The Sun.
London, England, 1832-12-24 00:00:00

LONDON, MONDAY EVENING. DECEMBER 24, 183.

DREADFUL CALAMITY.

The Shetland Islands have been visited with an
.wful dispensation of Providence. The fishermen
while engaged in • their usual occupation, at a great lis-
t ince from land, were suddenly overtaken by a huri-
(-one of unprecedented violence, even in that tern-
destucus region. Some were fortunate enough to gain the
shore ; others were picked up at sea by passing vessels ;
many were doomed to a watery grave. Nineteen boats
sunk under the fury of the elements, and of 114 men who
composed the crews, and who had left their homes full of
hope and joy, only three returned to tell the tale of their
disaster. So completely has the male population been
swept from some of the villages, that the women have been
compelled to take the places of their deceased husbands at
the oar, in order to earn the means of subsistence for
their starving children.
But to.edescribe the distress occasioned by this frightful
loss of life would be a needless task. When the simple
fact is stated, that these ill-fared mariners have left nearly
80 widows, and several hundred children, exposed to all
the evils of extreme poverty, aggravated by the rigours of
a northern winter, the details of the picture of wretched-
neSs will readily preSent themselves to the most unreflect-
ing mind.
To afford anything like adequate assistance to so many
sufferers is far beyond the very limited means of the commu-
nity to which they belong. An appeal is therefore made
in their behalf to the generosity of their fellow subjects,
whose lot is cast under a milder sky, and whom a bounti-
ful Providence has blest with the comforts of life, in the
hope that out of their abundance they will spare a mite
towards the relief of those desolate families who have now
no support but that which they may derive from the cha-
rity of the benevolent.
Subscriptions will be received at the Banking-houses of
Sir Claude Scott and Co., 1, Cavendish-square ; Messrs.
Coutts and Co ; Messrs. Drumrnonds, 48, Charing-cross ;
Messrs. Ladbrokes and Co., Bank Buildings, Corolla) ;
Messrs. Barclay and Co. 54, Lombard-street; and Messrs.
Hankey and Co. 7, Fenehth ch-street ; also by the Commit-
tee fur furthering the Subscription, viz., Jas. Copland, M.D.,
Bulstrode-street, Cavendish-square; Arthur Anderson,
Esq., 46, Lime-street, City; Francis Yates, Esq., 21,
Mincing-lane; Rev. Dr. Barclay, Grove-hall, Bow ; John
Robertson, Esq., Limehouse; Captain William Barclay,
Stepney ; Captain James Barclay, Jamaica Coffee-house ;
John Ross, Esq., Popham-terrace, Islington; Theodore
Gordon, M.D., Duchess-street, Portland. place; Robert
Linklater, Esq., High-street, Wapping; Gilbert Hender-
son, Esq., of Lincoln's Inn ; John Henderson, Esq., of
the Inner Temple ; and H. G. Gordon, Esq., 22, Minc-
ing-lane.
All Subscriptions will be duly advertised, and a detailed
report of the distribution of the funds laid before the sub-
scribers.

Amount already adverb
At Lloyd's.
Grant from the Subscri-

iced £1,445 17s.

H. 11. H. the Duchess of

Kent.

IThe Executor of the late
Col. Fred. Sackville 10 0
The Right Hon. Sir H
W. W. Wynn lO 0
Col. Alston
Catherine
Gen. Birch Heynardson— 2 0
James Alston, Esq 1 I
Miss Alston

