The Sun.
London, England, 1860-05-10 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING, MAY 10, 1860.

LORD I. RUSSELL AND EARL GREY.

The following correspondence has just been made

public :

" Calton House-terrace, May 5, 1860.
—ear Lord John,—lt is reported in the news-
papers that when Mr. Walpole on Thursday night
quoted in the House of Commons my explanations of
the reasons which induced me to acquiesce as a mem-
ber of your Government in your bringing forward a
bill of reform in February, 1852, you interrupted
him by saying 'lt is not true.' What you meant to
assert to be untrue is not clear from the report, but
you are understood to have given a direct contradic-
tion to the statement I made in the House of Lords.
Of course it is very painful to me ; and as I am con-
vinced that my statement was strictly accurate, and
that if you had been correctly informed of its pur-
port you would never have questioned its being so,
I feel it to be necessary to call attention to the fol-
lowing report of what I said on the 19th April,
which I have taken from the Times, and to ask you
whether there is any point on which you differ from

me.
" 6 I cheered the observation of the noble duke
when he said I implied that the Reform Bill of 1852
originated from the indiscretion of my noble friend
then at the head of the Government. lam bound
to say that I think the original difficulty on this
subject arose fir om the fact, which is I believe well
known to all your lordships, although it may never,
perhaps, have been publicly stated, namely, that
Lord J. Russell, as head of the Cabinet, without any
previous concert or communication with his col-
leagues, committed himself by expressing the opi-
nion that the time was come when a change might

be made in the measure of 1832. That opinion was
expressed without the intention to express it having
beem intimated, as far as I know, to any one of his
colleagues, and certainly not to the Cabinet. I be.
lieve when that announcement was made it was not
approved by any, or at least by more than one or two
members of the Cabinet. For myself, I can say it had
my most entire disapproval—a feeling which I did
not attempt to conceal, as Lord J.Russell can testify.
Considering the inconvenience which I saw would
ensue from the manner in which Lord J. Russell had
given that pledge, and with the opinion I enter-
tained awl avowed as to the proceeding, it was with
extreme reluctance that I consented, after those oc-
currences, to continue a member of that administra-
tion. But, looking to all the circumstances of that
time, I felt it to be my duty to remain in the Go-
vernment, yet I did so distinctly reserving to my-
self the right not to be regarded as standing pledged
to any measure of reform until I saw what might
be proposed, and not disguising my conviction that
to disturb the question at all was inexpedient if it
could be avoided. Such was the situation of affairs
when Parliament was about to meet in 1852. The
Reform Bill, which was afterwards laid upon the
table of the House of Commons, was submitted to
the cabinet. For my own part I never approved it.
I thought it open to the gravest objections. But,
my lords, I was induced to consent to its being in-
troduced into Parliament by this one consideration
—I knew that the Government was on the eve of
falling, and it so happened that the principal at-
tacks made upon it were directed against the parti-
cular department with which I was entrusted. I
did not think it would be honourable towards my
colleagues, or right towards myself, that at such a
moment I should appear to run away from the post
which I held; and being persuaded that the bill
had not the remotest chance of passing, having
stated that to the cabinet before it was brought in,
I undoubtedly acquiesced in its introduction.'
" This report is substantially accurate as far as it
goes, but it is much abridged (as is not unusual with
respect to speeches in reply at the end of a long de-
bate), which makes it not quite easy for a per-
son who was not present fully to understand my
meaning. Had the speech been given more at
length it would have appeared that I was speaking
of the opinion you expressed three or four years
before the introduction of the bill of 1852, when
I said that this was done without the con-
currence of your colleagues, and was the begin-
ning of the difficulties about reform ; that I ad-
mitted these difficulties to have been increased
by the defeat of the Government on Mr. Locke
King's motion in 1851, to which the Duke of Argyll
had adverted ; and that in describing my reluctance
to continue in the Administration, I referred to
the time when Lord Derby, having failed to form
a government, we resumed our offices, which we had
resigned after that defeat. Subject to these ex-
planations, the report of what I said is substantially
correct ; and as both Lord Lansdowne and Lord
Clanricarde have told me they are satisfied of the
accuracy of my statement, I trust you will also
admit it, and that your contradiction may have
been meant to apply to something you had been
led erroneously to suppose me to have said, by Mr.
Walpole's brief reference to what had passed in the
House of Lords. It would give me great pleasure
to find this to be the case, and to be enabled by you
to explain publicly that there is no difference be •
tween us on a matter of fact.—l am, &c.,
(Signed) " GREY."

