The Sun.
London, England, 1859-12-21 00:00:00

ST. GEORGE'S-IN-THE-EAST.

Last night a public meeting of inhabitants of the
parish of St. George's-in-the-East was held in the
schoolroom of St. Mary, with a view to memorialise
the Queen, and to petition Parliament in reference
to the recent unhappy disturbances in the parish
church and the differences between the rector and
the parishioners. Mr. Churchwarden Thompson
acted as chairman. Some 200 people were present,
a small proportion of the inhabitants of the parish,
but the extreme inclemency of the weather may
have partly accounted forthe paucity in the attend-
ance. Mr. Smith, a parishioner, moved a resolu-
tion, prefaced by a speech, stating that " the con-
duct of the Rev. Bryan King, the rector, in his
many innovations in the forms and practices of per-
forming Divine service in the parish church, and
the unseemly decorations of the Communion table,
so as to resemble a Roman Catholic altar, contrary
to the faith aid feelings of the Protestant parish-
ioners, and calculated to lead to Romanism in its
most idolatrous form, together with litigation, and
also the introducing police into the parish church,
rendered him unworthy of their esteem or respect ;
and that the meeting pledged themselves to use
every legal means in their power to abolish those
innovations and decorations, and not to cease their
endeavours until a law be obtained to prevent any
repetition of such innovations and practices in
future." The resolution was seconded by Mr. Her-
bert
and carried with only a single dissentient. On
the motion of Mr. Neale, seconded by Mr. Hopkin-
son, it was also resolved, " That the recent attempt
to enforce an obsolete penal Act against certain
persons who were summoned by the police for pre-
ferring to say the public prayers of the Church, in-
stead of singing them, was most unbecoming and
cruel, especially when it was considered that the
said Act was passed in the reign of the Popish Queen
Mary to aid her design of burning out and
throttling English Protestantism; and that the
resorting to a law of such a nature, whioh mani-
festly retained its place in the statute-book
by an oversight, was evidence as to the antl-
national spirit of the Tractarian party." A memo-
rial to her Majesty, as the supreme head of the
United Protestant Church of England and Ireland,•
was also adopted on the motion of Mr. Toon. The
memorialists stated that they had heard with deep
concern and knew from 17 years' sad experience in
their parish church that men had received holy or-
ders in the Church who taught doctrines at vari-
ance with the Thirty-nine Articles, contrary to the
Word of God '(the source of England's greatness),
hostile to the stability and supremacy of the Throne
and the integrity of the empire, and who also used
ceremonies unsanctioned by law and hymnals con-
tainiig many Romish errors. They prayed that
her Majesty might be graciously pleased to issue a
Royal commission, with all needful authority, com-
prising
.honourable and loyal persons, free from
Tractarian principles and practices, to examine
any clergyman holding office or preferment in the
Established Church charged with promulgating
erroneous doctrines ; and should he be found guilty
of teaching any anti-Christian, or anti-Protestant,
or unscriptural doctrine, or using any Popish deco-
ration, vestments, or genuflexions, to deprive him
of his office or preferment, and to appoint another
clerk of honest Protestant Evangelical report, full
of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, to fill such vacant
office or preferment. They likewise prayed her
Majesty to command the publication of a Protestant
catechism and hymn book—sound, comprehensive,
and purely Christian in doctrine, to be read and
learnt by heart by all the children taught in the
schools of the Established Church in the kingdom,
and to make it a breach of Church discipline, sub-
jecting to a like privation any clergyman who
should introduce any other catechism or hymnal, or
neglect to have the authorised catechism and hymns
thoroughly taught to all the children in the schools
under his care and management. " Believing,"
they added, " that a commission such as they sup-
plicated her Majesty to issue would in due time
restore order, peace, and prosperity to the Estab-
lished Church, faithful worship to Clod, and loyalty
and devotedness to her Majesty, they humbly sub-
mitted their petition to the Throne, praying that
her Majesty, blessed with health, might long enjoy
a happy reign in righteousness and holiness, and
by the grace of God, continue to be the beloved and
popular monarch living and reigning in the hearts
of her faithful subjects, and a nursing mother to
the true Protestant Church." A petition to Par-
liament, which was afterwards read and adopted,
set forth in great detail the mode of conducting
Divine service in the church during the last seven-
teen years, the period of the present rector's incutn_
bency, adding that in 1843, when he entered on
the ,iving, the parish was, to use his own words,
" distinguished for its loyalty to the Sovereign and
dutiful attachment to the Church," but that in
consequence of his obstinate and overbearing con-
duct many of the parishioners had been alienated
from the Church of England, while the once nume-
rous congregation at the parish church had been
reduced to a few scores, and that in a parish of
48,000 people. The speakers dilated chiefly upon
the circumstances which had given the parish its
great notoriety of late, and expressed what they
believed to be the general wish of the petitioners to
return to a simple form of Protestant worship.
