The Sun.
London, England, 1856-10-22 00:00:00

LONDON, WED ,Ivt_SDA_ Y EVENING, OCTOBER 22,

THE CASE OF ARCHDEACON DENISON.

BATH, OCT. 21.
The Court constituted to try the suit promoted by the
Rev. J. Ditcher, vicar of South Brent, Somerset, against
the Ven. G. A. Denison, Archdeacon of Taunton, for
preaching and publishing doctrinesrelating to the Sacrament
of the Lord's Supper alleged to be repugnant to the Thirty-
nine Articles, sat to-day in the Guildhall, Bath, by ad-
journment from 12th August last. It will be recollected
that at the last sitting Dr. Lushington, on behalf of the
Archbishop of Canterbury, read a declaration containing
the conclusions of his Grace and his assessors on the ques-
tions at issue. His Grace therein pronounced the doctrines
of the Archdeacon to be contrary to the 28th and 29th
Articles of the Church, and called upon him to revoke his
errors before the Ist inst. on pain of deprivation. The
Archdeacon having allowed the period of grace extended
to him to expire without lodging the required retractation
in the registry of Bath and Wells, the Court re-assembled
to-day 'to deliver judgment. The Guildhall was densely
crowded with spectators long before the proceedings com
menced, the clerical element preponderating in the audi-
tory. The dimensions of the hall are extremely limited,
and largo numbers of applicants were refused admission.
In court we observed Bishop Carr, PrebendaryOmmanney,
and Captain Scobell, M.P. The Archdeacon was again
accompanied to court by the Right Hon. J. W. Henley,
M.P. for Oxfordshire. Dr. R. Phillimore, M.P., acted as
counsel for the Archdeacon of Taunton, and Dr. Bayford
for the Rev. Mr. Ditcher, the promoter, who was also pre-
sent.

His Grace the Archbishop, Dr. Lushington assessor)
Dr. Travers Twiss Ohs Vicar-Gsnetal), and Mr. F. H
Dyke (registrar) having taken their seats,
Dr. Lnshington opened the proceedings by stating that

two papers purporting to emanate from the Archdeacon of
Taunton bad been delivered into the registry of Bath and
Wells on the 30th of September. The one was a statement
and the other a protest, and the Court now wished to know
what course the Archdeacon wished to pursue.
Dr. Phillimore said he thought it would save the time of
the Court if he were permitted in the first instance to argue
for the protest, which had for its object to show that the
29th article of the Church especially was not one to which
the 13th of Eftabetb, chapter 12, applied. If he failed in
sustaining that point, which he confidently hoped would
not be the case, then he would endeavour to prove that the

paper put in by his venerable client was such a practical
compliance with the order of the Court as the statute of
Elizabeth required.

Dr. Lushing,ton said that the Court would first dispose
of the protest; but if the objection it took was a valid one,
the Court was at a loss to understand why it was not
raised at the earliest stage of the proceedings, and would
be glad if any satisfactory explanation could be afforded
on that point.
Dr. Phillimore should have have felt it his duty, even if
such a demand.had not been Made on him by his Grace's
learned assessor, to state at the outset why the, objection

contained in the continued protest was not taken in, limine
—an objection which, if valid, was certainly fatal to the
condemnation of the doctrines of the Archdeacon. In the
original criminal articles filed against the Archdeacon by the
Rev. Mr. Ditcher his client was charged with offending
against four of the 39 articles of the Church—viz., the 25th,
28th, 29th, and 35th. By the conclusions come to by his
Grace and his assessors, and promulgated at the last sitting,
his client was practically acquitted of any offence against
the 25th and 35th articles, because the censures of his Grace
were confined to the interpretation put by theArchtleacon
in his sermon on the 28th and 29th articles. If, therefore,
the objection as to the 29th article had been raised in.
limine, and it had been sustained, his client would still
have been left exposed as regarded the other articles, to
which that objection did not extend. He had had great
difficulties to contend with, owing to the indisposition of
his client to allow him at an earlier stage to take objections
in bar of any judicial inquiry at all. Those objections had
been overruled by the Court, but there still remained the
question whether an objection should not be taken founded
on the fact that two of the articles mentioned in the charge
against the Arehdeacon were not in the 13th of Elizabeth.
His attention had indeed been drawn to the allegation in
the present protest, that the 29th article was not comprised
in the book referred to by that statute ; but the weight of
the prima facie evidence against that proposition had in-
duced him at first to refrain from urging it. Since then,
however, he had had an opportunity of examining cer-
tain authorities which led him to a different conclu-
sion. Among these authorities was a work recently
published, which was very scarce, and a copy of which it
was extremely difficult to procure, namely, " Dr. Lamb's

History of the Thirty•nine Articles," taken from the records
of the College over which that learned author presided,and
including fac-simile copies of four or five different editions
of the articles. That boOk had never before come under his

notice, and its perusal had thrown an entirely new light

upon the subject, to his mind, at least. And when it was

considered that the Statute of Uniformity, the authority of
Lord Coke, and the judgment of Lord Stowell, in Stone's
case, all took for granted that the whole of the 39 articles
were binding under the 13th of Elizabeth, tho oversight of
which he had been guilty was, he could not but think, very

pardonable. His Grace having acquitted the Archdeacon in
respect of two of the articles, and condemned him on two
others, it then became his duty, whatever might be the scru-
ples of his client, to prevent him, if possible, from falling
under so *severe a penaltyas deprivation, being convinced, as
he was, from a long and laborious investigation of books and
documents to which few had access, that the 29th article
did not come under the statute of Elizabeth. It was an

acknowledged maxim that it was never too late to urge a
plea in arrest of judgment, and he felt that he should hay
been doing wrong if he had allowed sentence to be pro-
nounced and had kept this objection in reserve for a court
of appeal. He was therefore now prepared to maintain the
position set forth in the protest.
Dr. Lushington—His Grace is anxious to hear all that
can be reasonably urged in a case of this importance, and
desires you to proceed.

