The Sun.
London, England, 1861-12-18 00:00:00

ME WINDHAM CASE—(7his Day).

COMMISSION OF LUNACY.

(Before Samuel Warren, Esq., Q.C., Master in Lunacyl
and a Special Jury.)
THIRD DAY.

Sir George Armitage, Bart., and the rest of the jury
assembled at eleven o'clock, at which time only ono counsel
(Mr. Hume Williams) was present. Mr. Field came in a
minute afterwards, and was followed by Sir Hugh Cairns,
who were the only three present when the Master took his
seat on the bench.

The Master said, on behalf of himself, the jury, and the
public, he begged to draw attention to the length of time
this inquiry was likely to last. It might not be known that
he had signed and sealed 250 summonses for witnesses. He
had issued them for all parts of England, Scotland, and Ire-
land, and even for Russia, and the daily expenses of such an
inquiry as the present were necessarily frightful. It would
be impassible for the court to sit on Monday next, being the
day for the funeral of the Prince Consort, and after the let
of January he had official engagements in other parts of
the country. General Windham was under orders to pro-
ceed to India, and the order was only suspended in order
that he might give evidence on this inquiry.
Sir H. Cairns said he quite agreed in the propriety of
not sitting on Monday next. With regard to the length of
the inquiry, he could say little, as that would very much
depend upon the evidence adduced by the petitioners.
Colonel Bathurst, whose examination appears in another
column, was cross-examined by Sir Hugh Cairns. When
abroad he took Windham to places of worship, but he had
to force him out of bed to do so. In clothes and pocket
money he spent for Windham at the rate of £2OO a-year.
By the Master—Windham drank a great deal. He had
seen him tipsy, but not often, as he had a very strong
stomach. In such cases he was very quiet. He did not
think that his eccentricities were referable to elevation by
drink.

Mr. George Farrar, examined by Mr. Field—Said he was
a registrar of the Court of Chancery, and he was at Spa in
August, 1859. He saw him at the gaming-tables, and while
at play he took no interest in the game, but put his money
recklessly about. He thought him very idiotic in his con-
versation. He saw him at the railway station, acting as a
railway porter. He was very negligent in his style of dress.
Cross-examined by Sir H. Cairns—He had seen hint put
down more than a five franc piece at one time on the table.
He had seen him put down as much as three five franc
pieces. Witness was playing himself. Mr. Windham spoke
and acted ar a person of unsound mind. Windham paid more
attention to the ladies in the room than to the play, while
witness paid more attention to the play. (Laughter.)
Mrs. Mary Alicia Wilkinson, examined by Mr. Hume
Williams, said she resided at Lymington, in Hampshire,
and is a widow. She resided at §pa in 1859. While there
she met with Mr. 'Windham during a fortnight at the be-
ginning of the spring, and three weeks in October. He
resided at the same hotel with her on both occasions. She
had constant communications with him. Ho always con-
ducted himself towards her as a child. She constantly en-
deavoured to improve his manners, and to teach him the
difference between truth and falsehood. She showed him
many kind attentions, because she considered him a person
of weak intellect. His conduct at the table d' hate was occa-
sionally very offensive. Ho laughed in such an extraordi-
nary manner that he was ordered to leave the table and
shortly afterwards to leave the hotel. In consequence of
his explanations he was permitted to remain. At a ball at
Spa she introduced him to a young lady friend, with whom
he danced. In the midst of the quadrille the young lady
brought him to her side and said she did not wick to make
a scene in a ball-room, but that she declined b have any-
thing more to do with him, as he had threatened to box
her ears for not dancing so fast as ho wished her to do.
Cross-examined by Mr. Kerslake, Q.C.—She had put
down a five franc piece or a two franc piece on the gaming
tables, as every body did in passing through from the
music or ball rooms. She did not habitually play at the
gaming tables. She was never a severe loser. She had
constantly gone through the rooms with Mr. Windham, bat
only saw him put down once. That was en an occasion
when all agreed to put down as they passed through the
room. Her maiden ir+mo was Horrocks, and was sister to
Mr. Edward Horrocks, who was tutor to Mr. Windham
after Col. Bathurst told her that he would no longer have
charge of Mr. Windham. She remained at Spa until the
summer of the present year. She had not seen Mr, Wind-
ham since he left Spa in 1859.

By a Juror—She was constantly obliged to tell Mr.
Windham not to dome to her house in such an untid) state;
and that he must wash himself.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.—(This Day.)

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

DISTURBING THE CONGREGATION OF ST. JAMES'S I
CHURCH.—Jane Clark was charged with creating a distur-
bance at St. James's Church, Piccadilly.
Frederick Green, the beadle, said that on the previous
afternoon the defendant, who had been drinking, walked.
into the middle aisle of the church and created a distur-
bance, and he was told by one of the curates to remove her.
She said " She was - if she would go, and that she had
as much right to be there as he had." She was an old
visitor to the bhurch, and well known as a nuisance. She
was in the habit of sitting at the bottom of the church and
exposing her arms to excite sympathy.

Prisoner—Oh dear I I'm shocked.
Green said she usod the most dreadful language in the
churchyard.

Prisoner said she used to go to church when in prosperity,
but had not been for 12 months.

Mr. Tyrwhitt said he supposed she only went when she
was drunk.

She would go to gaol for a month, in default of paying
le utmost fine the law allowed.

EXTENSIVE ROBBERY AT A BOOTAIAXER'S.—Henry
Wines, a bootmaker, 8, Great Chesterfield-street, Maryle-
b no, was charged before Mr. Tyrwhitt on suspicion of
being cmcerned in stealing a large quantity of ladies' boot
legs and unfinished boots from the premises of Mr. Bird,
ladies' bootmaker, 86, Oxford-street ; and Edward Denham
was charged on suspicion of receiving the same, well know-
ing them to be stolen. The latter prisoner is also a boot-
maker, of 27, Union-street, Marylebene.
Mr. Edward Lewis, of Great Marlborough-street, ap-
peared for the prosecution.
At the prisoner Denham's house were found by Franklin,
a sergeant of the E division, and Lambert, 68 E, a large
quantity of boot logs and other property believed to have
been stolen. They aro of superior quality and first rate
workmanship.
The prisoners were remanded.

Great inconvenience has been felt of late by persons
having business at the court by nearly an hoar being lost
each morning before the business Cot. amences.

THE JURIDICAL SOCIETY.

This society assembled on Atronday evening to
hear a paper read by Mr. C. Clark on the following
question :—" Is the capture of the Southern Com-
missioners from on board the mail steamer Trent de-
fensible by the law of nations ?" 11tr.Willcock, Q.C.,
presided. Mr. Clark began by briefly tracing the
origin of the law of neutrals, and remarked that the
difficulties which had lately arisen were occasioned
by the desire, often manifested, nof eo much to get
as much profit as possible out. of other people's
quarrels, but to add to that favomx to one belligerent
without justifiably incurring the hostility of the
other. He then vindicated the proposition that a
vessel is part of the country to which it belongs,and
showed that the doubts suggeste d as to that proposi-
tion arose solely from its being stated as absolute
and definitive without exception,, and subject to no
limitation. He assertedthe prop( iaition, but assigned
degrees and limits to it. Taken le ith these its exist-
ence could not be doubted. One ol these restrictions
was that any neutral vessel was Er abject to search for
contraband. That right had ?Long been acknow-
ledged. Military officers and des atches were some-
times treated as contraband of war. Bid the right
to take them existed only when a. vessel, neutral by
its state, had engaged itself in the special service of
a belligerent, in which case it beriame by virtue of
that fact a belligerent transport, and as such subject
to capture. Sir W. Scott's decivions on this subject
bad been misrepresented in order to draw from them
a justification for the present proceeding. The prin-
ciples were these—that a neutra 1 vessel, specially
engaged to transport munitions, soldiers, or des-
patches between the enemy's coux &try and his colo-
nies, or colourably and fraudulenitly, pretending a
voyage from or to a neutral part, in order to be
enabled to perform this service, 'was in reality an
enemy's transport, but that a neutral vessel plying
in its ordinary occupation between the enemy's
country and a neutral port, or a fortiori (as was the
case with the Trent) between one neutral port and
another, and taking on board, as casual passengers,
men or officers of a belligerent, or his despatches,
incurred no blame or breach of. neutrality, nor
any risk of forfeiture. In sup port of this last
proposition he especially referred to Hautefeuille,
a French writer, and to the American writers
Kent and Wheaton, and especially to a note
on the book of Mr. Wheaton_ by Mr. Beach
Lawrence, wbo had edited it. lie also showed
that the convenience of the pus •
ensers in the
Trent was not a justification 10P not taking the
vessel before a Prize Court, but only operated to
save the captain of the San Jacinto and the Govern-
ment he served from a responsibility, a sense of the
existence of which might have prevented the act.
Under these circumstances, he proposed to answer
the question for the evening's discussion by saying
that the act of the San Jacinto was not justifiable.
Mr. Willcock addressed some remarks to the meet-
ing, and was followed by Mr. G. Lushington and
some other gentlemen ; 'after which the discussion
was, on the motion of Mr. Daniell, Q.C., adjourned
to the next meeting.