They completely carried the audience along with
them, and the resolutions and memorials were
adopted with acclamation.

COLLIERS' STRIKE IN SCOTLAND.—The greater
portion of the canters employed at the Duke of Buccleuch's
pits at Canonbie have struck work, owing to some misun-
derstanding with the superintendent. It is said that the
men intend making a personal application to the noble pro-
prietor, requestinghis Interference ; and this course is re-
commended by several influential gentlemen in the dis-
trict. It is very desirable that some arrangement should
be made without delay, as the pits afford the only supply
of coal to a wide district of country.—Scotemans

THE MO UL VIE AND THE LATE BILL

TRANSACTIONS.

Some three years ago, after Lord Dalhousie 'had -
annexed the Kingdom of Oude, London wab'
amused by a spectacle of Asiatic splendour. A
mysterious lady, who bad absorbed a fraction of
about onefive-hundredth part of the dignityof Queen
Consort of Oude, and who was covered with veils;
and mufflers enough to excite and base all the vulgar
inquisitiveness of London society, had come over to
us to win back by persuasion what the Seraglio
had been the principal cause of the King of Oude's
losing. She had bearers, and khitmutgars, and pun-
kahwallahs, and vakeels, and baboos in her suite,
and an English, or, at any rate, a British ,master of
the ceremonies, to keep her steps straight and her
dignity untarnished in this foggy and smoky clime.
It was whispered, also, by the few favourite lion-
hunters whose modest ambition was gratified by the
exhibition of the Princess at some suburban
soiree, and by the multitude who were attracted
by Royal progresses which outshone Mr. William
Cooke's entrance at the head of his piebalds into a
provincial town, that this veiled lady was the pos-
sessor and distributor of unbounded wealth. She
lolled in her carriage among bags of gold mohuns,
which flew playfully about at her command, and
alighted in the waistcoat pockets which she desig•
nated. Diamond necalaces wriggled off like pet
snakes at her command, and snapped themselves
round the neck of the wife or daughter of some in-
fluential senator. Pearl-drops were tossed about
by her like jujubes, and she had shawls enough to
fill up the Valley of Cashmere. She was come—
the Nemesis of India—to buy us up wholesale, to
seduce our whole House of Commons, to obtain
the impeachment of Lord Dalhousie, and the
triumphant restoration of the King of Oude
and the King of Oude's Zenana in all their
old prerogatives of killing and plundering. We
do not say that this was so, but this was the
view of the matter taken by many grave and com-
municative persons who always see further into
futurity tlian any one else. There was a great deal
of mystery and a great deal of scandal, and prosaic
people who do not believe in Oriental romance were
cried down when they ventured to laugh at the
whole thing,•and to predict that it would end in
these impudent Mussulmans being fleeced to the
flesh.

The doings of this cunning Embassy are now re-
vealed. The Moulvie Mohammed Nuseer Ooddeen
Khan Bahadoor—who: upon the strength of this
long string of uncomprehended names and incon-
sistent titles, has been a godsend to many an empty
drawing-room—has come before an English Court
to complain that he has been cheated out .of a bill
of exchange for £6,500. It was a very mean
thing to complain. All his old associates
will be very much shocked to find that he
could do such a thing. It was a breach of
all tacit understanding that so small a matter
should be higgled at. But let us hear the poor
Moulvie account of the transaction. He came over
here, for what purpose we know ; and, if Mr. Roy
may be believed, he is in the habit of boasting that
he has found some persons ready to receive his ad-
vances. Somehow or other £140,000 seems to have
slipped through his fingers, and in September, 1858,
the vakeel was au sec. Now, for the father of all
" Men in the Moon" this was an unpleasant predi-
cament. But the \raked had friends. There was
Mr. Henry Chard, of Sunbury. The Moulvie there
chatted with the ladies, played with the children,
and "smoked in every room of the house." Mr.