" Pembroke Lodge, May 6, 1860.
" Dear Lord Grey,—l had certainly understood
that your statement in the House of Lords referred
to the speech which I made on Mr. Locke King's
motion in February, 1851. That speech was made,
as you are aware, after repeated discussions in the
Cabinet on the extension of the suffrage, and the
propriety of bringing forward any measure on the
subject in the session of 1851.
"As your statement did not apply to that speech
my contradiction of your supposed assertion of
course falls to the ground.
" It now appears you were speaking of the opinion
I expressed three or four years before the introduc-
tion of the bill of 1852.

" I have, therefore, referred to the speeches made
by me in answer to Mr. Hume on parliamentary
reform, or national representation, in 1848 and
1849. Those speeches appear to me of a very
Conservative nature, but they contain opinions
which I held then and which I hold now.

" I have no recollection of anything which passed
in the Cabinet upon that subject at the time, but if
I had, I should not think myself at liberty to allude
to any differences in the Cabinet to which I be-
longed without the permission of the Queen, which
I have not asked, and do not mean to ask.
" Public affairs are so absorbing, and events suc-
ceed each other so rapidly, that they are apt to slip
from the memory. I find that in 1848 some very
strong language was used in regard to your conduct
as Minister for the Colonies by the late Lord George
Bentinck and others. It was my business, and I
might say my delight, to defend your honour against
accusations which I thought unjust. I little sup-
posed that at that time you were hoarding up accu-
sations to be used against me 11 or 12 years after-
wards in a place where I could not reply.
" However, I do not mean to make any statement
of my own in contradiction to what you have said.
I will content myself with quoting a speech of yours
in the debate on the address to the Crown in 1852,
and by which lam willing to abide. After refer-
ring to other speeches you are reported to have
said :--‘ Now, my lords, let me point out the real
circumstances of the case. Three gears ago, if I
remember rightly, various motions were mule in
the other house of parliament, and obtained in that
house a considerable degree of support, not only
from those who voted for these measures, but in the
expression of an opinion by gentlemen of great
weight and influence, that experience had shown
that there were defects in the Reform Act which
required further legislation. My noble friend feel-
ing the force of these remarks and of public opinion,
and seeing defects in the arrangement of the Re-
form Bill, which had not answered the expectations
of the country, thought it right to express his opi-
nion that a time might come when it would be pro-
per to make some alteration in the existing laws
relating to the franchise. My noble friend expressed
that opinion in the strongest manner, and particu-
larly after the noble proofs that were given in 1848,
by all classes of the population, of loyal attachment
to the Crown, and to the existing institutions ,of
the country. My noble friend expressed that
opinion so far back as 1849, and since that time
has had to combat various proposals made in
the other house of parliament for alterations in
the Reform Act. But it was my noble friend's
opinion that if in combating these proposals
for hasty and inconsiderate alterations in
the Reform Act he had not expressed himself in
favour of future improvements he would have
shaken the foundations of that great settlement of our
constitutional rights. My noble friend therefore
said, and I think he was right, that he was not
averse to well considered amendments. But it was
impossible that ho could take this line in combating
those propositions, which ho looked upon as dan-
gerous, without thereby contracting pledges, which
he considered it his duty to fulfil at a proper time.
I ask, can there be a better tithe for redeeming them
than the present ? Is not the very apathy of which
the noble earl speaks a sufficient reason for calmly
approaching the subject, and calmly considering
what amendments can be introduced? Would that
apathy have existed if we had pronounced the Re-
form Bill to be a final measure, and, if he had said
there were no blots in it which we would attempt
to get rid of ? If he had taken that line, would there
not have been a very different disposition on the
part of the people of this country with regard to
changes in the Reform Act far less temperate than
those now about to be proposed P I firmly believe
there would ; and I say this because I think it is a
justification of the line which my noble friend has
taken, and in which his colleagues joined?
" When you made this speech you were eight
years nearer to the time when I made those state-

ments of which you now complain. You had not
then imbibed those prejudices against rue of which
I have lately felt so painfully the effects.—l re-
main, &c.,

(Signed)

" J. RUSSELL."