Dr. Phillimore said that the statute of Elizabeth, under
which this proceeding was taken, required the clergy to
declare their assent and to subscribe to all the articles of
religion which concern the confession of the true faith and
the doctrine of the sacraments as comprised in a book
entitled, " Articles whereupon it was agreed by the Arch-
hishops and Bishops of the Provinces and the Convocation
of the Clergy of the Year 1562." According to the law of
the Church of England for avoiding diversities of opinion
and the establishing of consent, if any priest taught any
doctrines repugnant to the articles he was to be " con-
vented" before the bishop, and if he then refused to revoke
his error he was to be deprived. The propositions which he
(Dr. Phillimore) had to sustain therefore were-Ist, that a
clergyman was required to subscribe the articles contained
in a book; 2d, that it must be a printed book; 3d, that it
must be a book with a particular title; 4th, it must be a
book put forth with the Queen's authority ; and sth, it
must be the book put forth with the Queen's authority in
1562. But for the strong current of authority the onus of
proving that these articles were in that book would lie
with the Rev. Mr. Ditcher. He (Dr. Phillimore) know of
no other statute in this realm in which any person, civil
or ecclesiastical, was threatened with penalties for an of-
fence not distinctly specified, but- merely referred to as in-
tended to be gathered from a book ; and he undertook to
satisfy the Court that the 29th article, which his client
was charged with contravening, was not in the book so
imprinted and referred to by the statute of Elizabeth—he
undertook to show that there was no such book in exist-
ence when that statute was passed on the 29th of May,
1571—n0 book answering the requisitions of the statute
which contained the 29th article. When the facts came to
be carefully examined he maintained that no judicial mind
could arrive at any other conclusion save that this article
and another that he would mention were not inserted with
the 39 articles by the 13th of Elizabeth, chap. 12, but were
placed there by an authority--whether that of the Crown
or any other—totally deltors the statute, and after the sta-
tute had become the law of the land. If he succeeded in
establishing these propositions ho was sure his grace would
decide that the 29th article could not be included by any-
thing which took place subsequent to the act of the 13th
of Elizabeth. No doubt, it was assumed in every ordinary
work of their divines that the 29th article was included
in that statute ; and there was also a recital iu the 17th of
l
stiha
set Si
ntatuvtiez
tthe
Uniformity—togovernors n
ft been
lel effects that
certains
halls, should subscribe the Thirty-nine Articles mentioned
by the 13th of Elizabeth. This was, however, a misrecital,
the act of Elizabeth not mentioning any Thirty-nine
Articles, but referring to a book that might have contained
39 or any other number of articles. This showed how care-
lessly from an early period it was taken for granted that
the 13th of Elizabeth had done what it really never did.
He contended that even the Act of Uniformity, by a mis-
taken reference to another act, could not enforce the sign-
ing of articles not actually included within that other act.
Lord Coke, 4th Institute, chap. 74, referred to the case of
a clergyman who claimed a right to subscribe to the arti-
oles "so far forth" as they were warranted by Scripture.
The case came before the Chief Justice of the King'sl3ench,
and, it being held that the act was passed for the avoid-
ance of diversity of opinion, it was decided that the sub-
scription must be unconditional. The Thirty-nine Ar-
ticles, it was true, were there mentioned, but by reference
only. The decision" was not that thirty-nine articles of
religion were enacted by the 13th of Elizabeth, but
simply that that statute rendered an unconditional sub-
scription imperative; and no question was then raised
as to whether the 29th article was included in the
statute of Elizabeth. Next, there was the judgment of
Lord Stowell i i Stone's case ; but there the case was that
of a clergyman advisedly holding doctrines at variance with
the 39 Articles, and contending that he had a right to do

so; and, although Lord Stowell defended the statute of
Elizabeth and the articles, there was nothing in his deci-
sion to show that 39 articles were enforced liy that statute;
and even if there had, it would have been nihil ad rein as
far as the case was concerned. The only question was whe-
ther a clergyman might maintain doctrines contrary tothe
Articles, and it was decided that he could not. These emi-
nent authorities, irdeed, believed that subscription to the
■sirty-nine Articles was binding, but the point as to the
number of the articles was never raised before them. The
learned counsel then entered at great length into the history
of the articles of the Church, with particular reference to
the introduction of the 29th article. The 42 articles of Edw.
VI., he said, did not contain this one. The statute of
Elizabeth referred to the, articles agreed upon in 1562.
Archbishop Parker added the 2Jth to the other articles,
making in all 42. They were introduced to convocation,
which reduced them to 39. Whether these articles ever
received the Royal assent might or might not be a matter
of doubt;, but beyond all question the printed edition of
1562, put forth by Royal authority and purporting to con-
tain these articles, did not contain article 29. In suport of
this assertion the learned counsel quoted from the works
of Drs. Lambe, Cardwell, and Bennett, and continued—
On the sth of December, 1566, a bill was brought into
Parliament, with a little book, printed in 1562, appended
to it, and which did net include the 29th article. Lambe's
book, in a note, stated that there were no copies of this
little book published till 1563. Its contents were the
articles agreed upon by Convocation in 1562. The bill of
1566, with the book annexed; was progressing through v
the Legislature, .but its course was then- arrested by
Queen Elizabeth, on the ground that it encroached on her
prerogative. The Puritan members of the Legislature
resisted the clause in the 20th article, asserting the church's

power to determine controversies as to ceremonies and
doctrine; and as Quepn Elizabeth in 1566 stopped her Par-
liament for, as she alleged, denying her supremacy, so in
1571 she was not likely to scruple to add an article of
her own accord, and without their authority. Dr. Lambe's
work gave a fac-Pimile of the imprinted book referred to in
the 13th of Elizabeth from a copy in the library of St.
John's College, Cambridge, and which did not contain the
29th article or the first clause in the 20th. Convocation