Chard, in some transactions which Mr. Roy calls
" an old story," went by the name of Alleyne, but
probably the Moulvie knew nothing about such
matters. There was also a Mr. Roy, a solicitor of
the highest respectability, who ii a solicitor to the
London and Westminster Bank, and appears in the
Law List with stars and daggers, denoting that he
belongs to all the professional societies for putting
down discreditable practices, and for protecting
everybody against fraud. Mr. Roy was also bro-
ther.in-law to. Mr. Chard. The two brothers-in-
law were, doubtless, won by the agreeable con-
versation and delightful society of this desirable
Mahomedan, for Nuseer Ocddeen Khan was often
at Sunbury. At last Chard and the follower
of the Prophet made an alliance offensive and
defensive against the whole world. They wrote
an agreement, and sealed it with oaths, that they,
would " never cheat or deceive each other, espe-
cially in pecuniary matters." Who suggested
this extraordinary agreement we are not told,
but it seems to nave been intended to secure an
advantage to the contracting parties to which the
rest of mankind were not to be admitted. When
this was done Mr. Chard, taking a deposit of some
£5OO worth of railway debentures as a collateral
security, and five signatures in blank to five dif-
ferent pieces of stamped paper, advanced his friend
the Bahadoor £5OO. These pieces of stamped
paper, were as Nuseer Khan understood, to be filled
up for £lOO each, and then to be completed accord-
ing to the Indian custom of bills of exchange.
Subsequently he borrowed another £6OO, making
in the whole £l,lOO which he now owed Chard.
The reports which this Indian Barillon had made
to his master of his successes among English states-
men drew in duo time a further remittance, and
the Moulvie, being now in funds again, wrote to
Chard to come and receive his £l,lOO and give
up his bills and railway debentures. Chard came
and took his money, but forgot to bring the bills.
The usual excuses and promises were made, and
there was a by-play in whioh the names of Lord
Forth and Mr. Dempster Heming appear. But as
time passed the old Hindoo grew more and more
uncomfortable, and he seems to have grown impor-
tunate with all the members of that charming coterie
at Sunbury for a return of these five £lOO bills.
Meantime Chard had persuaded him to take his
brother-in-law, Mr. Roy, as his solicitor, and Roy in
that capacity is consulted about arrangements pre-
vioiis to the Moulvie's ultimate retreat to his own
country. Mr. Roy tolls him that the first thing to
do is to pay his liabilities, and then for the first time
according to this ambassador's own account, which
the jury seems implicitly to have believed—Nuseer
Khan heard from Mr. Roy that there was a bill
outstanding in his name to the amount of
£6,500. Mr. Roy was quite sure that he would
have to pay this bill. In fact, Mr. Roy, according
to. his own account, had been the " vaqueel " of
his brother-in-law, Mr. Chard, and of a certain
Mr. Oakcley, in discounting it. This Mr. Oakelev
had travelled in the East, and knew ail about the
Oude case. He was a client of Roy's, and he
agreed to discount the bill. He proved that he
had given £5,000 for it to Mr. Roy, who also
proved that he had handed the money over to
Mr. Chard. Chard is unhappily in such delicate
health that he cannot appear; but Mr. Roy, and
his partner, Mr. Cartwright came forward to ex-
plain the whole transaction. Mr. Roy was, indeed,
quite certain that before the bill was discounted he
showed it to the Moulvie, who was smoking at the
time, and gave a sort of guttural grunt affirmatory
of the proceedings. It turns out, of course, that
this bill for £6,500 is the present condition of one
out of those five pieces of stamped paper which the
Ilindoo signed in blank. 'There arc four others.
Of these, two arc satisfactorily accounted for as
being filled up for sums of £l,OOO each. What value
the other two may bear, or where they may be,
the report of the trial does not inform us. - The
undisputed point in the case is, that the Moulvie
never' received any more money than the £l,lOO.
