The Sun.
London, England, 1860-07-24 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

HOME CIRCUIT.—LEWES, JULY 23.
(Before the Lord Chief Justice Cockburn.)
ALLEGED MANSLAUGHTER BY A SCHOOLMASTER.

Thomas Hopley, 41, a person of gentlemanly ap-
pearance, surrendered to take his trial upon a charge
of the manslaughter of Reginald Channell Can-
cellor.

This case excited the most intense interest, and
the court was crowded densely an hour before the
time appointed for the commencement of the pro-
ceedings.
Sergeant Parry and Mr. Knapp conducted the
prosecution ; Sergeant Ballantine and the Hon. G.
Denman were counsel for the prisoner.
Sergeant Parry, in opening the case to the jury,
said that he did not remember a more painful and
onerous duty being cast upon him than the one he
was then about to discharge as the counsel for the
prosecution in the present case. The prisoner was
a man of high character, and his position in life
was such as I-) give him to temptation to commit
crime; and these facts rendered the present inves-
tigation doubly distressing ' • and in the onset he
entreated of them to dismiss from their minds every
rumour or statement they had heard in reference to
the case, and be guided in the decision they would
arrive at solely by the evidence that would be laid
before them. The prisoner, he believed, was a man
of high attainments, and he was the principal of a
school at Eastbourne, in this county ; and the
charge that was made against him was that by a
course of brutal and cruel conduct he had caused
the death of a young gentleman, 15 years old, who
had been entrusted to his charge and care, and over
whom it was his duty to have thrown a shield of
protection. He and his learned friend had atten-
tively considered the evidence, and he felt it right
to state that the only reason y a charge of wilful
murder instead of manslaughter had not been pre-
ferred against the prisoner wes that he stood in
the position of a schoolmaster, and that the father
of the deceased young gentleman had delegated
his authority to him ; and as the law of Eng-
land
sanctioned the use of corporal punishment
to a moderate extent in such a case, and in the
present instance the death was alleged to have
arisen solely from the excessive use of that power,
it was thought the more advisable course to pursue
was to prefer a charge for the minor offence only
against the prisoner. He then proceeded to state
that the deceased was the son of the late Mr. Can-
cellor, formerly one of the Masters of the Court of
Common Pleas, who had died since this unfortunate
transaction, and he was the godson of the late
leader of this circuit, Mr. Baron Channell. In order

to show the position of the parties, he informed the
jury that the prisoner was to receive a stipend of
£lBO per annum for taking charge of the deceased.
The lad, it appeared, was undoubtedly an obstinate
and to some extent what was called a slow boy ;
and it appeared that at Christmas last he was
punished to some considerable extent by the pri-
soner, he having at that time been only a few
months under bis charge. He went home for a
short time at Easter, and then returned to the
school, and about the middle of April the prisoner
wrote a very extraordinary letter to the father of
the deceased, in which he stated that he had tried
every means in his power to conquer the boy's ob-
stinacy and induce him to perform his studies, but
they were of no avail, and that the only thing that
could be done was to resort to strong measures of
corporal punishment, and he asked the consent of
the father to the adoption of this course. The father
of the deceased permitted the prisoner to act as he
thought fit, but he, of course, never intended to
sanction the infliction of any cold-blooded w heart-
less violence, such as was imputed to the prisoner,
upon his unfortunate child, neither had he the
power to do so, and if the prisoner or any other per-
son in a similar position fancied that the law gave
him any such power, it was high time for his own
sake and for the protection of the public that he
should be undeceived, and be made to know
that the moment a person in the position of a
schoolmaster went beyond the bounds of rea-
sonable and moderate correction to a pupil he
was acting unjustifiably, and rendered himself
amenable to the law. The learned serjeant then
proceeded to state the facts of the case, and
said he should be able to prove that for a period
of nearly two hours the prisoner beat the unhappy
lad with a skipping-rope and a stick, and that at
12 o'clock at night, at which period the punish-
ment was inflicted, he left him a corpse; and it was
under these circumstances that he appeared befere
them to answer the charge of manslaughter that
was now preferred against him.
Sergeant Ballantine made a most eloquent and
powerful address to the jury for the prisoner, but
the lateness of the hour at which it was delivered
precludes doing more than to state that he endea-
voured to show that the prisoner had no intention
to cause any mischief to the deceased, and that the
melancholy result was to a considerable extent to
be attributable to accident.
The Lord Chief Justice summed up, and the jury
almost immediately returned a verdict of guilty.
His lordship then addressed the prisoner, and
after commenting upon the brutal character of the
offence of which he had been convicted, sentenced
him to be kept in penal servitude for four years,