bers' Fund £lO5 0
Alderman Thompson.— 5 0
L. J. Marshal, Esq ... ...... 1 I
Robarts, Curtis, and Co. 5 0
A. Smith, Faq
J. Smith, Esq
F. Huth, Esq.
J. A. Droop, Esq 1 1
F J...
T. Baring, EN 5 0
W. Matthesson, Esq
W. Bardgett, Esq 1 1
G. Lyall, Esq 5 0
W. Clay, Esq 5 0
T. °Everson, Esq
Messrs. Briggs,Thurburn,
and Co 5 0
Mrs. Baron, Brompton
square 2 2
Four Ladies
Mr. Guppy, Bristol 1 I
Messrs. A. A. Gower,
Nephews, and Co 5 0
S. Cock, Esq 2 1,
David Carruthers, Esq 2 2
.1. Gdliatt, Esq 1 1
R. A. Gray, Esq 2 2
J. Buck, Esq 1 1
H. W.
W. Bticlianan, Esq 1 1
J. Drinkald, Esq 1 1
R. Davies, Faq 5 0
G. Pearce, Esq
J. Hobson, Esq 5 0
J. L. L 1 1
R. Pulsford, Esq 5 0
Messrs. John Chapman
and Co 3 3
G. A. Davis, Esq 2 2
J. C. Powell, Esq '2 0
Parkin, Brown, and Co 1 I
H. H. Mortimer, Esq ,
Tooting
In the honour of Bremin 1 0
J. G. Le Maistre, Esq 2 0
Captain A. J. Griffiths
G. G.
Anonymous . 2
Rev. Dr. Fletcher
Wm. Colton, Esq.
T. Thornthwaite, Esq 1 0
John Inglis, Esq 1 0
Mr. Crane 1 0
Dr. Cummings 0 10
Captain Wilkinson ......
Captain Bell 0 10
Captain Edgar I I
A Friend, by Mr. Dewar 1 0
A St. James's Annoyance
Jury, per Mr. Bash gate 18s. 6d.
T. R. Wilkinson, Esq 1 1
Mr. Measam 1 0
Captain Davis
Miss Barber, Dulwich
John Nutting, Esq., do„ 1 1
Captain Lawton
W. Macculloch, Esq 2 0
Small, Colquhoun, and
Co., per J. Bonar, Esq. 10 0
J. Douglas, Esq., Temple 1 0
P. C 0 7
Henry and Gibbon 0 10
Mrs. Pye Smith
J. j .... 1 1
Mr. J. Phelps
A Fee 1 1
J. L. Baker, Esq 1 1
L. S. Baxendale, Esq
Hugh M'lntosh, Esq 5 0
H. 0., per the Times
Journal
Mrs. S. Evans
W. R. Keen, Esq. ......
.
Henry Miller, Esq 5 0
J. H. 0.
A Widow's Mite, whose
only son perished by a
similar calamity
T. J. Richards
W. Knatchbull, Esq. 5 5
J. G 1 0
Mr. De Hague 1 I
Juvenis
Rev. Henry Pole 1 0
George J. Gibson, Esq.
T. Tidmas, Esq 1 I
Miss Sophia Riviugton
D. N. Lister, Esq 5 0
Messrs. W. and It. H
Makepeace I 1
H. Lee, Esq., Lewisham 9. 2
Thomas Smith, Esq 9. I!
Mr. Watt
Mrs. Charington
Miss Charington
Mrs. Wilson 0 10
Mr. Frank 0 10
Mrs. Dryden 10s.fid.
Mr. Hewitt
Mr. Osborn
Mr. Whitesides
Miss llickinbotham 0 5
Mrs. Dowler 0 5
Mrs. Price 0 5
Collected by a Friend 0 15
H. C I 0
I 0
Lieut.-Col. Rolt
Mrs. Roll
Master H. T. (3.11011 1 o
C. T. Holcombe
Rev. William Bishop 5 0
M. H. E. and Friends
Colonel Pennington
William Baldwin, Esq 1 0
Thomas Oliver, E5q....... 1 0
Miss Saltonstall 2 0
One of their Countrymen 8 0
Mrs. Pedley
A little Boy 2s. 6d,
Andrew Taylor, Esq . 2
R. A. I) 1 I
Dr. Haggard 1 1
Messrs. J. and G. Slorrice 2 2
Messrs. W. Martin S Sons 1 0
M. 8., Islington
Mr. Thos. Conway, jun— 1 I
Jas. Attfield, Esq.
J. B 2 t;
Rev. W. Sheepshanks
Mrs. Davison 0 ito
7,y OlO
W. Fuller, Esq 5 0,
The Committee beg to convey to those who feel au in-
terest in di,. objects of the foregoing adverti,ement the
gratifying intelligence, that five of the 111 men supposed
to have perished in the gale, have been unexpectedly and
most providentially restored to their families, long after
every hope of their safety had been extinguished. They
were picked up in the North Sea by a vessel bound to
Philadelphia, and have returned to Shetland from that
port.