The two points which were left for the decision of
the jury were—first, whether the bill was fraudu-
lent in its creation; and, secondly, whether Mr.
Roy, at the time ho was acting as solicitor for Mr.
Oakelcy, who discounted it, had reason to believe
that it was a fraudulent document which his client
was discounting. The jury decided both these
questions in the affirmative, and upon reviewing
all the circumstances we can see no reason to ques-
tion the soundness of their decision.

This case is one of the scandals of which the pre-
sent time is far too rife. We recount its incidents
with much shame, but with no sympathy for any of
the parties concerned. The corrupt Indian jobber
who comes 'over here with his lacs of rupees to
bribe our public men, and who falls into the hands
of a snug little family party, is certainly neither
by his character, nor by his objects, nor by his
conduct, deserving of any pity. Mr. Oakeley,
" who had travelled in India, and knew all about
the Oude affair," most richly deserved to lose his
money when he advanced it with such knowledge.
Mr. Chard, and Mr. Detnpster Homing, and Lord
Forth do not make a figure in the affair in the least
degree creditable to them. But what shall we say
to Mr. Roy the solicitor of the London and West-
minster Bank, and a member of the Incorporated
Law Society of the United Kingdom? We must
leave him to be dealt with by his own clients and
by his own colleagues. The moral of this case is
twofold. It shows that a man is never more liable
to be made a dupe than when he overestimates
the corruptibility of mankind. It adds, also, another
blot to the fame of our middle classes, and gives
them one more warning that their respect for cha-
racter is becoming too -lax, and their toleration of
doubtful reputations dangerous to public morals.—
Times.

FATAL ACCIDENT TO A SKATER.—Yesterday an
inquest was held before Mr. Wakloy, at the Duke of
Hamilton Tavern, New-end, Hampstead, on the body of
Mr. Thomas Pryer, aged 20, residing in Bernard-street,
Regent's-park-road, who was drowned in a pond at the
Vale of Health, Hampaead, on Thursday evening last,
while skating. The deceased, in company witn his brother,
had been enjoying the pastime from eight till ten o'clock ;
and when they were about to leave the ice gave way and
he was immersed. His brother tried to render him some
assistance, but was unable to do so because he was im-
mersed also, but was rescued by means of a rope. When
deceased was taken out he was unconscious, and animation
could not be restored. A verdict of accidental death was
returned. •,

LAW INTELLIGENCE—Dec. 20.

to throw herself into the canal. He prescribed se-
dative medicines, and a nourishing diet. In the fol-
lowing November Mr.-Anthony called -and asked
by what authority he had attended Mrs. Anthony,
after a letter he had lately received. He said he
thought it was his duty as a professional man to
attend an opprested woman, as he considered Mrs.
Anthony to be, whenever he was called upon. Mr.
Anthony made some strong remark about horse-
whipping, at which he smiled. He; did not attend
\lrs. Anthony after November . 1855.
In cross-examination, Dr. iNTorton denied that
Mrs. Anthony's excitement, on any occasion when
he attended her arose from drunkenness. The ser-
vants did not behave improperly to her in his pre-
sence.
Mrs. Jane Dann, a needlewoman, who had worked
forthe Anthonys since 1850, described Mr. An-
thony's conduct to his wife as much worse than that
of any other husband she had ever known, and cor-
roborated Mrs. Anthony's evidence in various par-
ticulars. As to Mrs. Anthony, she said she never
in her life met with a lady of "such refined taste,
and who was such a Christian woman." A few
months after the birth of the last child Mr. An-
thony forbade her to go to the house.
Mrs. Jones, the landlady of a house at Kentish-
town, in which Mrs. Anthony was lodging when
the child Constance was taken away, described
what passed on that occasion, confirming Mrs.
Anthony's statement. Mrs. Anthony was in a very
bad state of health.
- James Price, the policeman who was called in on
the same occasion, was also examined.
Dr. Deane having opened the respondent's case,
called
Emma Bennett, who said—l now live in Mr. An-
thony's service. I first went there in the autumn
of 1851, when I was. 21 years of age. Mr. and Mrs.