itself took no step in 1506 for framing articles of religion,
but it petitioned the Sovereign to pass the bill of that year.
This showed that that body-did not wish to press upon the
clergy the 29th article or the beginning of the 20th. Then
comes the year 1571. Parliament met in April, and on the
7th of that month the measure was introduced which
eventually became the famous statute the 13thlof Eliza-
beth. This bill was invariably called the bill of last ses-
sion—that was of 1566. sir Simon Dewes, a high autho-
rity on the Parliamentary history of this period, exactly
identified the bills of 1566 and 1571. If there was any evi-
dence of the existence of :a printed book containing the
Thirty-nine Articles it ought to be found before the 29th
of May, 1571, on which day Parliament was dissolved.
Now; them was nothing to show that Convocation had
ordered any work to be published in which the 29th article
appeared. In support of this view the learned counsel
quoted as authorities the works of Lambe and Bennett.
He maintained, first, that there was no edition of th 3 ar-

tides before 1571 which included the 29th .article ; and,
second, that the first known edition which contaired it
was a quarto edition, which could not have been published
before the 4th June, but which was perhaps in type of that
date. The uncertainty in which the whole point as to the
29th article was involved was made more apparent by the
conduct of convocation, which, by its 36th canon, passed
in 1604, and making the articles binding on the clergy,
took no notice of the 13th of Elizabeth, but made the
quarto copy the basis of its deliberation. The leaned coun-
sel then quoted from alcorrespondence between Archbishop
Parker and Lord Eurleigh, with reference to the 29th ar-
ticle in connection with a marginal note (viz., Sip. Johan
tractat., 26) front St. Augustine, to show that she article
was still sub jut/ice on June 4, 1571. Archbishop Parker
afterwards struck out this note, and the article was printed
without it. This, point was the more imporAnt, as the
Archdeacon of Taunton had all along maintained that his
interpretation of this article was strictly coisistent with
the authority of St. Augustine. If an imprinted book was

made binding on the clergy by one of the severest acts
which Parliament ever passed, inflicting deprivation on
those who put an erroneous interpretation on the articles
of the Church, it was most important to inquire whether
this tremendous weapon was to be wielded against
the clergy in respect of all the articles, or only in respect
of a certain number of them. if this article had formed
part of the statute of Elizabeth on the 29th of May, 1571,
how could Archbishop Parker have canvassed the possi-
bility of altering it on the 4th of June, the date
of his letter relative to -the ma-rginal note from
St. Augustine ? Having referred to the authority of
Hallam's Constitutional History as to the famous dispute
. _

respecting the first clause of the 20th article, which Laud
was accused by the Puritans of having forged and foisted
into th• articles, and contended that that clause wanted

confirmation of the Legislature, the learned counsel in-
sisted that the principal part of the 20th article must have
been introduced by the Royal authority alone. In fact,
the 20th and 29th articles, to use a common expression, ran
in couples throughout the whole of Queen Elizabeth's

reign, both being either omitted together or included to-
gether ; and nobody could suppose that the monarch who
did not scruple to put in the important part of the 20th
clause would have hesitated 'to insert a clause of such infe-

rior significance as the 29th article vas in tkose times con•
sidered to be. Bennett did not assert that there was, on

,he 29th of May, 1571, when Parliament dissolved, a book

containing the 29th article. Whit that authority con-
tended for was that Parliament, when it separated, knew
that the Convocation intended to print such a book, and
that, therefore, the article had a binding authority. That
position was, however, wholly untenable, and the only in-
ference could be that the article was put in by the Queen's
authority. In windiag up kis elatorate and intricate ar-
gument the learned counsel observed that the penalty of
the 13th of Elizabeth could not fairly be visited on his
client for the misinterpretation of an article which the
whole current of authority showed never to have belonged
to that statute. He deliberately defied any judicial mind
calmly to weigh the authorities on the subject and not
admit—whichever way the balance of evidence might in-
cline—that there was the greatest possible doubt whether
the 29th article was, or was not, in the book referred to by
the,statute of Elizabeth. He might say it was demonstrable
that that article was not in the book, but he would content
himself with taking lower ground and saying that there was
at least the greatest doubt upon the point; and he put it to
the Court with confidence that this most severe penal sta-
tute ought not to be awakened from its sleep of ages—not
against a clergymen claiming to hold doctrines opposed to
the articles of the church, but against one who said he
advisedly maintained and was ready to subscribe all those
articles—against one who said, bona fide, " I think this a
correct interpretation of the articles of the Church of Eng-
land ; and, if I err, I err in the company of the greatest
divines of that church." To defy all the high authorities
he had cited on this question, and to smite such a man with
a sentence of deprivation, would be to act in contravention
of the spirit, and, he humbly but boldly added, in contra-
vention also of the letter, of the statute.
A short adjournment then took place.
On the return of his Grace and the assessors into court,
Dr. Lushington said—Dr. Bayford, his Grace will hear
you.

Dr. Bayford then rose, and, after expressing some sur
prise that all the arguments had not been exhausted on the
former occasions, observed that he now found an argument
had been omitted which had been embodied in a protest, and
which had now been elaborately brought before the Court
Numerous references had been made to Bennett and to Dr.
Lamb, but nothing had been advanced from Cardwell, who
was an equally eminent authority. Without pretending to
any of the research of his learned friend he had anticipated
that the point now brought forward would be raised, and
was prepared to have dealt with it on the last occasion.
Before proceeding to answer the arguments which had been
adduced he would refer to the protest of the venerable
archdeacon, respecting which Dr. Phillimore had said very
little. This was a proceeding under articles by authority
of the 36th canon as well as under the 13th of Elizabeth,
and that canon, it was admitted, embraced the 29th
article. Objection was taken that the archdeacon had
maintained doctrine contrary to the articles of the Church
of England, agreed upon by the Convocation of 1662, and
the words upon which the article was founded were
taken from the 36th canon, and not from the statute of
Elizabeth, which was only referred to in the next article
of the suit, as pointing out the punishment to be inflicted
if the case of the promoter were made out. This dis-
tinction prevailed throughout the articles which had been
drawn up in the suit. It was true that it was a proceed-
ing under the statute of Elizabeth, but it also charged a
breach of the articles as certified by the canon, about which
there could bo no dispute. fauppesing it were made out,
that the articles under which the offence was alleged were
not the articles referred to by the statute of Elizabeth, his
learned friend had not attempted to show what would be
the result of establishing that fact. He totally ignored the
articles recognised by the 36th canon. Supposing, again,
that the 29th article was got rid of, no doubt the finding of
the Court was that the archdeacon had preached doctrines
contrary and repugnant to the 38th and 29th articles, and
about the 28th article there was not a shadow of doubt
that it was included iu the statute of Elizabeth. The pro.
test blinked the real question, and made no reference to
the fact that the Court had deliberately expressed an opi-
nion that the archdeacon' was guilty of preaching doctrine
contrary to the 28th article; but if the case were exactly as
Dr. Phillimore had argued it, it would only amount to this,
that the archdeacon was guilty of preaching doctrine con-
trary to one instead of two articles. He Was, consequently,
undoubtedly amenable to punishment, and the only effoot