C. Blackburn, Esq 1 0
Captain Edward Pelham
Brenton, R. N 1 1
A.l) JO 0

Mr. John Martin 1 1
Mrs. Hay
F. R. S., per E. Yates 1 0
Charles White, Esq 1 1
Messrs. Scott, Reynolds,
and Co , 1 1
Capt. Andrew Duncan 1 1
Messrs. Urquhart and
Scrutton o o
Messrs. Paton and Charles 5 5
Hartshorne, Esq 1 0
Subscriptions at Lynn.
E. Everard, Esq., Mayor 1 0
Mrs. Everard.
St. A. St. John, Esq 1 0
'aTv9l-ku Indies 1 0
George Hogge, Esq. 1 0
J.
P. Blencowe, Esq.
1 0
- -

Ev_eran:l,Esq._. 1 0

J. Dillingham, Esq 1 0
John English, Esq 1 0
Thomas Hoseason, Esq lO 0
Rev. F. W. Goldfrap 1 0
A. and J. Bowker. ') 0
Charles B. Plestowe, Esq 1 0
Frederick Lane, Esq 1 0
A Lady 1 0
W. and T. Bagge, Esq 2 0
• Daniel Gurney, Esq 1 0
Francis Creswell, Esq 1 0
Mrs. Bowker 1 0

Wm. Everard, Esq 1 0
It. Whincop, Esq.
Rev. 'l'. E. Hankinson
Subscriptions under 10s 2 6
H. Baker and Co.
13. 'l'.

J. Aitken, Esq
1 0
Mrs. and Miss Gibbons 1 0
S. Sullivan, Esq.
Mrs. J. Campbell 0 10
E. Everard, Esq.
J. T. Stewart, Esq.

Miss Mary Winteibottom 1 0
A Lady 1 0
D 1 0
Mrs. Gaskell 1 0
I Miss Gaskell 1 0
Miss M. Gaskell
J. Barclay, Esq.
H. Cheane, Esq.
J:Djc‘‘,.v.v.... I
.C.A.3ift,tir.A.l.iaicllll
ok,ilb,
iuealea,rlt,ris,,b,,,q,l
boe::
:n.,EEsqsq. 1 0
1 0
G. Powell, Esq 1 0
1 0
Thos. Fowles, Esq 1 0
J. Shearer, I.lq.
1 0
1 0
1 0
'rnli,sqEsq.
1 0
\V. Lamplough, Esq 0 10
G. Stodart, Esq.
N. N. F 1 0
G. S 0 10
Campbell and Fairbairn 1 0
William Slack, Esq.
Mrs. Guthrie
Dr. Ferguson
Major Warburton
J. D 0 5
A Lady 5 0
E. P.
J. R. Baker, Esq 1 0
I'. C. E.
Lewis Hoy Petit, Esq 5 0
A. 3facklew 5 0
C. C. Martyr, Esq 2 0
Lady Davy
lion. General Bligh
E C. R. 1 0
S. T 0 5
Mr. Mudie 2 0
Mr. Whately
2 0
Mr. C. J. Wright los. 6d.
Hammond, Esq. ....... 3 0
Sir Graham Hammond ... 1 0
Mi,s E. F. Laney
Charles Jones, Esq. .... 1 0
William Halms, Esq. ••••• 0
E. J., of Cheltenham 4 0
E. M.. of ditto
Mr. and Mrs. Hukling
The young Men in Mr
Hukling's House ... I9s 6(1.
George NV igg, Esq. .• 2 2
E. S. -1
F. E.
E. J. Pearson, Esq.
H.L. S. ........................ I 0
James Morgan, Esq.
Per Sir It Harming, a
Collection in the parish
of Rain, Cornwall ... Si. Os. 6d.
Henry Hallam, Esq. 5 0
Mrs. Eynmore ... ............ 1 1
Cantabrigiensis . 1 0
Peter Emans, E5q.......... 1 0
Collected at the House of
ditto, Edinburgh-Castle
Tavern, Strand..: 111. 10s. 6d.
John Soane, Esq 2l 0
Captain Joseph Green
Rev. It. B. Bourne 2 2
Maryof Peckham ......
Mrs. Charles A. Bredel 5 0
A. 11. Hamilton, Esq
Retreat, Exeter
IV. Mercer, Esq
Captain Roberts
Captain M'Cullum .
Mr. W. Hamilton
Captain Matthewso 10
J. Goldie, Esq.
James Barclay, Esq 2 2
,Robert Barclay, Esq 2 2

