Grossuige is dead. My wife
went at the end of a fortnight to bring her back. She
went to Bristol again with a young woman named Eliza
Parry. She then stopped away only ono night. Eliza
Parry was a young woman who was out of a situation,
and who paid my daughter's expenses in order to go with
her there. The defendant is about 53—not very old.
He is not much older than I am. r" Well, but you
were to be his father!"—Laughter.] the copies of the
letters I wrote to Mr. Morgan wore destroyed after the
promise was made. Mr. Hancock is now in Ireland.
Re-examined—Defendant told me that he had 1001. in
the gas-work property; in the funds to the amount of
4,0001,; that his malting business was worth 2001. a
year; that he had a bit of land over Monnow for
which he paid 600/. I said, " Then you are a 10,0001.
man."

By his LORDSHIP—I destroyed the copies of the letters
which I wrote after I had an explanation with him in
1848. He then promised to marry her in the spring.
Mrs. Susan Harrison—l am the mother of the plain-
tiff. My daughter came from school in 1847. Defendant
irst became acquainted with her in May, 1848. After
he came the first time to our house he visited her daily.
The first time he came I said, " I wish, Mr. Morgan, to
know your intentions respecting ray daughter ?" He
mid, " They are quite honourable." I said, "My
daughter is quite a child. You are old enough to be her
father. I hope you will consider seriously whether you
vault a wife. On no terms but honourable ones can you
see her." He said, "Do you think I am a villain?"
lie visited her continually, and took her to church on
Sundays. Saw him when Mr. Hancock wrote the letter
in October, 1850. The letter was received on Sunday.
On the Monday Mr. Harrison wrote to defendant; he
time on Tuesday, and said " Where is Mary ?" I said,
"You shall not see her till you have answered Mr.
Ilarrison's letter." He said, " I will answer it now. I
will say yes." I said, " That is no answer. You must
see Mr. Harrison or write to him." I read to Mr. Morgan
the letter of Mr. Harrison to Mr. Hancock, and he said
it was a very proper, gentlemanly answer. Mr. Harrison
afterwards came in and asked him whether he would
merry his daughter, and he said he would before
Clxistmas. I then said, " This is the first week in October;
say the first week in December." Ho said, „" Very
wed," and turned round and kissed my daughter. Had
a conversation with him on the preceding Wednesday,
wlen Mrs. Yates was present. He sent Mrs. Yates to
knew whether he could see my daughter. Nothing was
sail about the marriage while Mr. Yates was there.
Wien ho was at the door I asked him for his answer,
an& he said he would give it in the course of the week.
Miry then came up, and he made her promise not to
sei the exciseman till he had given her father an answer.
H® afterwards said, in Mrs. Yates's preseace, that he
would marry her before Christmas. On the following
Tuesday he gave his definitive answer. After that I
frequently told him I was preparing for the wedding.
Ile made no remark in particular. He said he should
wsnt a set of shirts. When the wedding-cake was
mentioned we were all present. (The witness repeated
whit had been said by her husband.) I gave Mr. Barn-
ley th© order for the wedding-cake, and it was prepared
to put in his window. About the 21st of November
defindant's housekeeper came down and delivered a
twinge to my daughter. It made my daughter very
ill. I and my husband went up to defendant and spoke
about the message. Ho said, " You have been trying to
inveigle me into a marriage, but I never intended to
marry your daughter." (The witness's account of the
rest of the interview corresponded with that given by
het husband.)

Cross-examined—The exciseman is 23 years of age.
He was never in our house, I never heard of his escap-
ing suddenly from the house when Mr. Morgan came.
Mr. Morgan suspected that he had seen Mr. Gabb jump-
ing over the garden wall. The exciseman is good look-
ing. Mr. Morgan never got drunk in our house. Never
drank half-a-pint of gin at our house. He once sent for
haF-a-pint of gin on New Year's eve, when there was a
little party at our house. My daughter went to Bristol
in May. When I went there she was in the house. I
never heard she was acquainted with Mr. Gonaersall, the
actor, or Mr. Jeaaton. Her father was angry with her,
as Mr. Morgan had not given his answer, and she was
anxious to get a situation as companion to a lady. 1
did not know the day she was to go. When she was
gone Mr. Harrison went to Mr. Morgan, as he thought
Mr. Morgan knew where she was. I did not know with
whom she went. The second time she went, she went
with a poor friendleas girl whom I took in, who had been

in service in two or three respectable places in Mon-
mouth. She said she could not get employment in Mon-
mouth, and if my daughter would go with her to
Bristol she would pay her expenses. My daughter was
gone three days.. She spent one night in Bristol, was
one day going and one day returning, as the girl paid
only her carriage fare there and back. My husband gets
60/. a year.. _

