The Sun.
London, England, 1857-06-08 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, MONDAY EVENING, JUNE 8, 1857.

gold from Welsh quartz by the smelting process,
but this soon met the fate which attends all schemes
that go out of the way to be excessively expensive.
It was soon wound up, but its brief period of
working seemed to prove that about three-quarters
of an ounce of gold per ton could be got from Welsh
rock, though, as far as we are aware, it did not
prove that the supply of quartz of even this mode-
rate richness was large or would be constant. That
fair and, perhaps, even rich specimens of auriferous
quartz may now and then be found in Wales we
are well aware, though it has yet to be shown
that it is rich enough to pay the working, or that
enough of any kind exists to keep up a regular
supply. Gold is almost as universally diffused as
iron ; it may even be obtained from the ashes of
plants, therefore Welsh quartz is not likely to be
without it, but the quanity of its yield is open to as
grave doubts as the extent of any auriferous rocks
in Wales at all. This is the problem which the
Frodsham Company propose to solve. Without
being at all sanguine upon the matter, we at least
wish them to do so satisfactorily Their plans are
not badly laid, and will at least have one result—
that of setting at rest for ever the long disputed
question as to the valuelof the gold-bearing quartz,
if we may so call it, in the United Kingdom.
The expense of the experiment is not very great,
but the chance of a large return is not great
either. The same company are also about to enter
into arrangements for a supply of Australian quartz.
If this is well done the plan may result in a ♦ery
fair profit. The enormous expense of coal and labour
at the Australian diggings makes it unremunerative
to crush gold quartz bearing less than six ounces to
the ton, just as the rule is there not to smelt copper
ore of less than 24 per cent., though here the cop-
per ore of 5 and 6 per cent. commands a good price.
If a regular supply of Australian gold quartz at six
ounces the ton can be procured the Cheshire " dig-
gings" may indeed exult, but the proof of the feasi-
bility of such an arrangement must be well authen-
ticated and beyond dispute.

