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

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

SSELL AND EARL GREY.

The following correspondence has just been made
public :

" Calton House-terrace, May 5, 1860.

" Dear 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 It 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.

"' 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 un this
subject arose from the fact, which is 1 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
been 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 and 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 tobe 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 years ago, if I
remember rightly, various motions were made 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 particx-
larlv 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 he could take this line in combating
those propositions, which he 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 time 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 ? 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 me 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 to 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 was 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 undoubtedly it was not my intention
to do so.

" I shall this evening in the House of Lords ex-
plain in what respect my statement of the other
night has been misunderstood, and that you have
informed me that your contradiction was not meant
to apply to it when so explained.—l am, &c.,
(Signed) " GREY.
" The Lord John Russell."

"Foreign Office, May 8, 1860.
" Dear Lord Grey,—A.ll that I need say upon
your last letter is that I shall think it necessary to
publish our correspondence.—l remain, &c.,

(Signed)
" The Earl Grey."

" J. RUSSELL.

" Carlton House-terrace, May 8.
" Dear Lord John,—l 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 Russell."

" GREY.

2HE 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 to
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 sham. 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
who did all the good ; the dandies did nothing, or
nothing but harm. Little Pedlington 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 workmen 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 art 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 Arabian Nights, crept back into his tin
kettle again ? Why is it that the great
monarch after embroidering his blacksmith's
apron has gone back to the anvil ? What can
Richard Cabden 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. He sot 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 ? 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 ? If the apostle of free trade has dome 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 arc 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 bad 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. He
was then rich in gifts. Yet, even with all his wealth,
his wine duties, his free coals, and his custom for
Paris knicknacks, 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
stuck 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 Moniteur
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 gone 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 i
faintly
hope that his 30 per cent. may shrink again toits
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 hdd 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.--Times

THE CASE OF THE BEV. IIR. HATCTI

(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 Eugenio, 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 Shee—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 deper dent upon his appointment.
During the fortnight Eugenie Plummer was at his
house he was very kind to her, and she appeared to
be fond of him, and generally asan 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
Eugenie 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. Hb had a
distinct recollection thwt hiR mother was at the
drawing-room window when the children yv v..
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.
Hatch 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 I
right.

Serjeant Slice—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—l 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 pf November.
Relied 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 immediatelyto 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 hie
daughters, and thus became aware of the precise
nature of the charges that were made against Wins

He did not show this letter to his wife, and his rea-
son for this principally was, that his child Lucy is
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.
Onslow, 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 ho 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 lie 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. Hatch 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, th© governor
of the gaol, with whom he was on very intimate
terms.

Mrs. Essie 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 in
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 eveningpf 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, andthe 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 husbantl 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
Eugenic'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 Eugenie Plummer was in
our 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 particulars 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 he did not know the terms
of it. I remember Mr. 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 had 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 beor. (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 time 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
mtu ut,.. r -.411 swear he was never absent for so
long a period as ten minutes. tk.st T
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, by Du Barry's delicious Reve-
ls's:de Arabica Food, is recorded in the following letter :
Cure 52,422. " Bridgehouse, Frimley, 3d April, 1854.
Thirty-three years diseased lungs, spitting of blood, livor
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 arc all right, my hearing perfect, and
my recovery is a marvel to all my acquaintances.—JAMES
ROBERTI, 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, Ridlmgton Rectory, Nor-
, folk." Cure No. 3,906. "Thirteen years cough, indiges-
tion, and general debility have been removed by Du Barry's
excellent food.—JAMES PORTER, Athol-street, Perth."
In tins, at ls. 6d. ; 11b., 3s. ; 21b., 6s. 9d. ; 51b., 125.; 121 b.,
265. The 101 b. and 121 b. tins carriage free, on receipt of post-
lice order. Du Barry and Co., 77, Regent-street, London;
Fortnum, Mason, and Co., 182, Piccadilly; Abbis, 60,
Gracechurch-street ; 4, Cheapside ; 63, and 150, Oxford-
streot ; 330 and 451, Strand ; 49 and 60, Bishopso•ate-
street ; 85, Tottenham-court-road. Also at Dublin,
Bewley and Draper ; at Edinburgh, Raimes and Cc.
at Liverpool, Nixon and Thew ; at Manchester, Sharp an:
Scott; at York, Raimes, Blanchard, ankCio.:; at;Soutk
guiptonf Randal )and Sou

SUPPLY OF GAS TO THE METRO-
POLIS.