Re-examined—Mr. Morgan lent her money to go to
Bristol in May. The fare the girl paid for her was 3s.
by the coach and It. Gd by the boat. I and my husband
were cousins. My grandfather was Dr. Steel, a physicia❑
of great practice at Colef)rd.

bars. Elizabeth Yates, the wife of a greengrocer in
Monmouth—Had seen Miss Harrison and the defendant
walking together frequently. On the 9th of October
saw Mr. Morgan talking to the plaintiff at her father's
door. I said I was happy to see them together. He said
Mary had said she was going to see the exciseman. I
said I was sure she was not. Mary said, "If you will
act honourable to me, I will not see him." She'said,o
" William, answer my father's letter." He said, " Mary,
I will." She asked if he would marry her in a week;
ho said, " No; but I will before Christmas;" and turning
to me added, "Betsy, you are a witness." I left them
there together. He was then quite collected.
Cross-examined—He was, I think, quite sober. I
should rather say he was sober than that he was drunk.
Mrs. Marian Wilson, the wife of a dyer in Monnow-
street—Knew that the defendant kept company with
Miss Harrison. Had been with them when they were
in company. The defendant sent me with a message to
the plaintiff. She did not come on my message. Ano-
ther message was sent and she came. It was a Thurs-
day in October. Her mother came and fetched her
away. My daughter was invited to be bridemaid.
Mr. George Williams, a draper in Monmouth, re-
ceived from Mrs. Harrison an order for wedding dresses.
In November went to Mr. Harrison's, and saw the
plaintiff very ill on the sofa.
Mr. WHITELEY addressed the jury for the defendant,
in a very eloquent and humorous speech, contending that
there could be no happiness in •uch a marriage as the
defendant had proposed to enter into; that the plaintiff
could entertain no feelings of affection for such a man
as the defendant was described to be, but was merely
the instrument of an artful father and mother in in-
veigling the defendant in moments of drunkenness or
weakness into a promise of marriage ; that no im-
putation whatever was cast upon her character ;
and that the probability was, as soon as this case
was over, whatever damages the jury might give (and
he trusted they would be exceedingly moderate) would
be employed to set up her and the exciseman in house-
keeping. There was no pretence of blighted affections,
no pretence of any such attachment as ought to exist be-
tween persons about to enter into the married state; and
it was the most fortunate event for her that the defen-
dant did not press her into an union from which by no
chance could she derive the slightest happiness.
Mr. Justice TALFOURD, in summing up, said the jury
should consider that the defendant had disclaimed all
imputation upon the character of the plaintiff, and that
she lost by his conduct the opportunity of rising to a
station of considerable wealth and respectability, which
she would no doubt have gained only by a sacrifice of
the feelings natural to her age, and had also lost the op-
portunity of marrying a young man, less wealthy, no
doubt, than the defendant, but in a respectable sphere of
life, and whose age was more suitable to her own.
The jury, after a few minutes' consideration, returned
a'sgerdiet for the plaintiff—Damages 2001.
The verdict seemed to give great satisfaction to a
court, which was crowded almost to suffocation by the
young folks of Monmouth.

NORFOLK ClRCUlT.—Norwich, March 29.