the protest could have would be to omit all reference to the
29th article in the sentence passed by the Court. The real,
true matter at issue in the cause remained untouched by the
seemedprotest
tando a amount
ntth
toe thi
this,
that,argument of Dr. Phillimore,
under the Eliza-
beth,su there were only 31 articles. The matter thus seemed
to be reduced to a rule of arithmetic.
tatt of w hicli
Dr. Phillimore said under the statute of Elizabeth the
articles were not numbered. He would take this opportunity
of asking whether the Court would now allow Dr. Bayford
for the first time to say that this proceeding was founded
upon the 36th canon as well as upon the 13th of Elizabeth ?
Dr. Lushington could not advise his Grace to stop Dr.
Bayford after Dr. Phillimore had been allowed to put in and
argue his protest.
Dr. Bayford resumed, and pointed out that in the
little book referred to by Dr. Lambe, and which had been
so much relied upon, there were only 37 articles enu-
merated ; and he asked what number of articles the
clergy were required to subscribe in the time of Eliza-
beth so as to arrive at identification. He cited cases to
show that the recognised number of articles in that time
was 39, and he challenged his friend to point out any
number which had been subscribed from 1571 to the
present time. On the authority of " Comyn'a Digest "
he argued that, under the statute of Elizabeth, 39 was
the number of articlei, and if that were so it was clear
that the little book referred to by Dr. Lambe, which con-
tained only 37 articles, was not the one which was an-
nexed to the statute. He produced copies of the Articles
published in 1571, corresponding in every particular with
those now in use with" the exception of the omission of
that demi-semi article of which so much had been said by
his learned friend.

Dr. Lushington—What is the " demi•eemi article ?"

Dr. Bayford—The first, sentence or paragraph of the
20th article. There was no pretence for saying that from
the time the statute of Elizabeth came into operation the
29th article did not form one of the 39 which the clergy
were required to subscribe. After going over the history
of the Articles, and especially that of the 29th, as detailed
in Dr. Lambe's book, Dr. Bayford argued that at the time
the statute of Elizabeth was passing the Houses of Convo-
cation were engaged in drawing up those articles which it
was understood upon all hands should be made binding by
and annexed to the statute.

Dr. Phillimore asked permission to reply on the new
matter urged by Dr. Bayford.
Dr. Lushington expressed the concurrence of the Arch-
bishop, and
The Court adjourned till 10 this morning.

THE LATE DREADFUL ACCIDENT AT
THE ROYAL SURREY GARDENS.

THE INQUEST.

Yesterday afternoon an inquest was opened by Mr.
Carter, the coronerof the district, and a respectable jury,
taken from the most respectable inhabitants of the neigh-
bourhood, at the Board-room of the Newington Work-
house.

The room was densely crowded,during the afternoon,
and the workhouse was surrounded during the whole of
the time by a dense crowd of persons, whom the fright-
ful nature of the accident had drawn to the spot.
Every accommodation was rendered to the represen-
tatives of the press by Mr. Feist, the governor of the
workhouse, and several of the members of the board of
guardians were present, and were assiduous in their
desire to afford every facility for conducting the inves-
tigation.
Mr. Superintendent Lund readily afforded every infor
mation respecting the unhappy affair.
Mr. Chester, solicitor to the vestry, attended to watch
the proceedings on the part of the parish of St. Mary,
Newington, with a view of ascertaining from the evi-
dence it the Music Hall has been erected in accordance
with the provisions of the Metropolitan Building Act.
Mr. Coppock, and other directors of the gardens, were
in attendance, and also Mr. Ellis, the secretary.
Before swearing the jury,
The Coroner .said that it had been intimated to him
that some gentlemen had been summoned on the jury
who were connected with the Gardens, and he submit-
ted that if it were true, it would be better for them to
retire. •

Mr•. Oliver, a licensed victualler, residing in Penton.
street, near the gardens, and Mr. Piggott, a gentleman
of independent property, stated they were shareholders,
and would, after what had been stated, withdraw.
Mr. Piggott said he resided in the neighbourhood, and
he had made -inquiries relative to the accident. Ile
bad obtained some valuable information.
The Coroner said it would be better for him to attend
av a witness and give evidence.
The two gentlemen then withdrew.
The jury baying been sworn consisted of the following
gentlemen :—Mr. Edward C. Denner, foreman ; Mr.
John Moreland, Mr. Samuel Stevens, Mr. NVilliarn Agar,
Mr. George Redfern, Mr. William Bayles, Mr. Wm.
Holland, Mr. Sid❑ey Foster, Mr. George Shuttleworth,
Mr. R. )bert Way, Mr. Richard Scot';, Mr. James Gar-
rett, Mr. W. E. Beal, Mr. T. R. Mulcock, and Mr.
John Lock.