" Carlton House Terrace.
"Dear Lord John,—l have received your letter
of yesterday, and while I am glad to find your con-
tradiction was not meant to apply to what I really

said in the House of Lords, but io what you erro-
neously supposed me to have stated, I must express
my regret at the manner in which you have written
to me.

" I do not think it necessary to defend myself
(as I easily might) against all the unjust insinua-
tions contained in your letter, but there are some
observations that I must make upon it. It is quite
true that your speech on reform in 1851 was made
after repeated discussions in the Cabinet on the
subject, but it was equally true that we entered upon
those discussions under the advantage of your con-
sidering yourself pledged, by what you had said
in the House of Commons, without consulting us,
to bring forward as soon as you could some mea-
sure of reform ; and also that while you agreed
only on temporary grounds to postpone making any
such proposition for that session, I and some other
members of the Cabinet declared that we were not
to be considered bound by the reasons you might
assign in the House of Commons for your conduct,
that we held ourselves quite free for the future, but
were content to remain in the Administration for
the present, as there was no difference between us
as to the course to be taken by the Government.
" I think upon reflection you will feel that your
charging me with having, while a member of your
Cabinet, hoarded up accusations to be brought
against you eleven or twelve years afterwards, is
not justified by my having found it necessary in
explanation of my own conduct to make a state-
ment (which has not been and cannot be contra-
dicted) as to the circumstances under which I was
led to acquiesce in your bringing forward a new
measure of reform. If I had wanted to hoard up
matters of charge against you, I should not now
have been without any written memorandum of
these proceedings.
"You are quite welcome to taunt me with my
speech in the House of Lords in 1852; but you
know perfectly well that it is the duty of a member
of Government when its acts are attacked in Par-
liament, to state as well as he can the reasons by
which the Cabinet he belongs to has been guided,
even though sometimes those reasons may not have
been conclusive to his own mind. My object in
that speech was to explain, as I understood them,
your motives for the course you had taken, with-
out implying my own concurrence in opinions
which it was notorious to yourself and to all our
colleagues that I WES far from sharing. It appears
from the report you have quoted that I was be-
trayed into using some expressions going beyond
this line, but undotbtedly it was not my intention
to do so.
" I shall this evening in the House of Lords ex-
plain in what res?ect my statement of the other
night has been misunderstood, and that you have
informed me that your contradiction was not meant
,o apply to it whet so explained--I am, &e„
(Signed) " GREY.
" The Lord John Russell."

"Foreign Office, May 8, 1860.
" Dear Lord Grey,—All that I need say upon
your last letter is that I shall think it necessary to
publish our correspondence.—l remain, &c.,
(Signed) " J. RUSSELL.
" The Earl Grey."

" Carlton House-terrace, May 8.
" Dear Lord John,--1. have no objection to your
publishing our correspondence ; as you mean to do
so, it will be unnecessary for me to make any state-
ment in the House of Lords.—Yours, &c.,

(Signed)
"The Lord John Rissell."

'i GREY.

THE FRENCH TREATY.

The Court Circular has " been requested to state
that the British Commissioners for the negotiation
of the French Tariff have their office at No. 82,
Rue de l'Universite Paris." It is a very proper
fact to be made public, and we give our best aid

diffuse the knowledge of it. In ignorance of the
new arrangements, uninformed persons might have
gone to the old British Embassy, in the Rue du
Faubourg St. Honore. Of course, we all know
this latter was only a pretentious Lam. No one
is, we hope, so ignorant as not to be aware that it
was only a mouldering specimen of the old rotten
system of secret diplomacy. All well-informed
people knew that the real business was done else-
where. In some small room in a back street, where
there was nothing but a deal desk and a few high
stools, there were two or three long-headed, square-
faced, quick-eyed men of the true business sort,
shrewd at a bargain, and never at fault as to a
fact, wearing no spangles upon their breasts or
labels upon their calves, but having their fingers'
ends well stained with ink. These were the men
whi did all the good ; the dandies did nothing, or
nothing but harm. Little Pcdlington had always
penetrated this truth ; other less intelligent com-
munities had only vaguely guessed at it. At
last it became patent. After the prelude had
been fully worked out the transformation scene
arrived, and amid blue fire and free muslins, the
French Treaty started up from the stage trap,
the humble work men threw off their sober dresses,
Cobden struck his first position and waved his wand
as Harlequin, his beauteous Columbine, Free Trade,
shuffled round him, and Pantaloon, whose name is
not mentioned in the bills, leant on his crutch and
looked wistfully at the unrestrained damsel who
tripped so lightly and who came and went so freely.
How the pit did applaud! Mr. Disraeli recalled
the circumstances on Tuesday night, and described
the moment as a national delirium. There was an
universal joy and an universal delirium. The uni-
versal joy was that the French Emperor had been
converted to free trade; the universal faith was
that no living moral except only Richard Cobden
could have worked the miracle.