CROWN COURT.—(Before Mr. Justice ERLE.)
Robert Carter, Robert Mason, IVilliam Goddard,
and George Hobbs, were indicted for maliciously wound-
ing George Coates, on the night of the 14th of Decem-
ber last, with intent to murder, to resist their lawful
apprehension, and also to do some grievous bodily harm.
Mr. Evans conducted the case for the prosecution, and
Mr. Palmer defended the prisoners.
The prosecutor is the head-keeper of Mr. Villebois,
the occupier of Marham-house in this county, and it
appeared that, his master being absent, the house and
shooting had been let to Sir John Lister Kay, and that
the keepers " went along with the shooting." On the
night in question the keepers were aware of the
presence of poachers in one of the woods attached to
the house, and having hastily armed themselves with
guns and sticks, they set off in pursuit, accompanied
by a large Newfoundland dog. When they reached
the part of the wood whence the report of firearms
had proceeded, they came up to five armed men,
who all presented their guns, and ordered them to stand
back. The prosecutor, however, replied, " No, my lads,
we have had enough of that before ; now we will have
something else !" and made towards the poachers. At
that instant one of the latter shot the dog, and a second
let fly right at the bead keeper's body, he being distant
only three yards. Fortunately the keeper's gun and his
left arm intercepted the bulk of the shot; but the effect
of the shock was to cause the involuntary discharge of
the keeper's weapon into the air. Immediately after
this another poacher fired his gun at the second keeper,
but with such unsteady aim, that the contents of his
barrel having passed through the coat and pockets of
the object. lodged themselves in the posteriors of a third
poacher, named Hobbs, who had become mixed up in
the mil& with the keeper. This contretemps put an end
to the conflict, for the fifth poacher took to his heels, and
the other four, who are the prisoners, were shortly after-
wards secured.

His LORDSIIIP having directed an acquittal on the
second count, on the objection of ➢lr. Palmer to the
authority of the keepers to arrest the poachers, left it to
the jury to say whether the prisoners were actuated by
either of the intents laid in the other counts.
The jury found all the prisoners Guilty generally, and
they were thereupon sentenced to be transported for life.
William Hooks was also sentenced to the like term of
transportation, he having been convicted of a similar
offence the day before.
John Trundle and William Girling were indicted,
together with William Trundle, for wounding William
Rose with intent to resist the apprehension of the said
William Trundle, and also with intent to do the said
William Rose some grievous bodily harm.
Mr. Evans conducted the case for the prosecution; Mr.
Prendergast, Q.C., appeared for the defence.
At the last assizes for this county, a cause " Upcher
v. William Trundle," was tried, which terminated in a
verdict for the plaintiff, and the damages and costs
consequent thereon amounted to 250/. In due
course a writ of capias ad satisfaciendum was issued
against W. Trundle, and the sheriff issued his warrant
to his bailiffs, Greenacre and Gamble by name. Mr.
Greenacre, knowing that William Trundle was a very
violent character, thought he could but execute his duty
by a finesse, and he accordingly submitted the warrant
to two policemen, named Dunt sad Rose, whom he di-
rected to proceed to the residence of the defendant,
while he followed after. It appeared, however, that
adopting the better part of valour, ho remained at Svvaff-
ham, some two miles from the residence of W. Trundle,
and was there at the time that Dunt and Rose attempted
to arrest the defendant. As might be expected, they
met with resistance from him, as well as from the two
prisoners who aided him, and were present at a moment
when, before his escape, he seized a stick and inflicted a
severe wound on Rose. Under these circumstances,
Mr. PRENDERGAST contended that the arrest was un-
lawful, as the bailiff, to whom alone was intrusted the
real authority to arrest William Trundle, was too far
distant from the scene of action to be even constructively
present. The prosecutor was, therefore, a mere tres-
passer, and was lawfully resisted by the prisoners and
William Trundle, and there was no foundation for this
prosecution.

- Mr. Justice ERLE coincided in this view of the facts.
There was no doubt that, to render au arrest on civi
process legal, the bailiff must either make it in person or
be so near to the spot as to be within call or reach, so
as to be constructively present. Here the bailiff was
shown to be two miles distant, and consequently the pri-
soners were entitled to au acquittal.
The jury thereupon said Not Guilty.
March 27.

CIVIL SlDE.—(Beforo Lord Chief Justice JEnvls and

a Special Jury.)

ABBOTT v. BACON".

Mr. Sergeant Byles and Mr. Palmer were counsel for
the plaintiff; Mr. Prendergast and Mr. Evans were
counsel for the defendant.