The Coroner Paid that one of the bodies, into the cause
of whose death they were to inquire, was lying at Dod-
dington-grove. By the act of Parliament it was
necessary that all the bodies should be viewed
by the jury on the first sitting, and he suggested that
they should, after viewing the bodies at the dead-house,
proceed to Doddington-grove and view the body of
Grace Skepper. By so doing much time and trouble would
be saved, otherwise a second inquiry must be held to in-
quire into the cause of her death.
The Jury assented to this course of proceeding, and
it was aloe arranged that they should view the Music.
ball before they returned.
The Coroner said that he hoped they would enter on
the inquiry, divested of anything they had heard or read
on the subject, and confine their attention to the evi•
dence that would be adduced as to when, how, and by
what means the unfortunate individuals came by their
death. There were many rumours afloat as to the
cause thereof, to which it would be improper
for him to refer, and the object would be to ascertain the
cause of the calamity, and if any person or persons were
legally responsible for it,
The jury then retired to view the bodies in the
dead.hnuse. Their appearance was of the most appalling
description, and an involuntary shudder of horror per-
vaded the jurors on seeing so many persons lying dead
before them. Their faces were discoloured and swollen
to an extraordinary size, and decomposition had set in
in mai,y cases. The following is a list of the names of
the killed

Grace Skepper, 54 years of age, married woman,
lying. dead at Doddington-grove.
Harriet Johnson, 20 years of age, single woman.
Harriett Barlow, 30 years of age, single woman.
Elizlbeth Mead, 43 years of age, of Stockwell, mar-
ried woman.

Harriett Matthew, 16 years of age, single woman.
Samuel Herd,
.24 years of age, of Alie-street, Ber-
mondsey New-rOad--all in the dead-house.
They were absent about an hour and a half. On theit
return the following evidence was adduced :
John Heard, tanner, No. S, Allie-street, Bermondsey,
identified the body of Samuel Heard, who, he stated, was
his brother, and said—l went with him to the Surrey
Gardens on Sunday evening to hear Mr. Spurgeon. We
arrived there at 10 minutes before six, and went into the
first gallery. Ten minutes or a quarter of an hour after
the service began I heard a dreadful confusion, and on
inquiring what. was the cause, some one about me said,
" a supposed fire." We all made a rush to get to the
staircase. I lost sight of my brother, and never saw him
alive atter I first heard the confusion. He had been pre-
viously standing close to me. I saw no appearance of
fire, and I do not know in what part of the building the
alarm first took place. I fell do /in the stairs, not over
them. The pressure was very great, and a number of
people fell upon me. A. policeman pulled me out after-
wards, and pulled off my boot in doing so. We were
almost close to the door when the alarm was raised. It
was the pressure from behind that forced me down. The
gallery was very full where we were, but there was room
to pass between us and the wall.

Police-constable Varney, P 333, said—l was on duty
on Sunday night in Penton-place, at the main entrance
to the Surrey Gardens. After the alarm I went into
the Music-hall. When the hall was nearly cleared I went
on the leads of an adjoining building, where I was in-
formed these were two or three bodies, and there saw the
deceased man,Heard and two women. He was lying on
his back and appeared be dead. With the assistance
of others I removed him through the window to the bot
tom of the staircase, and he was there examined by Dr.
0 sway.
Susannah Heard—l am wife of William Heard, cousin
of the deceased Samuel Heard. I accompanied him and
John Heard, my husband, and my little boy, to the
Surrey Gardens on Sunday evening. We all went into
the first gallery and stood behind the back seats, about
two yards from the door. About 20 minutes after Mr.
Spurgeon came there was a rush made to the door by
tbwe in the gallery. It appeared first to come from the
gallery above us. We were pressed on. I did not see
6aluuel, the deceased, after the first rush. I and my
husband and my little Loy got out of the window at the
top of the stairs on to the leads of a portion of the build-
ing, and tried to get away that way, but could not, and
we returned. My husband and my little boy were the
first t get out of the window. There were no persons
laid on the leads then. When we returned there were four
or five persona lying on the leads apparently dead. I did
not then see that Samuel Heard was one of those that
were lying there. One of the men that were lying there
C 9.119 not quite dead. I think that the persons who were
lying there must have been put there by the policemen.
When we were on the stairs we could not get up or
d mil. Policemen were at the bottom and no one could
get by. We could not move up or down, and the people
were getting over our backs. The banisters were then
broken. My cousin Samuel must have lost his life on
the staircase below the window. My husband was
tiruised, and has not worked since. When the bannisters
broke one of my legs hung over; and I was near falling
over, Thu people from the upper galleries kept jumping

[PRICE 4D. STAMPED SD.

over us. They came over our shoulders. My shoulders
are quite sire with people jumping over them.
Albert Fullagar—l any a writer and grainer, and live
in Great Carter lane, Doctors'-commons. I was one of
the collectors at the south-east entrance of the Hall,
opposite to the staircase where the banisters fell. I
had just sent a gentleman, a reporter of the Chronicle,
upstairs, and was looking up to see if he was going
right, when he was driven back by a rush and pushed
down, and, in his fall, he knocked me down. There was
a rush from the body of the hall ; they came towards my
entrance, and a gentleman smashed open the door. I
was forced away. I got under the stairs and into the
body of the hall, and made my way to the opposite stair-
case. I saw a boy fall from the banisters. I picked
him up. I saw a number of people on the stairs. One
of them was dead. I got over the people and passed up
the stairs. I saw persons laid down on the first stone
landing of the stairs. I picked up two females. They
were both insensible, and were lying on their faces. One
of them is Harriet Johnson, one of the deceased women,
and the other was her sister. I took the one that is
alive out and laid her on the grass outside. Harriet
Johnson I left on the stairs. I saw a man lying on his
back on the same landing, and his leg up the stairs. He
was insensible. I raised him up and put him against
the window, and some person took him of me, and laid
him on the leads. The person I so raised was the man
Samuel Heard. They were enabled to get him
out of the window by the people ceasing to
press forward when we told them the banisters
had given way. They gave way while I was
carrying one of the young women out. There were
twelve or fourteen persons fallen down upon the landing
one upon another, and the people behind could not get
over them. The stairs below were clear. Persons were
attempting to descend by the rails, and others were slid-
ing down the pillars. I did nos see any one fall ever
after the banisters broke. I saw a woman hanging
over, held only by a person who had hold of her round
the waist. I have no knowledge of what gave rise to
the rush. The newspapers have it that the boy who fell
was dead, but be was not. He was taken home, and
was not so much hurt as was thought.
Mr. George Matthews, of 22, Bridge House-place,
Newington-causeway, clerk in the office of the Poor Law
Commissioners, identified Harriet Matthews, one of the
deceased, as his sister, and stated that he last saw her
alive at five o'clock on Sunday afternoon, at his resi-
dence. She said she was going to hear Mr. Spurgeon.
She was to be accompanied by her sister and a friend.
Police-constable Varney deposed to finding the body
of Harriet Matthews on the leads, lying by the side of
Samuel Heard. She was dead when he found her there.
William Johnson, stonemason, No. 6, Newnham-
terrace, Hercules-buildings, Westminster-bridge-road,
identified the deceased Harriet Johnson as his daughter.
Last saw her alive a little after six on Sunday evening.
She was then at home. Her sister went out with her.
She was a dressmaker.
Louisa Johnson—l was fifteen last May. The last
witness is my father. I live with him. On Sun-
day evening I accompanied my sister Harriet Johns
son to the Surrey Gardens. We went into the
ball, into the first gallery. We stood close to the door
at the top of the stairs. After we had been there three-
quarters of an hour, my sister said "The house is falling,"
and we ran down the stairs. I had not seen or heard
anything to lead to such an impression. I fell, and a
number of people fell upon me. I and my sister were
the first that got into the staircase. I took hold of the
banisters and fell, the staircase being so narrow. I then
los, my recollection. I was afterwards raised up aad
taken out. I did not hear any alarm given besides what
my sister said. As soon as she told me the place was
falling I rushed out. She did not speak loudly, but she
might have been heard by a few people around us. When
we ran out she was behind me, and when I fell she fell
upon me. I do not believe my sister had any motive in
calling out that the pace was falling.
A jurymen—As you rushed out of the door did you
meet any persons coming down the other stairs
Witness—No, I did not. The staircase was free. As
soon as I heard what my sister said I ran out screaming.
Other persons followed. I fell and they fell upon me. I
took hold of the banister rail to slip down. I could not
run down fast enough, as the staircase is so narrow.
Thomas Meade, coach builder, 7, Love-lane, Stock•
well, identified the deceased Elizabeth Meade, who .he
said was his wife. They had four children. Last saw
her alive a little after five o'clock on Sunday evening.
She went out to go to Mr. Spurgeon's, with a little boy,
and a girl, his niece. He afterwards found the girl at the
hospital.