longer to exert them ? A Bishop or a rector does
not, as a rule, favour an active, learned, and enthu-
siastic subordinate. "There is a daily beauty in
his life which make theirs ugly." Tney do not
like to be poked up from behind, or that Jack
should be reckoned better than his master. " A
saint in silk is twice a saint in laws." It won't do
that the stuff-gown should carry off the cause from
the coif. We have scarcely ever known a curate
retained who drew better congregations than the
rector. We heve known many dismissed for the
simple offence of being popular. A blockhead has
an instinctive antipathy to a genius. The drone in
the rectory does not want a honey-bee in the
curate's lodge. A fool in power always thinks
talent dangerous.
Feed a greyhound too high, and where will be
his wind ! Give cats as much liver as they can
eat, and what will they care for catching mice ?
"In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread,"
was the providential sentence that set mankind
to useful industry. Aye, but what if men can eat
bread without any brow-sweat ? will they work if
they can come by provender without it ? John
Bull stands amazed that he should not get a thing
when he honestly pays for it. " What I" he ex-
claims, "do I give some eight millions in meal or
in malt to - the Established Church to make the
people religious and the clergy attractive, and still
are the Dissenters, to whom I give nothing, pros-
perous, while the Church decays! Are the Non-
conformists to have the ears and hearts of the
nation, while State clergy are only to retain the
loaves and the fishes ? Why have we no Spurgeons
with twenty thousand disciples! Where are the
Wesleys and Whitfields, the Halls, the Channings,
the Deweys, the Guthries of the Establishment ?"
Why, the answer is not far to seek. The ecclesi-
astical economy of the State Church is ingeniously
contrived to withhdraw every motive frommen either
to faithfulness, zeal, or the exercise of genius. The
very bishops are taxed in the Senate itself when-
ever they betray the least earnestness in their sa-
cred calling. They actually have to apologise for
doing their duty. They have to stand upon the
defensive whenever they presume to follow the ex-
ample of that Divine Master who was meek and
lowly of heart, whose sermon was on a mount, who
prayed in the wilderness, and who taught his im-
mortal prayer to a mob at the corner of a street.
The Archbishop of Canterbury, the very father of
the faithful, has actually to throw the regis of his
authority around ecclesiastics who offend in the di-
rection of condescending to imitate the devotedness
of the Apostles, the self-forgetfulness of Paul, and
the pure-mended lowliness of the fathers. Nay, if
the truth were known, it would turn out that Lord
Dungannon was put up to reproaching the Low
Church Bishops for being of any me by their own
brethren of the episcopal bench, and that nobody
;is more alarmed and disgusted at the prospect of
lany revival of an apostolical spirit of devotedness
land evangelism in the Church than the Church
itself. The very Act of Parliament which alone
saved the offence of preaching to the poor where the
poor would listen from being illegal was smuggled
through the Legislature. Ministers •of religion
were only permitted to follow the express injunc-
tions of their Master by stealing a march upon
their own Church.
Another ineffable stupidity of our ecclesiastical
system is the nature of the conditions and qualifi-
cations without which the great Author of Christia-
nity himself could not have entered what is face-
tiously termed his own Church. Let genius be ever
so great, and the call to the work of the ministry
be ever so clear, the most gifted can rarely enter the
Church, if by the accidents of society they have never
happenedto be sent to two particular Universities out
of nine that flourish in the United Kingdom. If we
have any faith whatever in thereligion we profess, we
cannot doubt that its founders were ignorant in
every particular save in those intuitions of evan-
gelism which in the work of the redemption of the
world from wickedness are of more efficacy than
all the learning of this world ; and we cannot but
know that mera gentility and classical proficiency,
" Shakspeare and the musical glasses," are not
qualifications which form the foundation of a call
for the work of the ministry. In fact, if we read
the Gospels and the Acts, and compare them with
the wretched worldliness and the lifeless rigidity
of Church of Englandism, it is impossible to es-
cape the conclusion that the whole economy of the
Establishment is a huge trap to catch money and
power—a hypocritical pretext for pocketing wages
without earning them, a prostitution of religion
to mere creature comfort and social respectability,
and the snug ease of fashionable miserable sinners,
who keep clergymen to comfort them, and never
to " mention Hell to eats polite."—Examiner.

"MAMMA. AND PAPA."

MRS. THATCHER v. COL. D'AGUILAR.

This case came before the public again at the
Brighton County Court, before Mr. W. Furner and
a jury, when Colonel D'Aguilar was sued by his
forsaken inamorata for the sum of 501., parcel of
601. (plaintiff abandoning the excess), for money
payable by the defendant for the support by her of
his illegitimate child from the month of April,
1855, to April, 1857, and for money agreed to be
paid by the said defendant to the plaintiff towards
the maintenance of the said child, and for money
paid by the plaintiff for the use of the defendant,
and for money found to be due upon an account
stated between them at Brighton.

As on the previous occasion, Mrs. Thatcher de-
nied that she had ever been charged with impro-
priety of conduct, that she had ever been rolled on
the bed by any gentleman, or that she had ever said
she was not sure who was the father of the child,
but that the colonel was rich enough to pay for it.
Mr. Sergeant Parry (for the defendant) submit-
ted that there was no case to go to the jury, and
that there was no contract which could be sustained
in point of law.
Henry D'Aguilar was then sworn and examined
by Mr. Roupell—l am defendant in this action.
It was in 1853, about the middle of February, that
I first met Mrs. Thatcher. I met her on the parade,
nearly opposite the Bedford, towards dark, I think,
about five o'clock. That was the first time I met
her. She overtook me on the parade, passed me, and
looked back, as a woman does who wishes to attract
your attention. I passed on and looked at her, and
I then spoke to her. She almost directly asked me
to go home with her, to a narrow street behind the
Bedford Hotel, where she lived. I saw her the
following day, and I saw her from time to time and
visited her up till the month of May in that year.
I had some conversation with her about a person
named Granville. The first night I asked her who
and what she was, and she told me that she was
the wife of an officer. She mentioned Granville's
name ; but she said that she was living with a man
whose name she would not tell me. She also told
me this on the second day. She told me that he
kept her, in fact. She said also that she disliked
him, and had taken a fancy to me in the street.
She said that she should get rid of him as soon as
she could. I afterwards saw Mr. Turner, the sur-
geon, on the subject of an allowance. I said I was
not sure that this child was mine, as she said, be-
cause I knew she had told me that she was visited
by other people. She told me she had met this
Granville in an omnibus, that he had taken her to
an hotel in Charing-cross. and there had connexion
with her. As this was the case, I said I was not at
all sure the child was mine ; but as she knew my
same, and my family were living in Brighton, I
said I was willing to pay 301. a-year as long as
she did not in any way annoy or irritate me or
my family. I said, from what she had told myself
and Dr. Turner, I was very doubtful of the child
being mine, and I could only make that allowance
on condition that she did not annoy me or any of
my family. lam quite sure I mentioned it in that
way to her, through Dr. Turner. She was to re-
ceive the money, because I was doubtful that the
child was mine, and I was not going to pay the
money to anybody but herself. She was to look
after this child, but the money was to be paid to
herself. The payment of that money was after-
wards discontinued by me because she wrote an
anonymous letter.
During the time you were acquainted with this
woman, did you ever make her a promise of mar-
riage7—Never, so help me God. Marriage was
never mentioned except once. She said one day,
" I wish you would marry me." I said, " That is
quite impossible. I never dreamt of marrying you,
and I never could marry you."
When you met Mrs. Thatcher, as you describe,
what did you say to her 7—Well, I went up to her
and asked her what she wanted, and that sort of
thing. (Laughter.) She said she was the widow
of an officer. I asked her where she lived, and she
said in Montpellier-street. She asked me to go
home with her, and I went with her to Montpellier-
street, there and then. An old woman, called
Mrs. Butcher, let us in. I did not see Miss
Butcher there. Nothing improper took place be-
tween us that night.
Will you tell the jury, then, what you went there
for 7—Well, I considered her a person on the town,
and I went home with her for that purpose.

Mr. Sergeant Parry (to defendant)—Upon my
word I would decline to answer such questions, if
I were you.
Cross-examination continued : I asked Mrs.
Thatcher upon what terms I was to visit her.
She said, what do you mean ? Well, I slid, I
only come here, of course, for a certain purpose.
She said, what do you mean ? I don't understand
you. I then placed money on the table. I
placed 1/. on the table. She told me that she was
an officer's widow, and the daughter of an officer.
I did not see the portrait produced (that of the
deceased Thatcher) when I went there. I think
I have seen it in her bed-room. She asked me
to call the next day, and I did.
Did anything improper take place then ?—Yes.
What time did you call ?—ln the afternoon.
Nobody was there. I looked upon Mrs. Thatcher,
I won't Fay as a common prostitute, but I cer-
tainly did look upon her as a prostitute. I never
gave her my likeness. I took it to show her, and
she kept it, I suppose. I never saw it hanging up
in my life. I never gave her a lock of my hair.
I swear I never remember anything about a loci of
hair (lock of hair produced). 1 don't think that is
my hair. (Laughter.) I dare say she might cut
it off her own hair ' • she is quite capable of that.
I won't swear that I did not give her the paper
produced (that in which the lock of hair was pre-
served. I never gave her a ruby ring. She had
it from myself. It was given to me by a gentle-
man, and I told her I could not give it to
her. I showed her the ring, and she put it
on her finger. I really cannot remember how
it was •, but I think she said she put it on
her right hand. I will *swear I did not write 100
letters to her, nor 50, nor 20, after I left Brighton.
I once sent her some flowers. I swear I did not
take or send her flowers almost every day while I
was in Brighton. I never took her a bouquet at
all. The improper connection between us ceased
about the end of April or beginning of May. When
I placed the money on the table the first evening
she said I mistook her. I said, " Very well, then ;
if you are a virtuous person, give the money to the
servant, and I wish you good evening." If she
swears that I called the first evening and saw Mrs.
Butcher, and delivered my card to her, it is a false-
hood and a lie. I never left a card at her house
in my life. She may have one of my cards, but 1
never left one there. I never asked Mrs. Thatcher
to return that ring, but she did so voluntarily. I
wrote to ask her for my letters, because she had
shown me Granville's letters, and I did not choose
my letters to be shown to other men.
A number of witnesses were then, as on the pre-
vious occasion, examined, for the purpose of prov-
ing that Mrs. Thatcher led a grossly immoral life.
The jury retired, and, after an absence of about
twenty minutes, returned with a verdict for plain-
tiff for the full amount claimed.

FRIGHTFIL STATE OF THE ADELPHL—A. great deal
of alarm has been excited amongst the inhabitants of
the Adelphi in consequence of the foul and pestilential
stench, which his,' during the last few days of hot
weather, proceeded from the well-known "dark arches,"
the filthy state of which has been so frequently de-
scribed. In the streets into which the arches imme
diately open the stench is almest unendurable, and if
not at once checked by some cleansing process, hitherto
almost systematically neglected, the result will pro-
bably be the breaking out of some malignant form of
fever among the inhabitants. When it is remembered
that this collection of filth affects a tolerably closely
packed neighbourhood, bounded by the Strand and the
towns one way, and by Cecil-street and Hungerford-
market on the other, it is not too much to say, that
should fever break out amongst those who live there,
it would in all probability spread among the inhabitants
of the surrounding districts. Now and then a few
pailsfull of water are thrown down tbs extremities of
the arches, but no attempts of any kind are ever made
to purify the multitudinous recesses of this gigantic
cavern of profligacy, wretchedness and filth. It is a
subject which is well worthy of the notice of the new
President of the General Board of Health.
[ADVERTISEMENT.]—The indefatigable researches of Dr
Livingstone 'nave suddenly made us acquainted with one of
the happiest people in the world, of whose very existence
little was hitherto known in civilised Europe generally. In
their ailments they never have recourse to cod liver oil, and
they are equally independent of physic and the physician, for
Dr. Livingston found their staff of lire to be the Rovalenta
Arabica Food, which keeps them perfectly free from disease,
" consumption, scrofula, cancer, &c., having been scarcely
heard of, and the smallpox and measles have not been known
for 20 years." In England also the Revalenta Arabica has pro-
duced a wonderful improvement in the health of the people,
removing cough, consumption, asthma, debility, indigestion,
(dyspepsia) constipation, nervous, bit'ous, and liver com-
plaints, and restoring the faculty of digestion, and nervous
muscular energy to the. most enfeebled, as proved by te3ti-
menials from the celebrated. Professor of Chemistry Dr.
Andrew Ure ; Dr. Shorlaud ; Dr. Harvey ; Dr. Campbell ;
Dr. Gattiker ; Dr. Wurzer ; Dr. Ingram; Lord Stuart de
Decies ; the Dowager Countess of Castlestuart, and 50,000
other well known individuals, whose health has been restored
by this useful and economical diet, after all other means of
cure had been tried in vain for many years, and all hopes of
recovery abandoned. Its effect on the progress of population
is most favourable as exhibited by the Registrar-General,show-
ing for London an average of 1780 weekly births against a
mortality of 1200, leavings happy gain of 580, or near 50 per
cent. in favour of progress; a result most cheering to all
classes, as it opens a fair prospect that by the more general
use of Du Barry's Revalenta Arabica Food the Europeans will
soon enjoy the same freedom from disease as the West
Africans. It is sold in canisters, 11b., 2s. 9d. ; 21b., 4s. 6d. ;
51b., 225. The 121 b. carriage free, on receipt of post-office
order. Barry Du Barry and Co., 77, Regent-street ; Fort-
num, Mason, and Co., 182, Piccadilly; Abbis, 60, Grace.
church-street ; 63 and 150, Oxford-street 330 and 430,
strand, London.