This was an action in which the plaintiff sought to re-
cover damages from the defendant for a libel, imputing
to him the commission of larceny. The plaintiff, until
his " resignation" in November of the last year, was a.
superintendent of the Norfolk rural police—a force
which is under the command of Colonel Oakea,l as chief
constable; and it appeared that the defendant, who is
the proprietor of the Korwich Mercury, had caused to be
inserted in that journal on the 28th of December last an
article imputing to the plaintiff that he had been seen to
steal from the shop of Mr. Abrahams, a chemist re-
siding at Dereham, were the plaintiff was stationed, a
pot of pickles, some cigars, a brush, and other things,
which, on being followed from the shop, ho had " dis-
gorged." To the declaration the defendant pleaded "not
guilty," and a justification, asserting that the plaintiff
had stolen a pot of capers, a cigar, a tooth-brush, a
bottle of macassar oil, and some rotten stone, from tho
shop of Mr. Abrahams. The case for the plaintiff,
which consisted of the technical proof of publication and
proprietorship, having been shortly proved,
Mr. PRENDEItGAST addressed the jury for the defen-
dant in a highly humorous speech, and; then proceeded
to call witnesses in support of his client's plea of justi-
fication.
Of the evidence of these it may be said that it proved
a strong case of larceny in respect of the capers, a less
strong one in respect of the toothbrush, one yet weaker
as to the macassar oil, and as to the cigars and rotten
stone none at all. Two of the witnesses deposed to the fact
that Col. Oakes had said to the plaintiff in their presence,
after he had heard their story, " Abbott, I am afraid you
are guilty, as the witnesses agree," and that the plaintiff
had not said anything in reply.
Colonel Oakes was then called, iu reply, by the plain-
tiff, uud he said that he had not made use of that ex-
pression to the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff had pro-
tested his innocence in the strongest way on the occa-
sion alluded to.
Air. PREZIDNROAST then called for the production a

the " orders" issued by the witness to the force. In one
of these, issued immediately after the occasion just men-
tioned, Colonel Oakes announced his acceptance of the
plaintiff's resignation under the strongest conviction
of his guilt after rigid examination;" and in the other,
issued after a charge against the plaintiff before the ma-
gistrates had fallen to the ground in consequence of the
non-attendance of witnesses, the Colonel relieved the
plaintiff from the stigma which the former had cast upon
him.

Mr. PRENDERGAST replied on this additional evidence;
and, after the general reply for the plaintiff by Mr. Ser-
geant BYLES,

The CHIEF JUSTICE summed up the case to the jury,
and alluding to the two orders of Colonel Oakes, ob-
served that the first was rashly issued if the plaintiff
had protested his innocence in the manner and on the
occasion described; and the mere fact of the non-at-
tendance of the witnesses ought not FO to have altered the
opinion of a person in Colonel Oakes' situation, on the
innocence or guilt of an accused man, as to have in-
duced him to issue the secund order. He (the Chief
Justice) was of opinion that the jury must dismiss as
unproven the charges of stealing the rotten stone, the
cigars, and macassar oil. They must determine whether
the plaintiff had stolen the capers and the toothbrush.
or either of them. It they should find that he had not
stolen anything they must give the plaintiff adequate
damages, not considering that they were, as the counsel
for the plaintiff had suggested, to teach lessons to edi-
tors, nor reducing the damages because the plaintiff
happened to be a poor man. If they thought that he
had stolen one or two of the last named things they
would say what damages the plaintiff was entitled to in
respect of the charges which they considered not proved.
In estimating the amount in that case they must take
into consideration the fact that they found him to have
stolen something.
The jury retired for a few minutes, and on their re-
turn found that the plaintiff had stolen the capers, but
not the toothbrush, and that if he was entitled to any
damages at all they assessed them at one farthing. -
The verdict was then entered for the defendant.