Police Constable John Cole, P 156, stated that he
assisted to take Mrs. Meade from the hall to Dr. Gan-
non's. She was alive when he took charge of her, but he
believed she died before he got her to Dr. Gannon's.
He brought her to the workhouse.
Jabez Barlow, chairmaker, 19, Bath-street, London-
road, identified Harriet Barlow as his wife. She went to
hear Mr. Spurgeon, and was accompanied by a neigh-
bour, named Fletcher, who is lying at the hospital, seri-
ously injured. She was far advanced in pregnancy.
Police Constable Gray, P 105, deposed that he was
outside the ball on Sunday evening, but not on duty.
A gentleman came to him and said his assistance was
required to some persons who were on the leads. He
went up the north staircase, getting up with very great
difficulty, and got outside on the leads. He saw two
females lying on the leads. They were apparently dead.
As&sted to bring them down stairs. He recognised
them to-day as Barlow and Matthews. He laid theaa on
the table in the hall, and they were examined by Dr.
Otway. He took Barlow and placed her in a cab, and
brought her to the workhouse. Did not take her to Mr.
Gannon's.

Albert Fullagar, who was called, said he sew Mrs.
Barlow pulled out from among the persons who were
down in the staircase.

Mr. John Midge, f 4, Dover-road, stated that be saw
Mrs. Barlow put out of the staircase and placed upon
the leads. She appeared insensible. She was near where
the balustrade was broken, and had evidently fallen. He
saw the commencement of the riot.

The Coroner said be proposed only to take evidence as
to the identity of the bodies to-night, and that there
should be an adjournment, when other evidence would be
taken.

Stephen Skipper, of 40, Dobson-terrace, New-street,
Kennington-road, identified the deceased Mrs. Grace
Skipper, as his wife. Last saw her alive on Sunday
evening, when she left home with a view of hearing Mr.
Spurgeon. She was brought home dead about half-past
seven o'clock by two policemen in a cab.
Police-constable James Bickerton, P 123, was on duty
at the Surrey Gardens on Sunday evening. Heard an
alarm and screaming by persons in the halt. He imme-
diately ran into the ball and saw nearly 100 people lying
on the stairs one upon the other. The railing of the
staircase was broken. Assisted in removing some of
them, and amongst them a female who has been iden-
tified as Mrs. Skipper. Dr. Otway saw her, and witness,
with the assistance of another constable, took her t) her
home, 40, Dobson-terrace. There was a female with
her, who know her, and which was the reason she was
taken home. Wont to that staircase because the cry
proceeded from it. Did not hear any alarm from any
other part of the ball.
Emma Bigwood—l reside at 6, Doddington•grove.
I went to the Music-hall on Sunfay evening, aad went
up the staircase furthest from the pulpit. Went into the
first gallery, and saw the deceased, Mrs. Skipper, wham
I knew. The place was very full, and we stood. We were
not more than two yards from the door. Had been there
about a quarter of an hour when I heard a rush, and
thought the galleries were falling. I was very much
alarmed, and screamed. A great number of other persons
also screamed. They were about me. Mrs. Skipper
took me by the hand and led me to the staircase. When
I got on the staircase, I heard the cry of fire and the
smashing of glass. There were a great many persons de-
scending the stairs besides me, both before and behind. I
lest sight of Mrs. Skipper, and did not see her again till I
saw her laid dead on the grass outside the building. I
was much bruised. I did not fall. As I descended, I
did not see any persons who had fallen down. When I
came into the staircase, I did not see any person coming
from the upper gallery. I first screamed when I was on
the stairs, from being pressed against the wall. I believe
Mrs. Skipper lost her life by suffocation.
A juryman said, before they adjourned he wished to
ask whether it was true that after the alarm, and after
these poor persons bad been killed, a collection was made!
Mr. Woods said the collecting boxes were handed
round by some persons, but not by the authority of any
person belonging to the chapel. There was only about 81.
collected, and that would be distributed among the sur-
viving sufferers.