But why has this powerful genius, like him
of the Arabiaiz Nights, crept back into his tin
kettle again? Why is it that the great
monarch after embroidering his blacksmiths
apron has gone back to the anvil ? What can
Richard Widen have to do in a small office in the
Rue de l'Universite ? The treaty is signed, the
'Emperor is converted. In old times, when a Saint
converted an Emperor, there was nothing more to
do but for the Emperor to make manifest his
generosity. Ile set about immediately to found
minsters, to make rows of cells to fatten monks in,
and to carve off great slices of his dominions for
the benefit of the priests of his new religion.
He generally took a good deal from everybody and
gave it to the Church. If Napoleon 111. be a
true convert why does he not act as such ? And if
he be in that plastic state of mind what need has
Mr. Cobden to go back to his drudgery ? Why does
not Napoleon 111. begin to carve out a few pro-
vinces for those active commercial monks who
work in the British iron fields ? ,Why does he
not pay more reverence to the precepts of the
Order of St. Manchester? Why does he allow
evil speaking of the new doctrines he has
espoused ? Why does he not endow the free trade
church 2 If the apostle of free trade has done his
work, the priests of free trade expect to receive
endowments. If not they indignantly repudiate
the conversion. It wasn't worth making, If we
are to make free trade converts, as some other
converts are said to have been made, under con-
dition of keeping them in food as well as in doc-
trine, we begin to waver in our propagandist zeal.
Mr. Cobden has, in the silence and reaction suc-
ceeding that tumultuous burst of applause, been
called upon to open his hand and show what his
new convert has given him. There is a dreadful
rumour going about and getting possession of the
general ear, that Mr. Cobden has opened both his
hands wide and has shown that there is nothing
in them. Men's hearts are sinking down to we
dare not say where. The apostle has been taken
in, after all ! He has got nothing—absolutely
nothing. To use a good old word, which in
the days of Queen Anne was classical English,
the Emperor has completely " bubbled" him. He
has brought shame upon himself, but most dis-
credit upon his backers. He is a simpleminded
earnest man, with one great idea in his head ; but
these French are sharp practical fellows, who believe
in no nonsense or theories unless they come out well
in pounds, shillings, and pence. Yet here he is, or
rather there he is, worse off than Moses Primrose,
without even the green spectacles to show for what
he has given away. That wicked, unconverted Em-
peror gave him fairy money. Those backers of his
never thought of doubting for a moment that their
representative could tell good money from bad.
When he held it up to them at a distance they
jumped for joy; but now that he has put it down
before them they see at once the obvious imposture.
They are not uncivil to him—and, indeed, why
should they be ? for the honest man did his best,
and if he did not know good money from bed it
was not his fault; but the disappointed gentlemen
are looking into each other's faces with a most comi-
cal and expressive silence.
Mr. Cobden goes back to Paris to do all his work
over again. But how is he to do it ? When he
began to negotiate this precious treaty he had much
to give, he had advantages to offer in exchange. Ile
was then rich in gifts. Yet, even with all his wealth,
his wine duties, his free coals, and his custom for
Paris knioknacks, he could buy nothing of any value
from that cunning Emperor. The-people to whom
he went turned his pockets inside out and sent him

away empty.. He came back, not as_ a man who

had been robbed, but as a 'man who had been

fairly " done.". He had gone into that matter con-
trary to all his own principles. He had gone to
Paris to commit an infidelity to free trade. He had
stopped to haggle and to chaffer for her favours, to
fix terms for her controlment, and tariffs for her
repression. No one could say that he was a fit
subject for sympathy. He was like a Quaker
cleaned out in a gambling-house. Why did he, of
all men, ever go on such an errand ? What right
had Richard Cobden, with his high principles, to be
found haggling about reciprocities ? If he had
stack to his own principles we might have had
some claim upon the generosity of the Emperor for
gifts freely given ; perhaps we might even have
seduced him by our bold example ; at any rate, we

should have manifested to the-world that we our•

selves have faith in the principles we recommend

But now we have no 'claim Whatever.