Anthony were generally very conafortable then.
Mrs. Anthony's conduct changed about 1853. Her
language then became very violent and obscene.
She once threatened to stab Mr. Anthony;'in 1854,
and she had a carving knife in her hand. I have
seen her throw a knife at him across the supper
table. In 1854 Mrs. 'Winston came to the house.
When I first entered the service Mr. Anthony gave
me orders never to admit Mrs. Winston. On many
occasions in 1852, 1853, and 1864 I took provisions
and wine out of the house by my mistress's orders
to her mother's house and to Mrs. Winston's. She
lived at a baby-linen warehouse opposite the Marble
Arch, and went by the name of Mrs. Brown. I have
taken notes to her from Mrs. Anthony, directed to
Mrs. Gordon. She went by that name in 1854, I
received letters from Mrs. Winston on many occa-
sions. They were for my mistress, but were ad-
dressed to me. When Mr. Anthony was away Mrs.
Winston almost made the house her home—dining,
taking tea, and supping there. She and Mrs. An-
thony drank wine at dinner and' stout at supper.
Mr. Anthony only drank wine on Sundays. Mr.
Francis came late one night when Mrs. Winiton
was supping there, and my mistress said " Perhaps
it is your master, don't open." When 'I did open the
door Mrs. Winston was hidden in a closet. In the
early part of 1854 I was questioned about some wine
that was missing. Mrs. Anthony accused Lucy and
me of taking it. I denied the charge. I never had
taken wine. I had seen Mrs. Anthony go out of the
house with bottles in May, 1854 or 1855. I told Mr.
Anthony that when the charge was made. I never
had the key, of the cellar, but I had the key of the
store closet given me about August 1855. Mrs.
Anthony also accused me of taking currants. She
was a very extravagant housekeeper. At other times
she accused me ofstealing a. Honiten lace veil, a pair
of gloves, a penknife, and 2s. On one occasion,
when Mr. Anthony was sleeping upstairs in the
room next mine, Mrs. Anthony came up to my bed-
room and accused me of having master there. He was
never in my room. I never sat on Mr. Anthony's knee,
but she accused me of having done it. The quarrel
about the tea began by her refusal to make it.
Mr. Anthony ordered me to make tea, and she
dared me to do it, and pushed me out of the room.
When Mr. Anthony threw the jug- of water over
her it was in self-defence, she having thrown the
butter dish and breadbasket at him. Her finger
was cut in the struggle, and Mr. Anthony patched
it up. In 1854 and 1855 Mrs. Anthony's health
was not very good. Dr. Norton told me she was
not to go out alone. She did go out alone.
She had everything becoming her station in the
way of dress. She was very slovenly. When Mr.
Anthony's father died I bought the mourning for
all the family, and she had a mantle and black
bonnet different from ours.. She always seemed to
have plenty of money. Mr. Anthony was always
kind to her. When Mrs. Anthony went away he
had been absent from home for about a month.
Cross-examined---Mr. Anthony was always kind
to me. In 1854 I had a sister called Betsey, whom
I frequently visited. I did not tell her that I and
Mr. Anthony had "broken the cold ice." My sister
Ellen never wrote to congratulate me upon it. She
did write me a letter congratulating me upon
" having broken the cold ice" not with " Mr. A.",
but with " Mr. H." I have the investigation of
both Mr. and Mrs. Anthony into that matter, and
their signatures, that they were quite satisfied. He
never told me not to mind Mrs. Anthony. I once
shut her in the kitchen because she accused me `of
poisoning her beer, and I sent for a policeman to
her. I never threatened her or used violence towards
her. I never heard her insist upon my being sent
from the house. I have said I would not leave so
long as I suited master.
Re-examined—When I sent for the policeman I
told her to give me in charge if I had poisoned her
beer. Dr. Norton also came, and said she must
have been drinking.
To his Lordship—l never heard of her having
c.ny combs broken or of having her temple bruised.
Eliza Baylis, whd had lived in service with the
Anthonys in 1853, 1854, and 1855 as nurse, corro-
borated the last witness. She was called Lucy in
the house.
. .