...,
A person said he W 29 one of the collectors, and held a
collecting box at one of the doors, but he was not aware
at the time that any one bad been killed.

The inquest was then adjourned until Friday mornin,

The following letter has been addressed to the editor
of the Times :--

"Sir,—l have read your leading article as well as the
additional particulars in the Times of to-day in reference
to the 'accident at the Surrey Music-hall on Sunday
evening. I was not only an eye-witness of what took
place,but one of those knocked down and trampled
upon, though fortunately without sustaining any parti-
cular irjury and as it appears to me that in both of the
articles in the Times of to-day Mr. Spurgeon is unjustly
blamed for attempting to continue the service after the
occurrence of the accident, I venture to ask your inser-
tion of these few lines for the purpose cf exonerating the
rev gentleman from blame in the matter.
" When the alarm was given and the first rush took
place I could not help being borne by the crawd towards
the door ; but a number of people (men and womer)
having fallen, I was knocked down over them, the
crowd continuing to pass over us and over those who fell
upon us.

"I fortunately had a stout stick with me, which, having
planted against the floor, close by the wall of the passage,
enabled me with my right arm, my left resting on the
floor,
to keep from pressing too closely against the faces of
two women who were under me, and who appeared al-
ready almost suffocated. The door near where we had
fallen having been got closed by the police, which stop-
ped the crowd from pressing over us, we were is a short
time relieved from our unfortunate position, and enabled
to get up.
" I returned to within 30 feet of the platform, as I
found that the clergyman and the congregation were en.

kt• qf'.
AZ-1:
f
4i 10----1M,:!-t. fit
gaged in singing, and Tam f tl.l isfied _
AMMO 4:
former was not aware tliat any fatal , Qf
curred. When the singing was over Mr. feearatia.'-'IL,
his deacons endeavoured to a•ldrees the peoptebut ail to Z-1
no purpose--the noise al confusion were so great.
tAiruftaetread„
tihnaetfr,hcotua:aawttenmpi totnt.:ae in trying to preach, and
that :
1 nel,
go
° during the s
n jAir. Spurgeoningig no in
w to disperse gradually.
Ee
rear the prem. 'her, r,tid tf iinking that many would
remain to hear him p roach, anc
hiinegh he
he wouldwished re
theNd out
mu o
a ,?Is
so give greater time to
disperse than the sing: rig of a pgalm would have afforded,
I immediately called o it to him that it would be safer to
preach, and hundreds 1 laving joined in the call he said
be would be very willin g to goot , and immediately gave
out his text.
"It seems to me that die clergyman deserves treat
for, credit for remaining in tl ie pulpit and trying to resume
the proceeding,,,
bad he quitted his position, it
would have coutstenanced ti e alarm, and it cannot he
difficult to goose whal:, wv sld Lave been the conse-
quences.
"Mr. Spurgeon i,,ave out hie text—which, however,
appeared to many of ns to a most unfortunate one,
considering what ha d occurs ed and the nature of the
place in which we were assemL led—" the curse of the
Lord is in the house of. the with ed." Another rush im-
mediately took place to the doom', and I took an oppor-
tunity of leaving the bu.dding by the nor th-east door,
where a fewer number of people were moving out, and
felt thankful to get out to the gardens, and so to the
street. The clergyman .soon after felt he could not pro-
ceed, and he desisted, wheal the great congregation dis-
persed without any further :,.cident.
" I, therefore, think Mr. S,Durgeon acted for the best
by attemptin,, to preach, as Were man be no doubt that
it gave confidence to many until a sufficient number were
out to enable the others to disperse .more quietly.
" I have no interest in defending Mr. Spurgeon be-
yond the cause of truth and justice. I had never seen
him nor beard him, nor had I seen the Surrey Music.
ball until Sunday evening.--I am, sir, your obedient
servant,
" Westminster, Oct. 21.

4 f w. s."

THE ART TREASURLS EXHIBITION-1857.

Mr. J. C. Deane, the general commissioner of the
Exhibition, has just returned from a very successful tour
. _

i❑ Scotland, in the course of which he has received most
valuable offers of assistance from the owners of art-
tremor-es in that country, the particulars of which will
be announced a few days hence. In the meantime we
have the pleasure of giving the following additional lists
of picture:, &c., to be lent by eminent contributors to
the Exhibition. Among them will be found the first
collections of modern works which have not yet been

presented.
Miss Burdett Coutts will contribute the following :-
1. Peter Oliver—Sir Kenelm Digby and Family,
copied from Vandyck.
2. Peter Oliver—Another of Si.l- Kenelm Digby.
3. Peter Oliver—Lady Venetia Digby; companion
to the above.
4. Wilson—ltalian landscape.
5. Raphael—The Agony in the U'•arden.
6. Paul Veronese—Mary Ma,gda'en anointing the
Feet of the Saviour.
7. Ludovioo Carracci—The Virgin and Child, sur-
rounded by Saints.

3. Claude Lorraine—A small land scape (No. 11 of
Libor Veritatis).
9. Domenichino—lnfant Christ, with Instruments
of the Passion.
10. Gainsbarough—Landscape.
11.. Sir Joshua Reynolds—Cupid and Psyche.
12. Watteau—Two small pictures.
13. Nicolas Poussin—View of the Campegna of Rome.
14. Murillo—The Infant Saviour and Joseph. •
15. Tintoretto—Sketch for the Miracle of St. Mark.

Lord Dunmore, of Dunmore-park, near Falkirk, has
an extremely valuable collection of pictures, the follow-
ing six of which w,ll be exhibited :-
1. Nicolas Poussin—Landscape with Orpheus and
Eurydice.
2, Velasquez—Shepherds Crowned, leading a Bull.
3. Dosso Dossi—Adoration of the Shepherds.
4. Giulio Romano—The Conversion of St. Paul.

5. Leonardo da Vinci —Madonna and Child.
6. Salvator Rosa—Landscape, with Agar and Ith-
mael.

The committee have recently been in communication
with Mr. Sidney Herbert, who has not only promised
contributions from his own collection, hut has commu-
nicate] with Lord Pembroke, who kindly offers the fol-
lowing collection of pictures and statues :-
1. Early picture—representing Ricturd IL and
Saints.