THE CASE OF MISS TALBOT.
(From the Times.)
Bad as the case had been presumed to be against the
Earl and Countess of Shrewsbury and the two Roman
Catholic priests, Drs. Doyle and Hendren, the presump-
tion falls far short of the reality. Hitherto we have
been compelled to speak from a knowledge of isolated
facts, but now, thanks to the investigation before the
Lord Chancellor, we are enabled to set forth the story
in all its bearings. To be sure it was no great stretch
of the inductive faculty to draw correct inferences from
the few facts actually ascertained. Baron Cuvier and
Professor Owen from the sight of a simple bone or
vertebra have been able to divine the perfect organiza-
tion and entire fabric of :some strange antedeluvian
animal. So it was possible to argue back from one of
Dr. Hendren's falsehoods to the whole tissue of treachery
and deceit of which Miss Talbot had been the object.
It was evident enough from what we already knew that
there was at the bottom of this iniquitous business a
deep-laid scheme for immuring the young lady within the
walls of a nunnery, and securing possession of her property.
But this might, or might not, have been the inspira-
tion of the moment. It seemed clear that the Earl
and Countess of Shrewsbury had found themselves un-
able to force their young relative into a marriage from
which her feelings revolted, and which her judgment
disapproved, and had they determined to hand her over
to the priests. They could calculate with perfect secu-
rity that her ample fortune would be a sufficient bait to
induce persons of this class to second their selfish and un-
worthy views to the utmost of their power. And had it
not been for the providential interference of Mr. Ber-
keley at the critical moment, and for the instant expression
of public indignation, the unfortunate young lady lay
bound hand and foot at the mercy of the intriguing crew
by whom she was surrounded. Let us only consider her
position. The Earl and Countess of Shrewsbury, her
closest relatives, unable to drive her into an unsuitable
marriage, had gone abroad. They had parted from her
in bitterness and anger, and, ere their departure had cast
her into a convent. The Lord Chancellor, her guardian
in last resort, appears to have had a kind of jaunty idea
that of her own free will Miss Talbot was stopping,
during the absence of Lord and Lady Shrewsbury,
as boarder in a convent. The Earl of Shrewsbury,
in the course of a conversation at Alton Towers,
where Lord Truro had been staying, had told him as
much, and ho was satisfied. No hint of Miss Talbot's
intended profession had reached his ears. There was no
assistance to be expected from that quarter. It was not
very probable that a timid, inexperienced girl of 19
years of age, with her soul well bent down to " Holy
obedience," and her every act strictly controlled by the
convent staff, should concoct and forward a petition to
the Lord Chancellor, praying to be relieved from duress.
With her Protestant relatives, with her stepfather, and
her uncle, she was not allowed to hold any communica-
tion, unless, indeed, a brief interview under the prac-
tised eye of- the Superior deseevea the name. The next
person in this melodrama is Dr. Doyle, one of the new
patent Wiseman-bishops. But this Dr. Doyle WAS the
man who, according to the indignant statement of Miss
Talbot's uncle, had abused his spiritual influence at her
father's death-bed to procure his own nomina-
tion to the office of her guardian. He was
the man who had endeavoured to remove her
from her mother's care while she was yet en
ailing and sickly child. Ho was the man who, having
undertaken the office of her guardian, discharged his
duty so effectually that he allowed Miss Talbot to be
returned to the convent " as a boarder"—so he tells us
—and only found out the other day that she was waver-
ing in her notions, and might not improbably become a
nun. Dr. Doyle, the astute old Roman priest, knew the
meaning of a course of conventional influence as well as
a skilful physician understands the effect of henbane or
opium! Finally, we have the truth-loving Dr. Hen-
dren; and the mild, dissuasive Superior of this Popish
Dotbeboys-hall. Consider for a moment the position of
a girl so situated, born in such a position in society, and
heiress to such a fortune, and entangled in the meshes
of such a crew! There she lay at their mercy, without
a friend or counsellor in the world, without one whole-
some influence to dispel the clouds that had gathered
round her path 1
Now, we trust it is by this time clearly enough under-