The committee appointed by the House of Com-
mons to report upon a bill now before Parliament
on the supply of gas to the metropolis met on
Tuesday, when the following members were pre-
sent :—The Right lion. T. S. Estcourt, chairman ;
Mr. Pack; Mr. J. A. Turner, Lord It. Cecil, Sir J
V. Shelley, and Mr. North.
Mr. Denison, Q.C., who appeared on behalf of
the promoters of the bill, opened the ease. He said
there were about twenty-two companies, large and
small, who now supplied the various districts of the
metropolis with gas. The first company was
started in 1811, when many persons doubted if the
speculation would pay at all ; but at this moment
there was very nearly £2,000,000 a year paid for
gas, and not very far short of 1,000,000 tons of coals
were used in its manufacture. Ile should be very
glad if he could lay before the committee a state-
ment of the accounts of those companies, as had
been done in the case of the water companies, but
that ne was at present unable to do. Last year,
when a committee sat on this subject, there was n
formal order—not of the committee merely—
bat of the House of Commons, for the production
of certain papers, returns, and accounts of the
several gas companies for the last five years; but no
return had been made in answer. to that order. no
did not know whether the gas companies had set
that order at defiance, but they had certainly paid
no attention to it. Possibly, as a dissolution was at
hand at the time, they looked upon it as a dropped
order, but the fact was that no return had been
made. Now he said they ought to have those re-
turns before them, and he had to ask the committee
to call upon the gas companies to supply those re-
turns. The promoters of the present bill considered
that the various gas companies should not have the
power of cutting off the ;;as in one street because
one pier man was ls. Bd. in arrear of his bill, or in
another, of restricting the illuminating power of the
gas, or of fixing the price of gas at 4s. the thousand
cubic feet in one district, in others charging 65., 7s.
and 55., while in some districts there was no limit
at all. One of the objects of the present bill was to
enforce uniformity of price, giving the companies a
fair profit for the money they had laid out, and at
the same time a security to the public for fair value
for what they paid. In the early days of gas there
was no limitation, but by degrees, as.thc making of
gas was found to be profitable, several companies
started in combination with each other : first, in
1850, the London, Equitable, and Chartered; next,
in 1853, the Phoenix, London, and South Metropoli-
tan, and, conjointly with them, the Surrey, as a
consuming branch. From this period the price of
gas began to rise from 4s. to 4s. 6d. the thousand
cubic feet. Under the present system there was even
a difficulty in getting contracts for the public
lamps, an instance of which had occurred in Chelsea.
In June, 1858, the Chelsea vestry tested the public
lamps, when they found they were overcharged in
one year £9OO over what they contracted for, but
when the matter was brought before the Court of
Common Pleas, the verdict was against the vestry,
on the ground that they could not prove that the
whole quantity of gas contracted for had not -been
supplied, which it was manifestly impossible they
could do unless they',had a person to test the lamps
every hour of the night. On the 19th N0v.,1857, the
first meeting of delegates of the metropolitan pa-
rishes took•place to have an alteration in the system.
The first thing they did was to petition Parliament,
complaining of the monopoly of the gas companies,
and stating that the consumers were at the mercy
of the gas companies as to the price, quantity, and
quality of the gas supplied. The petition set forth
that no less than 7,728,000 cubic feet of gas were
consumed in one year in the metropolis, produced
by 840,000 tons of coal. The value of that gas,
calculated at 4s. 6d. the thousand cubic feet, was
£1,738,000, as estimated by engineers ; but the
actual sum paid by the consumers of the metropolis
amounted to about £2,000,000. Shortly after the
Easter recess of 1858 a Parliamentary committee
was nominated, consisting of five members, to re-
present the gas interest, five to represent the
parishes, and five independent members. That
committee did take a good deal of of evidence, but
were not able to make a report to the house. In
the course of last session, however, a bill was pre-
sented to the house very similar to the one now
before the committee. Nothing, however, took
place in the matter, except that that bill afforded a
basis of negotiation between the parties, and it was
agreed between Mr. Wyatt, who acted for the peti-
tioners, and Mr. Baxter, who was agent for the
opponents of the bill, that there should be no oppo-
sition on the standing orders, or on the second
reading of the bill, but both parties were to be at
liberty to take what steps they pleased as to ques-
tions that had not been agreed upon. After some
further remarks, counsel concluded by asking the
committee to enforce the order for the production
of the returns of accounts, &c., by the various gas
companies.
The room was cleared, and when the public were
re-admitted,