2. Andrea Mantegna—Judith.
3. Lucas Van Leyden—A. card party.
4. Mabuse —Three children of Henry VII.
5. Holbein—Father of Sir Thomas More.
6. Rubens—Landscape, with sunset.
7. Rubene—Four children.
Vandyck—Lady Mary Herbert, Duchess of Rich-
mon d.

9. Assigned to Raphael—Holy Family.
10. Francesco enni—Holy Family.
11. Ancient relievo mosaic, and an ancient painting.
12. Three sculptures, after Praxiteles ; 1. Statue of
Hermes Kriophoros ; 2. Cupid bending his bow; and,
S, small statue of a young Satyr looking round.
13. Sarcophagus illustrating the story of Ceres and
Bacchus.

Lord Cowper, of Penshanger, Hertfordshire, ha■ pro-
mined some of the best pictures from his valuable colleo•
tion.

Mr. Wm. Stirling, M.P., for Perthshire, and author
of "The Lives of Spanish Artists" and "The Cloister
Lie of Charles V.," has a large collection of bronzes,
ancient engravings, and various objects of art and vertu,
of which he will send a collection, and has already pro-
tnisPd the following pictures :
..

1. Murillo—gadonna and child, with St. John,
from the monastery or convent of the Madre de Dios, in
Seville.

2. Caspar de Crayer—Portrait of Cardinal Infante
D')n Ferdinand.
3. Morales—Pieta.
4. Caremo—male portrait.
5. Sofanisba Anguiscola—The artist herself at her
easel.

6. Zurbaran-A Virgin Mary.
7. El Mudo-His own portrait. (From the Soult
Collection.)
8. A. Cano-Two angels. Drawing in red.
9. Luca Signorelli-Pieta.
10. Claude Lorraine-Landscape; with Christ and
Disciples proceeding to Emmaus.
contributed by Mr. John Chapman, of ,
The following collection of modern masters will
Mot-
tram, Ms High Sheriff of Cheshire :-
1. Sir David Wilkie-The Rent Day.
2. J. M. W. Turner, R.A.-Pluto carrying away
Proserpine.
3. J. M. W. Turner-Sun Rising through Vapour.
4. W. Mulready, &A.-Travelling Druggist.
5. D. Maclise, R.A.-Moses preparing for the Fair.
"Vicar of Wakefield."
6. D. Maelise R.A.-Moses returning from the Fair.
7. Sir E. Landseer, R.A.-Rat catching.
8. Herbert, R.A.-Lear disinheriting Cordelia.
9. Webster, R.A.-Village Fair.
10. Sir A. Calcott-Arcadian Shepherds.
The following will be contributed by Mr. Samuel
Ashton, of Oaklands, Cheshire :-
1. J. M. Constable, R.A.-Salisbury Cathedral
2. J. M. 'W. Turner, R.A.-Barnes Terrace.
3. Ary Scheffer-Faust Pictures.
4. Muller- The Baggage Waggon.
5. Webster, R.A.-The Village Choir.
6. W. Collins-Seacoast.
7. Dadd-Picture from idsummer Night's Dream.
8. Cattermole_The Power of Music (water colours).
9. Louis Haghe- An Interior (water-colours).
Mr. Thomas Townend of Belmont Park, near Lon-
don, sends a Dead Christ, by Morales, purchased by
him from the Soult Gallery; a Saviour, by Carlo Dolce ;
and a Landscape, by Ruysdael,
Mr. R. Bastian, of Farringdonslodge, Preston, con-
tributes the following :-
1. J. C. Horsley, A.R.A.-Tlae Madrigal.
2. P. F. Poole, A.R.A.-Crossing the Stream.
3. Sant-Infant Samuel.
4. Hilton, R.A.-Venus disarming Cupid.
Mr. J. Bickerstaff, Preston, and Mr. William Mar-
M.P., will be considerable contributors ; and the
followini, will be sent by Lard Listowel :-
1. Vselasquez-Two Men in Peasant Costume, le.
2. Vandyck-Achilles discovered among the daugh-
ters of Lycotnedes.
3. Albert Van Everdingen-A Norwegian Scene.

4. NV. Van der Velde---A Sea Fight.
5. Simon de Vlieger—Landscape.
6. Simon Van der Does—Cattle Piece.
7. Nicolas Poussin--Antiope and Jupiter.
8. Murillo—The Spovabizio.
9. Van Tilborg—A Country Party.

We are requested to announce that the famed collec-
tion of the Marquis of Hertford, IC.T., which owing to
its noble owner's residence abroad has been so little seen
by the public, will be opened to the promoters of the
Exhibition, to be held next year in Manchester. The
marquis has written to the Chairman of the Exhibition
Committee that "be will be most happy to contribute
his best pictures to the magnificent undertaking in (0,3.
Lion."

. .11 ORDER OFFICES.—On the Ist November the
following alterations will be made : —Money order-
o mi
c el
es will be opened at Laslow, Derbyshire ; Pill,
Somerset ; Sawston, Cambridgeshire ; Sbrewton, Wilts ;
s
Dock, Lancashire.
Tait RUNAWAY ENGINE.----The damage done by the
accident on the South-Western line, on Monday, when
an engine ran away, is estimated at 2,0001.
SILKS.—Tbe advanced prices of silks having become
generally known through the medium of the press, and
public atttntinn having furthermore been directed to the
!ailnre of the French and Italian crops, we must neces-
sarily anticipate a still further and scarcely, calculable
rise. There are those, indeed, who suggest our depen-
dence upon the supplies of Chinese silk, but it must be
taken into consideration that such is only fitted for the
manufacture of the coarser kind of corded and :Man-
chester silks. In the face of thin fearful augmentation
in value, Messrs. Jay, of the London General Mourning
Warehouses, Regent-street, by reason of the very large
stocks they purchased some time prior to the late ad-
vance, and which was announced at the time, will
!cer-
tainly have an advantage over their lesi fortunate corn-
petitors, and will for Uomertittie at- least be enabled to.
supply the public at the old prices.