Mrs. Anthony, sen., the mother of the respon-
dent, said, that he was kind to his wife as far as she
could judge. After the separation she came to Lon-
don to try and reconcile them. wife said the
cause of her departure was jealousy of Bennett.. Mr.
Anthony promised to get rid of Bennett, but she
still refused to return. She appeared fond of wine,
and would probably haVe taken more than was
good for her if she had been allowed.
Mark Anthony-LI am a painter. I was introduced
to my wife by Mr. Kendrick. In 1853 1 forbade my
wife to have any intercourse with Mrs. Winston.
I afterwards learnt that she had communicated
with her. I discovered one day at dinner that
some particular sherry that I was very fond of
was all gone, and I spoke to my with about
it. She said she did not know what had become
of the wine. The servants were called up. , They

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
(Before Sir C. Cresswell.)
ANTHONY V. ANTHONY.
This was a petition by Eleanor Sophia Anthony,
pea. ying for a judicial separation from her husband,
Mark Anthony, on the ground of cruelty. The
respondent denied the charge.
Dr. Spinks and Mr. D. Keane- appeared for the
petitioner ; Dr. Deane, Q.C., and Dr. Swabey for
the respondent.
• The partiee were married at Sarbiton on the 18th
of April, 184& They cohabited in various parts of
London until 1856, and have had three daughters,
Phoebe, Constance, and Grace, born respectively in
1849, 1851, and 1853. Mr. Anthony is an artist
by profession.
Mrs. Anthony, in her examination, stated that her
maiden name was Marshall. In 1853 she and her hus-
band were living at Bayswater. Just before her
last- child was born she repeatedly asked him for
money to buy clothes, but he would not give her
any. -She obtained £2 after her confinement from
Mrs. Lucy, a friend of hers, to whose husband Mr.
Anthony had lent £lO. When Mr. Anthony was
informed of it he was very angry, and ordered his
bedroom to be locked against her. After that con-
finement he never returned to her room, but slept
with her occasionally. They had a servant named
Emma Bennett, and about this time she discovered
her sitting on Mr. Anthony's knees. She imme-
diately told her to leave the house. Bennett said
she would not go unless her master discharged her.
Mr. Anthony said," She will get no discharge
from me." One day in May, 1853, Mr. Anthony
had been out sketching, and came home to tea. He
told Bennett to make tea for him. She said Ben-
nett should never take her place at the tea table
while she was in the house. Mr. Anthony then
struck her over and over again on the head with
such violence that all her combs were broken, and
her temples were much bruised, and pushed her
violently out of the room. She fell on the mat,
where she lay until Mrs. Dann came downstairs and
helped her up. Mr. Anthony occupied a bedroom
next to that of Bennett, and her room was on the
floor below. She was frequently disturbed by
noises overhead, and one night she went upstairs,
and saw Mr. Anthony coming out of Bennett's
room in his nightshirt.
The Judge Ordinary doubted whether this evi-
dence was admissible, as it tended to show that the
husband had been guilty of adultery.
Dr. Spinks submitted that the statute did not
exclude the evidence of a husband or wife as to
adultery, except in suits instituted in consequence
of adultery. This suit was instituted in conse-
quence not of adultery but of cruelty.
The Judge Ordinary—You are quite right. It
is rather a curious state of things, but so the law
stands.
Mrs. Anthony continued—When she accused
her husband of having committed adultery with
Bennett, he told her to mind her children.
She frequently requested him to send Bennett
away, but he would not. In April, 1854, Bennett's
sister came to live in the house. In the following
July she remarked to Mr. Anthony that this sister
was not a respectable girl, upon which he threw a
jug of hot coffee in her face. On another occasion,
when she was reproaching him with believing Ben-
nett rather than her, he threw a jug of cold water
over her. He also struck her a dreadful blow on the
head. One of her fingers was accidentally cut to the
tendon, and he would not allow it to be dressed for
five hours. In June, 1855, she received a letter from
her mother which annoyed him, and he called her
vile names and pushed her out of the room with a
chair. In July, 1855, she went on a visit to her
father-in-law at Washford, and Mr. Anthony told
her when she was starting that she had lost her
home, and he intended to make Emma Bennett
"lord over many things." She was absent five weeks,
and when she returned he made a great piece of
work because she had spent 15s. that she had taken
with her in washing for herself and the children.