The Chairman said the committee were of opinion
that the information required in the returns ought
to be produced. The committee would make no
order at that moment, but trusted the former order
would be complied with.
The committee then adjourned till this day.

COUNTRY MARKETS.

NEWARK-MAY 9.

The show of wheat from the farmers to-day was fair, and
a moderate business was transacted at rather lower prices.
Barley in short supply, but steady. Peas firm, at 45s to
5.1 s per qr.
White wheat, new, 58s to 61s Barley, grinding.. 30s to 32s
Red do. s2s to 558 Oats, old, .. 2Bs to 32s
Old white sBs to 61s New do 26s to 29s
Red do. s2s to I
55s Beans.. 45s to 48s
Barley, malting 40s to 46s Beans, new —s to —s

LYNN—MAY 8.
The supply of wheat was limited, and there was a fair
attendance of farmers and factors. Di/We ruled at last
last week's rates.

Old white 50s to 56s I Old red 47s to 52s
New white.. 48s to 54s I New red.... 48s to 52s

HULL-MAY 8.

There was very little doing in wheat to-day, and prices
underwent no change. Oats in demand. Peas scarce, and
in good inquiry. Barley active. A thin attendance.
,Wheat.... Old white.... per qr s6s Od to 58s Od
Old red
New white .. „
New red . „
Dantzic, Konb , &c. old white 46s Od to 50s Od
Dutch, Belgian, and French 46s Od to 56s Od
Baltic and Hamburg, red
St. Petersburg and Riga, old 39s Od to 44s Od
Barley.... English malting 4os Od to 44s Od
Grinding 3ls Od to 34s Od
Saal and Oderbruck
Holstein and Danish 34s Od to 35s Od
Grinding
0at5...... English, old
Archangel and Riga, per at Os 10Id to lld
Friesland and Dutch Oslld to 08111 d
Swedish and Danish Oslld to Osllid
Beans ....English, old, per qr. .. 46s Od to 48s Od
New pigeon 4os Od to 42s Od
New tick. 42s Od to 44s Od
Egyptian .. 37s Od to 382 Od
Peas Foreign breakers
Grinding
Tares ....Winter —s Od to —s Od
Indian Corn
Linseed, feeding sos Od to 52s Od
crushing
Linseed cakes (Hull) £lo 10 0 to £lO 15 0
Foreign 715 oto 8 5 0
415 oto 5 0 0
415 oto 5 5 0

Rape cakes
Bones

NEWCASTLE-UNDER LYNE—MAY 8.
131 OW acat barely last day's rates. Flour
difficult to sell, but steady. Barley in small supply, and
prices varied from 30s to 45s per qr. Oats quiet, but held
at full rates. Beans 44s to 50s per 38 stone.

BRISTOL SUGAR—MAY 9.
Our market has been completely bare of samples till to-
day, when about 300 hhds. of Barbadoes just landed were
brought forward and mostly sold at fully previous rates.
Nothing doing in rum.