JAMES COPLAND, M.D., Chairman.
A, ANDERSON, Honorary Secretary and Treasurer,

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, DEC 2?.

BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE,
MARGARET WILLES N. THE REV. FRED. GELDART.

Mr. J.' 1-I.':Smirn opened the pleadings. This was an action
for breach of promise of marriage, to which the defend-
ant had pleaded the general issue.

Before the case4roceeded further, the CIIIEF JUSTICE asked
whether an arrangement could not take place between the
parties ?

The damages, it was stated, were laid at 20,000/.
The Counsel on both sides consulted together for some time,
and finally, _ _

Mr. Sergeant Wirt.ne proceeded to state the case. This was
an action in which the plaintiff, a widow lady of the highest re-
spectability, sought to recover from the defendant, a clergyman
of the Established Church, some compensation—as far as money
could be a compensation—for the breach of a promise of
a most delicate and solemn kind which he had made her. The
defendant was above fifty years of age, and the plaintiff above
forty. She had formerly been the wife of a person carrying on
an extensive business as a distiller, but who afterwards fell into
difficulties, When embarrassments came upon him, the plain-
tiff, who had then four or five children living, was desirous of
doing something to contribute to her own maintenance, and
with this object she applied to her friends to put her in the
way of enablii:g her to assist in the support of her children. '

The defendant-was then a widower, and required the assist-
ance of some one in the management of his family. It was
intimateLl to her that she might at least support herself
and assist towards the maintenance of her children if she
became a part of his establishment. She sought the advice
and opinion of her friends as to the propriety of her adopt_
ing this step. Those friends were persons of the first respec-
_ _ _

tability, many of them ladies of rank, and from all, on account
of the age and character of the defendant, she received but

one opinion, namely, that she ought not to hesitate about ac_
cepting the advantage thus offered her. She accordingly went
into his family, was received and treated there with the
greatest possible respect, sat at his table as one of his family, and
was visited by his visiters. After she had resided with him in
this manner for a considerable period of time, her husband
died. After that event, which took place about the middle of
1629, she continued to reside in the defendant's family ; and it
appeared that, on account of her many amiable qualities, of
her solicitous attention to his welfare and comfort, and on ac-
count, too, of the high respect in which she was held by all who
knew her, he began to think that that welfare and that comfort
would be most effectually secured by making her his wife. That
intention he finally abandoned, and a letter would be put in in
evidence, to show at least one cause of that conduct which had
occasioned the present action. That letter was one he had
written to a friend of his, the Rev. Sir Charles Farnaby, and
which was in answer.to one from that gentleman. The answer
would give the Jury some idea of the contents of the original
letter. In the answer, which was dated on the 13th January,
1832, the defendant expressed his obligations to Sir Charles
for having informed him of the determination of the neighbour-
hood not to receive Mrs. Willes when she was his wife—it apo_
logised for not having sent an earlier answer, and said that no-
thing but agitation of mind should have prevented him from
doing so—that it was now necessary to vindicate Mrs. Willes'
character, is consequence of the statement contained in Sir
Charles's letter, and that the only way of doing so was to make her
his wife—that her amiable conduct was too well appreciated for
him to doubt that she would be well received byall who had known
her. The sentiments expressed in that letter had been expressed to
other persons in conversation, and on the `24th of the
preceding December the defendant had written a letter to Mrs.