stood that the effect of a nun's profession is to transfer
her whole property to the community of which she may
form part. 'This appeared in the course of the Blackrock
investigation, in which it was stated that the two nuns
were as completely compelled to sign as though a pistol
had been held to their heads. Furthermore the Solicitor-
General on Saturday called attention to the following
rule of the Council of Trent, which provides " that the
property of all religious men and women ought not to be
held by them separately or privately, but be handed over
to the Superior or Superioress to be incorporated with
the property of the convent." The practice of the Ro-
man Church has invariably been in consonance rather
with this Tridentine canon than with the one quoted by our
valuable correspondent, Dr. Hendren: But, after all, it is
mere idleness to waste discussion upon such a point.
While she remained exposed to conventual influences
Miss Talbot was as blind a tool in the hands of those by
whom she was surrounded as the staff in a Jesuit's grasp.
The best evidence of the fact is to be found in a letter
at the conclusion of our Chancery report of this day. It
is written ostensibly by Miss Talbot to the Lord Chan-
cellor ;' but—poor girl I—she had little enough to do
with its composition. Every word bears the stamp of
the dirty intriguers by whom she was surrounded. She
is made to write that every word of the letter is from
herself. "I am alone while writing it, and therefore no
one can allege that I have been prompted by any one ;
every word is the result of my own thoughts and reflec-
tion." Wo do not suppose that Miss Jerningham was
actually standing over the young lady in the attitude of
a flagellant. The complaint is that the letter was
written from a nunnery at all. The date is the
proof of the duress. Such a letter as that the composi-
tion of a young English girl of nineteen years of age !
the opening of it would do credit to a heard-headed
writer to the Signet, and its conclusion is as gross
a piece of Hendren-cum-Jerningham as was ever
turned out from the walls of a nunnery. " It will cost
me much to leave Taunton, where aro all my best and
dearest friends; but your Lordship acts for the best,
and therefore I would not on any account oppose your
wish. After Easter I shall be ready to yield myself,
and again enter a world whose charms I cannot value."
We know not how much it will cost Miss Talbot to
leave Taunton, but to havo remained there would most
assuredly have cost her exactly 85,0081. How does the
conclusion of this letter tally with the first attempt to
persuade the Chancellor that Miss Talbot was residing
at the convent for a temporary purpose, entirely discon-
nected with any idea of her ultimate profession?
The truth is that before any stir was made
in the matter the plan was to represent
Miss Talbot to her Protestant relatives in the
character of a postulant, in order to remove her from
their influence. Next, when an application was made
to the Chancellor, it was found impossible to brave the
consequences of so audacious and attempt to embezzle
the property of a ward of Court—the postulant pro, hic
vice subsided into the boarder. But Dr. Hendren s un-
fortunate letters had appeared in the 7 lines, but Mr.
Craven Berkeley had too accurately remembered his
converartions with Miss Jerningham. Miss Talbot was
then set forth as a sort of " postulant unattached;" ' as
one who had simply assumed the name in order to be-
come entitled to the privileges of a boarder, but with-
out the remotest idea of profession. What, then, is the
meaning of the concluding phrase of Miss Talbot's letter
to the Chancellor—even if we leave honest Dr. Hend-
ren's indiscreet confidences out of the question?
It would be difficult in a case of this kind to apportion
the share of blame due to every party to this foul trans-
action. A very heavy responsibility rests upon
the
shoulders of the Earl and Countess of Shrewsbury.
Through a long course of years they entirely neglected
their young relative. They left the heiress of so consi-
derable a fortune to receive her education in a paltry
establishment at 40 guineas per annum, including board,
washing, sheets, towels, and the principles and
practice
of the Roman Catholic religion, When they finally
took her into her family she was cast out by them again
at the end of twelve weeks, because she refused to be
dragooned into an
This
tnarriages And what Ras
the form of the rejection? innocent young girl
was consigned once more to the walls of an institution
in which iv; 11140 years her ogul hqd been drilled into

obedience, to be there " dissuaded" from taking that
tal step which would convert her existence into a wear-
- and monotonous misery. As for the priests, they
but act according to the routine and tradition of
*Us office.. It is well that their conduct should be de-
nounced, because it is well just now that the practical
leaning of their creed should be brought home to the
-understanding of every man; and, what is of more im-
portanw, of ever woman throughout the country.
•• (From the Daily News.)
There is a reason for silence with regard to cases
pending in.the common law courts that does not apply to
Chancery cases. Juries aro employed in the common
law courtsrand all jurymen have not had the advantage
of that intellectual training which enables men to dis-
miss irrelevant facts and unsupported averments from
their mind. They cannot all forget in the jury-box
what they have heard out of it. A judge who has
grown grey in legal controversies is in no such danger;
the more a case is argued from every point of view the
more likely he is to arrive at a sound decision.
There is no danger of the Lord Chancellor's being
puzzled and misled by any amount of extra judicial
polemics about the case of Miss Talbot. And with all
possible respect for Lord Truro, it must be said that he
does appear to be in need of a fillip to remind him that
the lady's case is ono of public concern. He has from
the beginning taken it very quietly, and seems to wish
that all the world should do so likewise. He was un-
moved by the first intimation he received that Miss
Talbot was in a nunnery. He pooh-poohed Mr. Craven
Berkeley's first application. He insists upon keeping
the name of the lady who is to have the temporary
charge of Miss Talbot a profound secret. On Thursday
last he " craved of the bar to be protected from matters
which may be interesting to the public generally in a
large view, but which do not immediately relate to this
lady." The Chancellor has from first to last kept cry-
ing, " Hush! do not make a noisel—let us get this dis-
agreeable business wound up as quietly as possible."
His Lordship doubtless means well, ,but he is in the
wrong. The question at issue is not merely whether a
young lady has had fair play at the hands of her guar-
dians. It involves the wider questions of in how far
conventual establishments may or have been rendered
subservient to the grossest oppression of private indivi-
duals, and how far the Court of Chancery is able to
check such abuse or has been watchful to do so.' - The
half-told tale of Miss Talbot warrants the darkest sus-
picions of domestic tyranny and neglect on the part of
institutions established to defeat oppression. These sus-
picions may be wrong, but if they are, the public; mind
can only be disabused of them by the most full discus-
sion. If they are well-founded, the interference of the
legislature as well as the courts of law is imperatively
called for.
The more the story of the Taunton convent is probed
the worse it looks. Let us begin by adverting to cumin]•
stances of which the Romanist aide of the question
might have taken advantage, but of which they have not
dared to avail themselves. It is an awkward circum-
stance that the mother of Miss Talbot should have been
separated from her husband, and that she should have
contracted a second marriage only two months after his
death. That the late Mr. Talbot should have
allowed his daughter to remain with her mother, is, how-
ever, sufficient to warrant the belief that the separation
was owing solely to incompatibility of temper, having
its origin possibly in the difference of creed. The hasty
second marriage is somewhat repulsive to our bourgeois
conscience; and the reference in a petition presented to
the Court by the late Mrs. Berkeley, to the advantage
-which her son might derive from becoming a Protestant
convoys no very favourable idea either of her judgment
or temper. All these considerations, however, are ut-
terly irrelevant to the proceedings now under discussion.
The imputations respecting Mr. Craven Berkeley's
motives are too palpably groundless and too contempti-
ble to deserve a moment's attention.
Having thus disposed of the Protestant parties to the
question, let us now look to the conduct of the Roman-
ists. The late Mr. Talbot appointed his spiritual
director guardian to his children, and left all his
personal property to the Reverend Gentleman. How
much that amounted to has been carefully concealed.
The property of the children, which has now come to
vest in Miss Talbot alone, is estimated to amount to
85,0001. Almost the first step taken by the reverend
heir and guardian was to attempt to separate the daughter
from her mother. This he attempted to do before he
was aware of the latter's somewhat hasty second mar-
siege, without assigning any sufficient ground for the
separation; and it was accompanied by misrepresenta-
tions as to the state of the child's healt4. In this
proceeding be was abetted by the Earl and Countess of
Shrewsbury. On the death of the mother the Court of
Chancery recognised the rights of the guardian on the
understanding that the Earl and Countess were to take
charge of the child.

AS far as yet appears the Earl and Countess seem to
have paid no attention to the child whatever till the
sprinc, of 1850. Miss Talbot, with her high descent
and large fortune, was consigned to a convent for her
education. The cost of her maintenance and education
there was about half the sum allowed by the Court of
Chancery; it indicates a style of education quite incon-
sistent with her worldly prospects; except daring one
brief visit to Alton Towers the young lady was kept
mewed up in her convent. All this looks very like a
predetermination to make a nun of her.

In 1850 the girl of eighteen years was suddenly trans-
planted from her dull and narrow conventual existence
to the world of fashion. No sooner had she emerged
into this new sphere, than attempts were made to dispose
of her in marriage. Her reverend guardian had some
Englishman in view for him; her uncle and aunt wished
to bestow her and her fortune on a cadet of the house of
' Roehefoueault. The young lady did not submit to
be made a.mere passive instrument of the plans and
combinations of others. Sho refused to become the wife
either of the English or the French candidate for her
hand. Immediately the interest taken in ber by her
noble relatives cooled, and she was left to herself.
Secluded as she had been from the society even of re-
lations, the girl, yet in her teens, whistled off by the
Earl and Countess of Shrewsbury, had no one to con-
sult but her ecclesiastical guardian. Shrinking from a
(to her) strange and unaccustomed world, the idea of re-
turning to the only home she had known since her mo-
ther's death naturally presented itself to her. To this
there were great objections. The Court of Chancery
was not likely to approve of such an arrangement. The
regulations of the convent prohibited her being admit-
ted as a resident. Not only was this step objectionable in
itself; there were grave obstacles in the way of carrying
it out. That these obstacles should have been over-
come or evaded betrays a predetermination in some
quarter that the step should be taken.
She was smuggled into the convent in contravention
of an existing order of Chancery, and without any ap-
plication having been made to get a new one. She was
led to believe that she could only be admitted into the
convent on assuming the character of a postulant. She
assumed that character, but, as she herself has declared,
o❑ the understanding that it was a mere matter of form,
and withont any intention of becoming a nun. What
passed within the convent walls is unknown, and may
possibly never be revealed; but some facts have been
placed upon record to which we now request attention.
Miss Talbot denies that she was intended to become
a nun. On the contrary, the superior of the convent
told Mr. Berkeley that Miss Talbot was "as likely to
become a nun as not." The so-called Bishop of Clifton
has gone further: ho has declared that Miss Talbot
earnestly prayed to be allowed to become a nun. Dr.
Doyle admits that he heard " that some such notion had
passed through her mind, and that she was wavering."
All three confess that they deemed it highly probable
Miss Talbot would end by becoming a nun; and they all
pretend to have attempted to dissuade her from the in-
tention—an intention which we have her own authority
for stating she never entertained. There is only one
possible interpretation of all this; it was resolved that
Miss Talbot should not only appear to be, but should be,
a postulant. And the end to be attained by thus in-
veigling her is frankly admitted by the person calling
himself Bishop of Clifton: it was, that her fortune might
go to enrich the Romish Church in England, which he
alleges to be very poor. Mr. Hendren stands convicted
by his own admission of having deliberately contem-
plated this consummation; Dr. Doyle and Miss Jerning-
ham of having at least connived at it; the Earl and
Countess of Shrewsbury of having, after their attempt
at marriage-brokering was frustrated, abondoned their
niece to the machinations of the ecclesiastical trio. And
it is admitted that Miss Talbot was debarred from inter-
course not only with her father-in-law, but with her only
sister.

This is all that is at present known. But taken in
connexion with the case' of the sisters Macarthy, which
occurred a few years ago in the convent of Blackrock, in
the county of Cork, it shows the necessity for a search-
ing inquiry into the case of Miss Talbot, and for the
adoption of measures adequate to secure society against
the juggling of priests and devotees. Unless the facts,
so pregnant with suspicion, to which wo have adverted,
be fully disproved or explained, it is the duty of the
Court of Chancery to remove its ward from the influence
and control of her guardian and his accomplices. It is
to be feared that this aid comes too late. It is barely
possible that the influence of the insidious training of tea
years can now be effaced from the mind of the Young
lady. Unless that mind be of far more than average
strength and independence, her future life is doomed
to be tormented by awful doubts and anxieties, by
struggles to emancipate herself from the superstitious
One hand, and
from so carefully instilled on the '
from insurmountable suspicions of the good faith and
affection of her spiritual instructors
on th
duty of the Legislature to put a check u D
on other. The
n
such machi-
nations as have been proved in the ease of the Blackrock
Convent, and all but proved in the case of the Taunton
Convent, is equally clear and less difficult. This is no
question between Protestants and Bornanists. The lat-
ter have as real an interest as the former in the user-
tion by the secular power of an authority to prevent an
organizr.‘d priesthood frog abetting the vindictive oppres-
sion of young People b._ relation whose selfish schemes
they have thwarted, and of playing upon devotional ysen-
timent to augment their own wealth and power. The
State is bound to protect its citizens from the intrigues
of priestcraft, and all who are its tools or accomplices.
It is alleged
that the clergy of other sects are as faulty
as those of the Ronlish Church; this, if true, would be a
reason for holding all equally in check, but it is none for
tolerance of the jugglery of any one of them.
Without undervaluing the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill,
it is clear that there are evils it cannot touch; tangible
evils that the State can and ought immediately to
grapple with. A more stringent and comprehensive law
of niortmain is needed ; a law on the subject of death-
;a law to suppress,
and control conven
oble.,di
ft etsht
tm
be
an tar y
impossible,b eq u e ttso isregulate
d
tual establishments, is needed. But, above all, the in.
troduction of a pervading and sufficient system of secular
instruction is needed. Religious liberty implies full
power to every individual to adopt and adhere to that
religion to which free conviction attaches him. But free
choice in this matter is impossible so long us the system
of propagandism is substituted for intellectual training,
Priests and clot gymen of all sects seek so to develop the tin%
ClUetglaiDg to UPIt lc, cling to Wir.Oretd. It 4gm