About the same time he told Bennett in her pre-
sence that she had accused Bennett of stealing cur-
rants, that she was a very bad wife, and Bennett
must watch her, and that Bennett might say what
she liked of her. Bennett was very insolent to her.
He then threw her out of the room and kicked her.
When her father-in-law died in October, 1855, Mr.
Anthony provided similar mourning dresses for her
and the children and the servants. He refused to
allow her a bit of velvet in addition. He told her he
wished she would go away, and offered to allow her
£5O a-year. When she asked how she was to live
he said he saw no necessity for her living at all,
but if she must live she might prostitute herself.
Bennett always had charge of the keys of the house.
She once accused Bennett of trying to put some-
thing in her beer, upon which Bennett endeavoured
to lock her in the coal celler, and sent for a ?lite-
man, but he refused to interfere. Mr. Anthony was
then out, and when he returned he told her it would
have done her good to be incarcerated. He then
wrote Bennett a check for her wages. Bennett,
by her husband's directions, allowed her half a
pint of porter for dinner, and half a pint for
supper, and she lead to take it in herself. In
1855 Mr. Anthony went to Paris, and before
going- told the ,servants not to wait on her
if she did anything disagreeable to them. They
never did wait on her, and when he came back he
said it served her right. She told him he was driv-
ing her out of her senses by his cruelty, and he said
he did not think she had brains enough to go mad.
In January, 1856, lie beat her with his maulstick
for asking him to discharge Bennett. She was so
reduced that she at last made up her mind to leave
the house, and on the 6th Oct., 1856, she went away
with the two youngest children. She went first to
a sister of Mr. Anthony's, at Kentish-town, and-
then took lodgings. [A letter she had received
from Mr. Anthony was read, in which he affec-
tionately Asked her to return, and said that Emma
should, leave if she interfered with her or treated
her with disrespect ; but he looked on Emma, in
the meantime as " a valuable servant, probably•
placed by circumstances in a false position which
she did not properly understand." To this Mrs.
Anthony replied that she should not return until
Emma had left the house, and in a long letter re-
capitulated her various causes of complaint against
mma and Mr. Anthony. She wrote another letter
a few days afterwards repeating her reproaches,
and saying she should, not return. He replied
shortly that he was much shocked at the step she
had taken, and again urged her to come home.] On
the 19th Novembr in the same year Mr. Anthony
visited her, and asked her to go home. She inquired
whether the woman had left the house. He said
"No," and she said she would never return while
Bennett was under his roof. He then carried off
the second child Constance. The two elder ail-

dren had since been brought to see her by Bennett. denied that they had taken it, but said their mi;
The youngest remained in her custody.. Mrs. tress took wine regularly when I was away, and
Anthony added that she had frequently stood for a moreover sent it and took it outof the house to her
model to her husband-with the greatest willingness, mother and to Mrs. Winston. She said . she could
and on one occasion he'had beaten her naked flesh not account for its disappearance, but supposed the
with a furze bush. girls must have false keys to the cellars. I inves-
Cross-examined—She was 37 years of age at the tigated the matter, and had no alternative but to
time of the marriage, and he was 28. She had believe that she had taken it. I then took pos-
kpown him for three years before that time. session of the key of the cellar. There were other
Pr. Deane was cross-exarniaing her about a per- discuSsions about tea and currants, and various
son named Richards, to whom she had paid visits things that were missing. She accused Bennett of
bUore her marriage, when— stealing them. I learnt on looking into the trades-
Dr. Spinks objected to queetions relating to what men's books that more things were charged for than
had happened before the marriage. we could have consumed. The result waathat I took
'Dr. Deane submitted that they we're relevant, as charge of the household expenses, and they decreased
they tended to sliow that the petitioner was not a by about one-half. On my returning one day
fit ,person to have the custody of one of the children, from sketching I had, some angry words with my
fat which she prayed. wife about some money she had obtained from Mrs.