Willes herself; at a time when the marriage had evidently
been the subject of conversation, but when it was not so posi-
tively determined on as it afterwards appeared to have been
by the letter of the 13th January. In this letter in December
the defendant told Mrs. Willes how much his spirits had been
depressed since he had parted from her. He reminded her that
she had voluntarily said she would go to France, and he
thanked her for this proof of her wish to make any sacrifice
that would add to his comfort ; he said that her disinterested
conduct should never be forgotten, and that he was willing to
settle 400/. a year on her, and to invest a sum of 2,0001. in the
Three and a Half per Cents, for the benefit of her children.
The letter avowing his intention to marry her was written
after this ; but the intended marriage was, however, finally
broken off; and the plaintiff DOW came to claim such compensa-
tion as money could aftbrd for this breach of a most solemn
contract.

Sir A. Carlisle resided in Langham-place ; in 181011 e had
been introduced to the plaintiff by the wife of Mr. Thomas
Harrison, once Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge, and afterwards
litTrraehtehtitslraM ;lieTas aiNiSMIIMM,Yis_
lived in good style, and kept company of rank ; he afterwards
fell into difficulties ; in 1830 witness had a communication with
the plaintiff on the subject of an offer then made to her by
the defendant to form part of his family ; plaintitrs husband
was then on the continent; witness saw no objection to the
plaintiff accepting the defendant's offer, as the defendant was
an elderly gentleman and a clergyman ; plaintiff afterwards
went into the defendant's family. Norton-hall was one of the
defendant's houses; defendant was a man of property; he
lived in a large house, and in a style equal to an income of
4,000/. a year ; the house he lived in was one that had been
occupied by the late Lord Chatham.
Cross-examined—The plaintiff had had a large family ; wit-
ness would not say whether 20 or 23 children ; in fact he did
not know anything about it; her husband left the country
partly on account of debt, and partly on account of some
paper transactions, which witness believed to have been
neither honourable nor honest ; witness had discontinued
his acquaintance with the husband because he was a dis.
reputable man; the gentleman who held Norton-hall as
tenant to the defendant was a Mr. Knight; witness believed
he was Mr. Knight, the late celebrated actor; witness,
however, was not sure of this, for he had never been to Nor-
ton-hall ; what he had said on that point was that which he
had learnt from the defendant ; defendant had been very kind
to Mrs. Wines—he had supported her and her family for
some years before her husband died, and since his death, up
to a very recent period ; the defendant was formerly a married
man ; the plaintiff had five children, the youngest of them
was perhaps about seven years old; in a conersation which
witness had with the defendant about the end of 1831, witness
told him that he ought to marry the plaintiff, or to settle a sum
of money on her, or to live with her as he had lived before,
and that he might do which of these three things he pleased,
as he thought proper, as a gentleman.
A letter of the 23d of May, 1831, addressed to the plaintiff
by the defendant, and requesting her not to think of going
away, put in
Knight
wasd read.
Colonel
wasexamined to show the respectability and
antiquity of the plaintiff's family.
Mr. Pennington, a medical gentleman, had attended the
plaintiff ; in December, 1631, he had called at the defendant's
house for that purpose, when the defendant told him of his (de.
fendant's; intention to marry the plaintiff; defendant said that
he had offered her an annuity of 3001. ; that was all he could
secure her on estates in Lancashire, but if she married him he
had other property which he could employ for her benefit ; that
she had refused this settlement of 3001., and that he wished
witness would use his endeavour to make her accept it.
Ann Colbridge was defendant's housekeeper ; plaintiff was
the superintendent of the defendant's establishment ; plaintiff's
conduct was perfectly free from the slightest appearance of im-
propriety.
J. Thomson, who had been for two years servant to the de-
fendant, gave similar testimony.
Mr. Flower,a jeweller, spoke as to the ordering of jewels for

the intended marriage.
Earl Poulett stated, that on one occasion he and his family
had been at the place where the defendant resided; that he
could not get accommodation for all his children, and that
Mrs. Willes received them, and kept them for two days ; he
went to thank her for her kindness, and said, that whenever
the defendant or Mrs. Willes should find themselves in the
West of England, Lady Poulett and he would be happy to see
them.