We have

nothing left to offer, and no sentiment at our call.
Mr. Cobden has, to use a happy phrase coined by
Lord Palmerston on the somewhat analogous occa-
sion of the Ashburton treaty, " shaked out his bag
of equivalents upon the floor." He has not only
shaken them out, but the Emperor has picked
them up and pocketed them ; and now, when all
is done and the whole thing is settled; when M.
Girardin is crying aloud to make the most of this
great advantage, and to screw down Perfidious
Albion to the last penny; and when the lifoniteur
is swollen with columns of Senatorial eloquence,
wherein France is taught to chuckle over her
gains, poor Mr. Cobden is sent back to the Rue
de l'Universite, either to buy, without equivalents,
what he, could not get for equivalents, or else to sue
in forma pauperis for some little restoration of that
out of which he has been so supremely diddled.
They may call us a nation of shopkeepers, but
for a good hard bargain commend us to our French
neighbours ; and for a special instance of their
talent commend us to this French Treaty: We have
made some foolish Treaties before this since we be-
came a nation, and, indeed, we always had the
Credit of losing over the Council-board what we had
gained in the field. We are apt to be too frank and
open, and • perhaps too careless, in our bargaining.
But this was always attributed to ignorance in our
diplomatists, who were supposed, inasmuch as they
were often men of high rank, to have no manner of
knowledge either of geography or of commerce.
Thus we once gave away, in mere wantonness, our
then richest possession in the East, and it is said
that we lost another valuable island because our
Plenipotentiary did not know where it was. But
here we 'have lost a trade because our Plenipoten-
tiary, who was a man of trade, did not know there
was such a trade. It may sound very presumptuous,
but it seems to us that, now Mr. Cobden has gon e back
to his unwelcome work of petitioning and haggling,
he requires some advice and guidance. At any rate,
it would be as well to give him the aid of what-
ever little power over the subject-matter of his
negotiations we may still possess. We faintly
hope that his 30 per cent. may shrink again to its
honest arithmetical proportions; and we would
fain believe, encouraged by the words of Count de
Kergorlay in this day's paper, that the prohibition
on the export of rags may be eventually removed.
But even those Southern people, who are thought
to be all sentiment and impulse, are not such fools
at a bargain as we are. The Spaniards, with all
their chivalry and knight-errantry, have just abso-
lutely refused to give up Tetuan until they have
received in hand the money by which it is to be
ransomed. Now, there is one little equivalent with
which we did not, because we could not, burden
Mr. Cobden. We have it yet in hand. Of course,
we mean the paper import duty. Everything else
has gone, vanished, and is for ever lost. After the
experience we have had with these matters, there
will be, we think, a very general conviction that
we shall be the most insensate of all fools. if we
part with this till we get an equivalent assured.
Every man must now see that Mr. Cobden's work
will be a good deal lightened and very much more
likely to end well if we should intimate plainly
that no French paper will be allowed to come free
into England so long as French rags are prevented
from coming equally free to England, and that the
same rule will be observed in all other countries.
It is but a shred saved from the general wreck, but
as we have it, we may as well hold it until we have
obtained the required equivalent.—.7'inzes
o I

TEE CASE OF THE BEY: MB. HATCII

(Continued from 'the Sun of yesterday.)

Mr. Hatch said he never allowed the girl Eu-
genie to get into the bed where he and Mrs. Hatch
were, but merely under the counterpane, and Mrs.
Hatch was always present. Mr and Mrs Plummer
brought the young child Stephanie on the 25th of
August, and they had every opportunity afforded
them of speaking to their daughter Eugenie, if they
had been so minded. They went away in the even-
ing without making any complaint, and left both
the children behind. Before she left, Mrs. Plum-
mer said her daughter Eugenie was heiress to
£15,000, and that she was betrothed to a Mr. Gay,
and was to be married when she was seventeen.
On the following day, the 26th of August, Mrs.
Plummer returned, and she said that she thought
the thunder storm which had, occurred in the
night was a judgment on her for leaving her chil-
dren, and she had come to fetch them. She dined
with the family, and -went away with the
children in the evening. She complained that the
children were not treated as she wished, and that
an heiress to £15,000 should sleep in calico sheets,
but made no other complaint ; and something was
said about the children being placed with him
again at Christmas, and before she left she made
his adopted daughter Lucy a present of a toy.
Both the children kissed him and took an affec-
tionate leave when they went away.
At this stage of the case the court adjourned for
the purpose of enabling the jury to take some re-
freshment.