His Lordship held that the evidence was road- Lucy. She said she would not make tea for me,
rnissibte, as the question of the custody of the chil- and threw the keys at me. 1 touched the bell
dren was distinct from that of cruelty. for Bennett, and desired her to make it. She got
Mrs. Anthony was then cross-examined at con- up and ejected Bennett from the room. In trying
slilarable length, and admitted that she had a sister, to prevent her lam sorry to say I boxed her ears
Mrs. WinetOn, to whom her husband took a great ,with my open hand. I regret having done so, but
dislike, and with whom she used to correspond, The blow was not a violent one. On another OCCa-
through Bennett, unknown 'to her husband, and sion we had a quarrel about a towel, in the course
receive into the house when he was absent. Mrs. of which I threw a jug of cold water over her, and
Wineton did not live vtith her husband ; he was she broke a bread-basket, a butter-dish, and a very
too great a brute. She denied that she had ever nice jug, for Mich I bad given £5, and I am
sent or taken provisions or wine to Mrs. Winston ashamed to say I struck her with my fist. On
or her mother except on one occasion, Then she k another occasion, being greatly irritated by her, I
sent a veal pie and a bottle of porter, because her threw the coffee grounds in, my. cup upon h(r.
sister was ill in bed with a broken leg- She had With those exceptions I never struck her or was
accused the servants of taking wine and other guilty of any violence whatever towards her, nor
things, for she b;Aie.v'-d they had done so. V • i did I use threats or irritating language. She shared
_Anthony .
never ace,e'l ,s^r of pawning lierociotl-icisi: i my money with me, and had plenty of clothes and
Me Could never have ns'ed:ieesedlc;li.and accusation un- 1 a few jewels or trinkets. There was plenty and
lose he had dreamt it. " that she ever 'to spare of food. The children. were well taken
took the poker to her hush tncl, o:that she broke a care of when Lucy had charge of them. When my
, quantity of crockery- When he threw the water over Wife's fin'ger. was cut I attended to it, From Janu-
her, but she did break a china 'el The quarrel miry tto October, 1858, we were living on excel-
began with a di:spute about some tog:vels. whenever a difference arose I
had'an allowance of 4'Bo a-year since the separt requ-sttAcelfd::e;t3Thto leave the room, or else left it Tu-
preornsei,peadiaotnedraf)
tion. She had heard that after her departure a self:.
Honitori lace Veil and other articles which she had return, and ollnionno Tr Ito u urged
dd
haeNl-' to'
found 'oetweeh . Bennett, but she refused. She had becm very ''eca-
-accused the servants cf eteaiine
her 'mattress and her ,bed, but she did .not piece Jew; of Bennett. It is not true that she -1,
th=em there. When sle. left her husband was in ame coming from Bennett's bnse eeevecer saaa."(i
Wharf he took. away s.parate bedrooms in 1851 in consequence of my
Health and we discontinued all matrimmiial int -
very bad state of heeltle
Constance there was a great eli.,A urbance; the chi •ld
wa,s 'drag-erred beta an them and ,creamed, and. the coulee in 1855 in consequence of a letter I receivedl
from her reetlic.r, and of the revolting language she
on
landlady of the house sent for .a policeman, to
then used to me. She has received £B2 a-year from
whomMr...A.ntlionyseiCs she had rebbcd him •h ur _ , .
me .1- ; or herself and the youngest child since separa-
tion. The child was to remant with. her until seven
to take her in ch arge.
he was veers of age, which it will be next February. ,
Dr. Norton proved that in August, 1855, e e. , ,
called in to see Mrs. Anthony, and found her in a Cross-examined—Bennett had "meddled with"
letters
' Anthony's by my orders. She has
state of great excitement, arising, as she said, from Mrs. , .
of _
the •ill-usage of the eervants, acting under Mr. complained, but not again
land again,
ll my sub-
Anthony's direction. In that month', during Mr. jecting her to Bennett. I (...d not think.t a.t either
Anthony's absence in the countre, she ran away mylproperty or my honour was sate with her, and
fronr herhouse one evening. Bennett came and told therefore I told Bennett to send me her letters. I
him, and he went out, aneabout half-past 11 found raised to discharge Bennett. I was so pained
I
her iu Westbourne-grove, so exeited that she hardly I whited struck leer with my fist that I never struck
knew what she was about, She said she intended I herlafterwards.- Two or three years ago silo coal: