The Sun.
London, England, 1861-04-05 00:00:00

e _
•
• . :
icirftihN
MR.
' -4ess 'Ay .an • 7t, 4#'
• -1,61
Ittb
•
..'0 i,•
4.44,
0 / 4
77r.....e1it ' I ROIT • ' ' 411 p 6.
• ......

PRICE 41). STAMPED, 51).

e

BONWELL AND HIS PARISHIONERS.

Yesterday a vestry meeting was held in the'vestry
room, St. Philip's, Stepney, for the election of
churchwardens. The church was very much
crowded, in consequence of a notice signed by the
Rev. Mr. Bonwell, and a rumour that he intended
to make his appearance. "Shortly after twelve that
gentleman entered the church and proceeding
towards the vestry, where the parishioners were
assembled, was received with some hissing.
Mr. BONWELL remarked that the persons who
hissed were not either Christians or Churchmen is
behave ii such a way in a sacred edifice,
An adjournment to the church was at 'ones
agreed to.
The Rev. Mr. BortwELL said that he wished to
explain why he had come to take the chair oh that
occasion. He had a right to do so ea officio. He
had always been anxious to contribute to the peace
of the parish, and the Bishop of London had in-
duced him to sign an agreement that if he (Mr.
Bonwell) would not interfere with Mr. Hills-(the
curate in charge) while the appeal was pending
that his lordship would allow him (Mr. Boniell)
half the fees. Those fees were taker, by the
bishop's secretary, and kept by him, and but that
some friend had been raised up to him he should
not have been in a positionsto come to the church
that day. He had been te`Mr. Lee, and found that
many of his private papers had been lost from the
school-room ; and much as the people of that end
of London had been maligned by the press, witk
reference to St. George'szin-the-East, he had alivays
been treated with forbearance by the people there.
If the Bishop of London had kept his word, and
acted in accordance with the agreement, he should
not have come, but his fees were kept back, and
week after week he had been left without a penny
in his pocket. He had been informed that some
one in the parish had said it was intended to keep
back the fees as long as, possible, on purpose to
crush him still more, and therefore he appeared
there to appoint his own churchwarden to look
after his interest, in some degree at all events. He
could not help repeating, that the bishop had not
kept his word ; and it was a frightful thing to
know that a Christian minister should be living in
two palaces, like
.Dives, and 'keeping his rights
away, who was 'obliged tolie;like Lazarus, aeCtored
by dogs and comforted by crumbs. He-appointed
Mr. Fitzgerald O'Brien, of 19, Mark-lane, as his
churchwarden.

Mr. BANTEP. inquired whether this gentleman
had paid any taxes yet. Unless he had paid taxes
he could not be recognised as a parishioner.
Mr. BONWELL said Mr. O'Brien was a house-
holder, and that was sufficient to satisfy the Act
of Parliament.

After a long discussion on this point it was pro-
posed by Mr. hite that Mr. George Elmore should
be the parish churchwarden.
Mr. FREECE said it would be very important for
the parish to know what was the exact state of its
affairs. The incumbent had brought into the
parish as his nominee a gentleman whose appoint-
ment was clearly illegal. He thought it would
have been more honourable on the part of Mr. Fitz-
gerald O'Brien if he had faced the meeting and
given some account of himself. He should like to
know who Mr. O'Brien was.

Mr. BONWELL said he was the managing clerk
to a firm of solicitors in Mark-lane, and was a man
of education and intelligence.
Mr. BANTER said it was a great piece of effron-
tery on the part of the rev. gentleman to come there
and palm off upon the parishioners a person they
did not know as churchwarden. He was very happy
to hear that the bishop had deprived him of his
fees, and hoped he would continue to do so.

Mr. BONWELL—Nobody else says so. There
wants a great reformation in the Church. (Laugh-
ter and clapping of hands.)
Mr. PREECE again protested against the church-
warden named by Mr. Bonwell, and assured the
rev. gentleman that , the appointment would be
resisted. This was not a question of Puseyism, but
of morality or immorality in the Church, and he
trusted that all their operations, both with regard,
to the church and the schools, might be so con-
ducted that the young of the parish might be un-
sullied. He could not help thinking that it was a
degrading thing to be in a sacred edifice talking to
the clergyman about his moral and spiritual duties.
He should deeply regret if Mr. Bonwell had any
further connection with the parish.
The nomination of Mr. Elmore, as the parishioners'
churchwarden, was then agreed to.
Mr. BONWELL, in the course of a second address,
loudly declaimed against the unfair manner in
which, as he alleged, he had been treated by the
bishop. If it had not been for the way in which
the press had treated him, he might have been able
to earn a living, which was impossible for any one
to do while under its ban. During the fourteen
years he had been in the parish he had spent £9OO
in the schools, and had worked more, as the late
Bishop of London had told him, than all the clergy-
men of St. Paul's Cathedral put together. He had
only come there to do that which the law allowed
him, and threw himself on their generosity to treat
him with fairness.

The Rev. J. G. ITTLL (the curate in charge of the
parish) reverting to the remarks made by Mr.
Bonwell on the Bishop of London, said that no one
who had watched the career of the Bishop of Lon-
don could have any doubt of the deep sympathy he
felt for all classes in his diocese, whether clergy or
laity. The parishioners might not be aware that
up to the present time his lordship's expenses in
connection with the proceedings against Mr. Bon-
well had exceeded £l,OOO. With regard to the
arrangement by which Mr. Bonwell was to receive
half the church fees weekly, he might remark that
it was not issued from headquarters, but was the
mistake of one of the servants in the solicitor's
office, the arrangement being contrary to the wishes
of the bishop's legal advisers.
The meeting then broke up.

MURDER BY A BRAZILIAN SEAMAN.

At the Liverpool Assizes, on Tuesday, before
Mr. Justice Hill, Joachim Francisco, a Brazilian
seaman, was indicted for the wilful murder of
another foreign seaman named Francisco, in Liver-
pool, on the lith of March.
The crime was perpetrated in the immediate
neighbourhood of a house in Carpenter's-row, which
was occupied by a person named Florentine, and
used as a boarding-house for foreign sailors.
It was frequented chiefly by South Ame-
rican sailors, both Spanish and Brazilian. On
the night in question both the deceased and prisoner
was staying there, when the prisoner kissed a girl
in the house named Mary M'Nalty. She resented
the liberty, and the deceased having his attention
called to the circumstance, spoke to the prisoner. A
challenge to fight was given by the prisoner to the
deceased, and the parties went out of the house for
the purpose of fighting. When they got outside the
prisoner took off his coat, and there, in the presence
of three other Spanish sailors he made a rush at the
deceased. The deceased at that time was not even
in an attitude of defence, but the prisoner struck
him with something in the throat. The man imme-
diately fell, bleeding. He was conveyed by the,
police to the Southern 'Hospital, but was dead be-
fore he arrived there. A wound was found in his
throat, and there could be no doubt at all that the
wound then inflicted by the hand of the prisoner
caused the death of the man.

For the defence it was urged that the offence did
not amount to murder, but was manslaughter only.
Not only had there been a previous quarrel, but the
deceased, it appeared, had aggravated the prisoner
and challenged him to go into the street and fight.
His Lordship, in summing up the evidence, said
the first question for the jury to consider was this—
Was the death of the deceased man Francisco the
act of the prisoner, for if it was not he ought to be
acquitted altogether ? The learned counsel for the
prisoner did not dispute that the prisoner did take
the life of Francisco. The next and most important
question for them to consider was, whether the crime
amounted in law to murder, or whether it was
merely manslaughter. That would be the most im-
portant question for them to forma judgment upon.
They would take the law from him. If two persons
went out to fight deliberately arid with premedita-
tion, each intending to use a deadly weapon, such
as a razor or knife, and they did fight pursuant to
the premeditation and deliberate intent, if one killed
the other, though they fought what was called fairly
as between man and man, yet in law it was murder.
But if two persons on a sudden quarrel, without pre-
meditation, went to fight, although they did it with
deadly weapons, and one took the life of the ether,
that was manslaughter.
The jury retired to consider their verdict, and
after an absence of half an hour, returned into court
with a verdict of guilty of manslaughter.
His Lordship sentenced the prisoner to penal ser-
vitude for life.

[ADVERTISEMENT.] Pills and medicine invariably ag-
gravate and perpetuate diseases; their annoyance, dis-
appointment, and expense may be avoided by persons
in indifferent health sending only their address to E.
S. Barry, Esq., 77, Regent-street, W., London, and they
will receive gratis and tree by post the " INVALIDS' OwN
GUIDE," or Natural Restorer, without medicine or ex

Plase, of perfect digestion, strong nerves, sound lungs, and
refreshing sleep, to the most enfeebled, insuring the remova,
of indigestion (dyspepsia), constipation, liver complaints,
nausea, epilepsy, paralysis, debility, nervousness, palpitatioz „
cough, asthma, consumption, dropsy, flatulency, diarrhoea.
dysentery, biliousness, fevers, sore throats, catarrhs, colds,
noises in the ears, rheumatism, gout, impurities, eruptions,
hysteria, neuralgia, irritability, sleeplessness, acidity, palpi-
tation, heartburn, headache, despondency, cramps, spasms.
sinking, fits, bronchitis.—"Unquestionably the wen Guide
to health."