Upon their return the examination of Mr. Hatch
was proceeded with.
Witness heard nothing more of the matter until
Oct. 25, when he received a letter from the Bishop
of Winchester, and having consulted Mr. Onslow,
the governor of the gaol, he resigned his post, and
was afterwards tried and convicted.

Cross•examined by Sergeant Shed—Witness was
ordained in 1848. At • that time he was 30 years
old. After leaving Cambridge, he went to New
South Wales as a tutor, and then returned to Eng-
land. His salary at the gaol was £250 a year, and
a residence was found for him. He had no fortune,
and was entirely dependent upon his appointment.
Daring the fortnight Eugenie Plummer was at his
house he was very kind to her, and she appeared to
be fond of him, and generally ran to him and kissed
him when she came out of school. He never
scolded her or made her cry, upon any
occasion. She was scolded once for behaving
improperly to a gentleman in the house. He
did not wish to insinuate that she behaved
in any manner indecently. He saw nothing in her
conduct different to what he should expect from a
child of respectable Christian parents. He was to
receive £5O a-year for each child, and there was
no disagreement as to the amount he was to receive
when the children were taken away. Witness
would not undertake to swear that the child
Eugenic was left alone with her mother any part
of the day on the 25th October except when they
were in the water-closet. Witness did not kiss the
child in her bed more than four times. He had a
distinct recollection that his mother was at the
drawing-room window when the children were
running after him, and he had no doubt his wife
and the French ladies were there. On the 18th of
August he did take the children on his knee, but it
was merely to tell them a story to amuse them, and
he swore that no indecency whatever took place.
When the child came to his bedroom in the morn-
ing she had nothing on but her night-dress and he
himself was also undressed, but, of course, covered
with the bed-clothes. Eugenie was sometimes in
the bed in the position he had stated while Mrs.
ll,atch was engaged in washing the other child,
Lucy. He should not have allowed the child to
come to his bed if it had not been by the express
desire of her mother, as he did not think it was
right.
Serjeant Shce—Thinking it wrong, why did not
you, a clergyman, and a man of your age, compe-
tent to form an independent judgment, refuse to
allow it to be done ?

Mr. Hatch—l thought the child was accustomed
to it, and she did.not think any harm of it.
Serjeant Shee—But if you yourself thought it
was wrong, why did you allow it ?
Mr. Hatch-1 did not think there was any ab-
solute harm in it.

Cross-examination continued—Most likely he
kissed the child when she first got into the bed. He
would swear positively that he never went into
Stephanie Plummer's bedroom with nothing but his
night-shirt on. Witness had always been on affec-
tionate terms with his wife, and he considered that
he could safely depend on her judgment in any mat-
ter of delicacy connected
.with her own sex. They
were married, at Sydney, in August, 1845. He
never told her the details of this charge until the
day he surrendered'himself, the 12th of November.
He had previously shown her the letter the Bishop
of Winchester wrote to him upon. the subject, and
in which he requested that an investigation should
take place into the affair by the visiting magistrates.
He handed this letter immediately to his wife. This
letter was received on the 3d of October. On the
Bth of October witness saw a copy of the letter that
had been written to the Bishop of Winchester by
Mr. Plummer, complaining of his conduct to I
daughters, and thus became aware of the precise
nature of the charges that were made against him,

He did not show this letter to his wife, and his rea-
son for this principally was, that his child Lucy's
name was' mentioned in it, and that his wife

•
might get into conversation with her about it.

He did- not mention the matter to his brother
chaplain at the gaol, but he wished now that he
had done so. He, of course, felt that he wanted

advice, and he was on intimate terms with a great
many clergymen in the neighbourhood, but
still he did not mention the matter to any
of them. He resigned his appointment at the gaol,
which was all he had to depend upon in the world
rather than have the matter investigated by the visit-
ing magistrates. His reason for this was that Mr.