Mr. Humphreys—Did you, while in Scotland,
receive the envelope and enclosure marked ABC
from your wife, Lady Edith Fergusson ?
Sir James—l did ;on the 20th of last June.
Mr. Humphreys—Now, I ask you, is there the
slightest atom of truth in the statement that you
ran away from the trenches before Sebastopol ; ix
the statement that you have robbed defendant of
his patrimony ; is there, in fact, any truth in any
statement that he has made concerni. 2
Sir James—There is not the round
whatever for anything Le ha just me.
There is only this amount of truth the whole;
he says in his letter to Mr. Disraeli, "There was
not the slightest pretext for the imputation, inas-
much as no one acquainted with the e; istances
under whit I: James left the Cr: (zeal for
the discharge or his Parliamentary dut; ,) so soon
only
t t
as fighting became serious, &c.," and OA, only truth
elected
but
in that is I left the Crimea because I had a few
months before
the consent been
_memberbe_., advice of
Raglan.o fParliament.youl
commanding officer?
.
Mr. Humphreys—And you left, I believe, not
with h
—Ycer,s,;earanidsnic4,,only advice but
also by jabytmhaets of
This closing the - Anas lefendant
put the following quest. 18 to the wit.. ss :
Defendant—Do yo.. 2ersist in your statement
that I was not Mrs. Nasmythe's brothe.
Sir James—l have since been infornied you are ;.
but was not aware of it till lately.
Defendant—When did you ascertain that?
Sir James—Since the last time I charged you
here ; while you were in the House of Detention.
Defendant—Tour uncle was married to Mrs.
Nasmythe's daughter, my niece, was he not ?
Sir James—He was.
Defendant—You say you were in the Guards in
the Crimea; what regiment did you belong to?
Sir James—The Grenadier Guards.
Defendant—Were you present at the battle of the
Alma ?
Sir James—l was.
Defendant—Did you order your regiment to
leave the field ?
Sir James—l did not.
Defendant—When the order was given to the
23d Fusiliers, "Fusiliers retire," in consequence
of their being cut up ; did you not tell your
regiment the order was meant for them, and tell
them to leave the field ?
Sir James—l did not.
Defendant—Did you not try to make them re-
treat ?
Sir James—l did not.
Defendant—Do I understand you to swear
positively to that ?

Sir Ja-mes—At so distant a period it is bard to
say what orders were given. I remember various
orders coming down the line ; but do not remember
giving any such order. I was not in a position to
do so. I was commanding no one. I was merely
a subaltern in my own company. All I can say is
undoubtedly the Guards never did retire a single
foot on that day, either by my command or any
one else's.
Defendant—Do you mean to say your men did
not prevent you retreating, and refuse to quit the
field?

Sir James—Nothing of the sort took place. I
do not know why I should answer all these ques-
tions. Ido not see why the Alma need be brought
up.

•
Mr. Humphreys also objecting,
Mr.• Arnold said he could not now put a stop to
such questions, as Mr. Humphreys had himself
thrown open such a large field for cross-examina-
tion. He (Mr. Arnold) would have stopped such
questions long ago, as being irrelevant to the charge,
had not Mr. Humphreys opened the door for them
by his examination in chief.
Mr. Humphreys said he had done so because he
considered every man prosecuting in a case of libel
was upon his trial as it were. He had, therefore,
put such questions to his client in order that he
might answer anything asked of him, said himself
show that there was no truth in what the defendant
had alleged, and that he wished to court every
inquiry.
Mr. Arnold suggested that Mr. Jobson should
reserve his questions till the trial.
Defendant said he had only a few more to put,
whibh he preferred asking the prosecutor now.
The cross-examination was then resumed as fol-
lows :
Defendant—Then you did not leave the field of
battle ?
Sir James—No.
Defendant—lf the privates of your regiment say
you did, is that true or false ?
Mr. Arnold—You cannot ask that ; it is not evi-
dence.

Sir James—The only circumstance I can call to
mind which could have given iise to such an asper-
sion upon my character was—my company was
what was termed the light company, and the order
was given them to wheel back to oppose some
of the Russians who had outflanked us. I remem-
ber giving the word" Front turn, in order that
my company should not go too far, and should
turn upon the enemy, but I don't think such a
trivial thing would have been remembered.
Defendant—Did you not quit the trenches under
the circumstances mentioned in the verses (one of
the libels I am charged with) ?
Sir James—l don't know which of the verses you
refer to.

Mr. Arnold—You must read the verses you want
to draw the witness's attention to.
Defendant then read as follows :
"This place is'nt safe, the balls fly about,
Perhaps I shall catch a flea in my ear;
He trembled on hearing a Russian shout,
And added 'Young Fergusson shall not lodge hero.'
With that he led home some bold fighting men,
As gallant as England ever sent forth ;
Men who would fight again and again,
Unless led by this N:le cur of the North.
The gallant old Guards of England were thus
Constrained to retire when on conquest they reckoned;
And what has been often the cause of a muss,'
Abandon their grog to the brave Forty-second."
Sir James—l can answer that I never left the
trenches under any such circumstances.
Defendant—Did not your soldiers, as I have said
in the verses, abandon their grog to the 42d ?
Sir James—They never did; they never retreated
at all during the whole of the time I was in the
Crimea.

Mr. Arnold, addressing Mr. Humphreys, said
that he still entertained a great doubt whether any
proceeding could be sustained against the defen-
dant for the letter he had sent to Mr. Horsman. If
a bona fide letter of complaint of something which
a person wished a member of Parliament to take up
were sent to him, and it merely contained the state-
ment of grievance complained of, he thought it
would be a privileged communication ; but if in that
statement he travelled out of the record then the
privilege ceased. Although in defendant's letter
to Mr. Horsman he complained of some wrongs he
had received from Sir James Fergusson, he spoke in
much stronger language of complaint against Mr.
Poynter and the Secretary of State; but in the
letter to Mr. Disraeli, written by defendant for the
same apparent purpose as that addressed to Mr.
Horsman, he went out of the question of his alleged
wrong, and brought charges of cowardice against
Sir James, which was clearly an offence. It must
be borne in mind that with respect to communica-
tions sent to members of Parliament it would
always be a question whether it was a bona fide
complaint, as it never could be tolerated that under
pretence of making one it was to be made the means
of publishing libel. He repeated that he thought
a superior court would hold the letter tc' Mr. Hors-
man to be a privileged communication, and recodma-
mended that that charge should not be pro?ee e
with, although the letter might be riven in evi-
dence, without making it the subject ocf a substan-
tive charge, to prove the animus.
Mr. Humphreys said that,aftert wh et had fallen
from the magistrate, he wouldt Ano at .p resent press
the charge for the letter Ir. Hol &man, but if
she v' animus, he
after consulting counsel
or
i should be d eimed neces-
sarywould give the defendant notice of his intention.
to proceed with it, or use_it to
L Mr. Arnold then said he would eater kd the defen-
dant's recognisances till Friday, by wl Lich time the
depositions were to be prepared.

VERY HIGH TIDES. Yesterde ,y, the river
Thames tides, both morning and evenii Ig, reached to an
unusual height, and those persons hal-in g premises on the
south side of the Thames bank experie o ced much incon-
venience. The continuation of wet weather throughout
the whole day had a severe effect on the steamboat traffic ;
and also great disappointment to several boats' crews made
up to witness the contest for the Old Ba rge-house Regatta.
GRIMSTONE'S EYE SNUFF.—A certificate: proving the
virtues of this snuff, from Dr. Ure, M.D., .25,
Koppel-street, Russell .square :—" I ht ;reby oertify that the
eye snuff invented and manufactured by Mr. Wm. Gni va-
stone, of the Herbary, Highgate, is quite free from tobac"o
and composed of herbs, capable of exciting madly the tout
tary glands, withoit exercising any subse
action on the optical organs. This sum Tquesut
and the
adapted to relieve congestions affecting th' a
brainr chmis-
vision.—Andrew Ure, M.D., R S v re 0
- • - r")
-s ;h "e
result of an
try and analytical chemist." The abovf, i
11
the Spanish
required ,y
analysis of Grimstene's eye snuff;Lareforcr
snuff from tobacco duty ix the Spanish dory ,
Conon-General (Marquis of Bayamo,. tos freo this