The letter of the 9.4 th December, and a copy of that of the
13th January, referred to by Mr. Sergeant Wilde, were put in
and read.

Mrs. Lyster, the wife of one of the partners in Child's
house, had known the plaintiff for thirty years before plaintiff
was married. She was married about twenty.nine years ago ;
she was a person of the greatest respectability.
A Clerk in Messrs. Child's house stated, that during the last
five years they had received on behalf of the defendant sums to
the following amount :—ln 1827, they received 11,000/. ; in
183, 6,9001. ; in 1629, 25,000/. ; in 1830, 8,800/. ; in 1831,
11,000/. ; and in 1832, 6,000/.
Mr. F. POLLOCK addressed the Jury for the defendant.
In the present instance there was not and could not be between
an old woman of nearly forty and an old man of nearly fifty,
anything oftlisappointed hopes—of early affections prematurely
blighted—to make the subject of an address to the Jury; nor
was there any imputation upon character which this action
was required to remove ; none had ever been made—the age
and the character of both parties put them above even the
suspicion of impropriety. It was because the defendant felt so,
that he had, in the first instance, as an act of generosity, received
the plaintiff into his house, and it was because all their respective
friends thought so,hat Mrs. Willes'Mlles had been recommended to
accept that asylum which his house offered her. Then why was
the promise of marriage left unfulfilled ? Because there was an
objection to receive Mrs. Willes as the defendant's wife among
the neighbouring gentry. But what was the cause of that ob-
jection ? was it the supposition of an impossible immorality ?
No such thing. It was an opinion—a prejudice, if the Jury
pleased—that the gentry could not receive as the wife of a
man, a person who had long lived in his house as a servant.
Such was the custom of society. A man might choose his
wife—he might choose her from among the class of servants—
but society said, " At least do not choose your own servant;
do not make her who has lived in your house as a servant Pre-

side in it as your wife; or at least, if you will do so, we can-
not receive her in that new character." That was theobjec-
tion to the marriage of these parties. He knew of no other
he had never intended to offer any other ; and he would gladly
have avoided the publication of this, if the offer which the de_
fendant, in his opinion, had most generously made, had not
been rejected. The plaintiff was not one of those who—
" Let concealment, like a worm i' the bud,
Feed on her damask cheek"
—she was not one who " never told her wrongs"—for here
she was to publish them, such as they were, to the whole
world, and to do so after the most handsome and liberal offers
had been made her by the defendant. The Jury had heard of
an offer of a settlement of 3001. a year on the plaintiff; that
was only one proof, among many, of his generosity towards
the plaintiff; that settlement she had refused—it was thought,
no doubt, that, having made the offer, the defendant would be
for ever bound by it, and that more might possibly be obtained
from him. The Jury would not, however, gratify that grasp-
ing disposition.

Lord Chief Justice TYNDA I. told the Jury that they were
not bound by the offer of the settlement, but might take
that, with all other circumstances, into their consideration. If
the ground on which the marriage went off was that suggested
in the answer to the letter of Sir C. Farnaby, the Jury would
say whether the value of the marriage was not diminished by
that circumstance, as a marriage that cut the plaintiff off from
society, no matter from what feeling or prejudice of society,
would, of course, have been less happy than one contracted un-
der more favourable auspices. There was not the slightest im-
putation on the character of the plaintiff, and none ever ap.
neared to have been cast upon it. The question of damages
was one peculiar for the consideration of the Jury, who would
treat it as gentlemen and men of the world.
The Jury retired for half an hour, and then returned a ver-
dict for the plaintiff—Damages, 3,000/.