On-slow, the governor of the gaol, told him that
whatever might be the result of the inquiry, it
would be impossible for him to retain his position
with any comfort. He now. believed that it would
have been much the better course for him to have

met the charge and refuted it by the evidence of
the witnesses, who he knew he was in a position to
produce. He did not even mention the matter to
his own solicitor, and his reason was, that he thought
the whole thing would be hushed up. He saw, now
that it was too late, that he had not adopted the
most prudent course.
Sergeant Shee—Will you explain how you could
come to the conclusion that the matter would be

hushed up and no one know anything about it,
when you must have been aware that you would
have to leave Wandsworth and break up your estab-
lishment, and would be bound to give some explana-
tion of the reasons for this proceeding
Mr. Hatch—l did think so, and I can give no
other explanation. _

Cross-examination continued—When he left
Wandsworth he went to Poplar, but his wife did
not know where he had gone to. He was aware

that his wife had written- a letter to Mr. Plummer
before he surrendered, and he also knew that a war-
rant had been issued for his apprehension upon this,
charge. He believed that in his wife's letter she
implored Mr. Plummer to forgive him, and stated
that he was already utterly ruined by the proceed-
ings that had taken place. (The letter was put in. It
was to the effect that Mr. Ha.tch'had left his home
distracted—that he had given up his appointment,
and that they were completely destitute, and im-
plored Mrs. Plummer, for God's sake, to forgive him,
and not carry matters any further.) While he was
at Poplar and aware that a warrant had been issued
against him, he took no steps to obtain advice, but
his mind was very much distracted at this time, and
he did a great many foolish things. When he was
taken into custody he inquired of the officer what
the punishment was for such an offence. Mr. Pratt,
the solicitor to Mr. Plummer, offered to abandon the
charge if he would admit that it was true and ex-
press his regret, and he refused to do so. He never
made use of the expression, " I am mad," or " I was
mad."

Re-examined—He refused to admit the truth of
the charge, and told Mr. Pratt so distinctly, and
that he had determined to meet the charge. He
was quite stupified at the charge that was made
against him, and did not mention the matter at the
time to any one except Mr. Onslow, the governor
of the gaol, with whom he was on very intimate
terms. _ _

Mrs. Essig Hatch said—l am the wife of the
Rev. Mr. Hatch, the prosecutor of this indictment.
I am 35 years of age, and was married to him iu
Sydney, in 1845, and we stayed there about a year
afterwards, and then went to Walton-on-Thames,
of which parish my husband's father was vicar. I
remember Mrs. Plummer coming to our house on
the 11th of August, with her husband and Eugenie
Plummer, the defendant. (The witness then gave a
detail of what occurred subsequent to the departure
of Mr. and Mrs. Plummer on the evening of the 11th
of August, to the same effect as her husband.)
When the cab had.started I went into the drawing-
room and stood at the window. My mother, the
governess, and the two French ladies were also there.
I never lost sight of my husband or the two children
Eugenie and Lucy until they came into the house.
They were not in the garden more than two or three
minutes—a very short time. My mother called out
to Mr. Hatch that she was waiting, and he and
the two children came in immediately. If any pro-
ceeding such as that spoken to by the child Eugenie
had taken place I must have seen it; it could not
have happened without my doing so. I remember
my husband being up-stairs with the two children
on the 18th of August. A gentleman named
Coghlan went up to fetch them, and they came
down immediately. (The witness then contradicted
the defendant in some other particulars.) It was
impossible for my husband to have gone to
Eugenie's bedroom any evening during the fort-
night she was at our house without my noticing his
absence. It was at the request of Mrs. Plummer
that Eugenie was permitted to come into our bed
to be " petted," but it was greatly against the wish
of my husband. She was never allowed to come
actually inside the bed, but only under the coun-
terpane. Lucy used to come into the bed also, and
Mr. Hatch used to make them say the first and last
letter of any articles in the room that he mentioned.
She never exhibited the slightest symptom of fear
or distress upon any occasion when she was taken
into the bed. I remember Mrs. Plummer coming
to the house on the 25th of August, and she had
plenty of opportunities on that day of being alone
with her daughter. Upon this day Mrs. Plummer'
said that Eugenie was betrothed to their own
medical man, and the child said, " Yes, and when
I am seventeen I intend to marry him." Stephanie,
the younger child, was left with us on this night,
and when Mrs. Plummer left she did so on
the most friendly terms. It was impossible
for Mr. Hatch to have committed any act of inde-
cency in our bedroom with the child without my
seeing it. Mrs. Plummer came again on the 26th,
and said that she thought the thunder-storm of the
previous night was a judgment upon her for sepa-
rating herself from her children, and she had re-
solved to take them away. Before she went away
she kissed me, and appeared to be very friendly.
During the whole time Eugenic Plummer was in
out house I never saw the slightest act of impro-
priety on the part of my husband towards her. My
husband handed me the letter he received from the
bishop, but I did not read it, and I was not aware
of the pa.rticulars of the charge against him, until
he surrendered himself. On the 28th of October I
wrote the letter that has been referred to, to Mrs.
Plummer. My husband did not know that I was
going to write to her, and ho did not know the terms
of it. I remember ill.. Pratt, the solicitor, coming
to visit me at Wandsworth. He said that he wished
to speak to me alone, and after some conversation it
was arranged that my husband should surrender at
Ridler's Hotel, Holborn.
Cross-examined—The little girl Lucy bad been*a
member of our family two or three years at the
time the Plummers came. We were very fond of
that child, and were very kind to it. Eugenie Plum-
mer was treated equally kindly, and nothing was
denied to her that was reasonable for a child. I did
certainly stop her beer. (A laugh.) Her mother
wished her to have beer, but I considered it was not
proper for her. I generally used to get up first and
dress Lucy, and during that tithe my husband re-
mained in bed, and the child Eugenie with him, but
I do not think she was ever there longer than three
or four minutes. I never saw my husband kiss
Eugenie while she was in bed with him. My atten-
tion was not called to the circumstance until nearly
three months afterwards, and yet I can remember
that during the fortnight Eugenie Plummer was in
our house, my husband did not leave the room any
evening for so long a period as ten minutes. lam
sure he was never absent more than two or three
minutes. I will swear he was never absent for so
long a period as ten minutes. I believe that I enjoyed
my husband's entire confidence, and he never kept
anything secret from me, and always consulted me
in everything affecting his interest, except in re-
ference to this transaction. When my husband re-
ceived the . bishop's letter he appeared very much
distressed, and was about to put it into his pocket,
but I-insisted upon seeing it, and he gave it me. I
only glanced it over, but I saw that it referred to
some charge of indecent assault upon the Plummers
by my husband.
Mrs. Hatch gave her evidence with very great
calmness and self-possession, although she was
evidently deeply affected at the unhappy position
of herself and her husband. At the close of her
examination the case was adjourned, the father of
the defendant renewing the recognisance he had
entered into in the sum of £5OO for her appearance
on the following morning.

[ADVERTISEMENT.]—A most interesting recovery from
a vast complication of diseases, such as indigestion (dys-
pepsia), flatulence, constipation, nervous, bilious and liver
complaints, cough, asthma, consumption and debility,
without the aid of medicine, yDu Barry's delicious Reva-
lenta Arabica Food, is recorded in the following letter :
Cure 52,422. " Bridgehouse, Frimley,. 3d April, 1851.
Thirty-three years diseased lungs, spitting of blood, liver
derangement, deafness, singing in the ,ears, constipation,
debility, shortness of breath, and cough, have been re-
moved by your Revalenta Arabica. My lungs, liver, sto-
mach, head and ears are all right, my hearing perfect, and
my recovery is a marvel to all my acquaintances.—JAMES
ROBERTS, timber merchant!' Cure No. 4,208. " Eight
years dyspepsia, nervousness, debility, with cramps and
nausea, have been effectually cured by Du Barry's health-
restoring food. I shall be happy to answer any inquiries.
—Rev. JOHN W. FLAWELL, Ridlington Rectory, Nor-
folk." Cure No. 3,906. "Thirteen years cough, indigos-
tion, and general debility have been removed by Du Barry's
excellent food.—JAMES PORTER, Athol-street, Perth."
En tins, at Is. 6d. ; llb., 3s. ; 21b., ss. 9d. ; 51b., 125.; 121 b.,
265. The 101 b. and 121 b. tins carriage free, on receipt of post-
office order. Du Barry and Co., 77, Regent-street, London;
Fortnum, Mason, and Co., 'lB2, Piccadilly; Abbis,
Graceehurch-street ; 4, Cheapside ; 63, and 150, Oxford-
street ; 330 and 451, Strand • 49 and 60, Bishopsgate-
street ; 85, Tottenham-court-road. Also at Dublin,
Bewley and Draper ; at Edinburgh, Refines and Cc.,
at Liverpool, Nixon and Thew; at Mancehester, Sharp an.
Scott; at York, Raimes, Blanchard, and„Co,.; arSouth
smpton, Randal laid Sou