The Sun.
London, England, 1861-12-20 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, DEC Z MBE R 20, 1861.

LAW INTELLIGENCE. Dec. 19.

ARCHES COURT.
(Before Dr. Lushington,)
_____

THE OFFICE OF THE JUDGE PROMOTED BY THE BISHOP
OF SALISBURY V. THE REV. DR. ROWLAND WILLIAMS

(cLEnx).
The suit was brought by the Bishop of Salisbury
against the Rev. Dr. R. Williams, vicar of Broad
Chalk, in the county of Wilts, and diocese of Salis-
bury, the author of one of.the essays:contained in
the book entitled " Essays and Reviews."
Dr. Phillimore, Q.C,, Mr. Coleridge, Q.C., and
Dr. Swabey appeared on behalf of the Bishop of
Salisbury ; and Dr. Deane, Q.C., and Mr. Fitz
James Stephen for the Rev. Dr. Williams.
The case came before the Court to-day on the
admission of the articles, which was opposed by
the defendant. The charges brought against the
defendant are contained in 22 articles, of which the
first, second, third, and fourth are entirely formal.
The articles objected to are from the fifth to the
17th inclusive. The essay contributed by the de-
fendant is entitled " Bunsen's Biblical Researches,"
to which exception is taken on the ground that it
contains doctrine contrary and repugnant to the
Articles of Religion of the United Church of Eng-
land and Ireland, and that the review has a ten-
dency to inculcate a disbelief in the Divine inspira-
tion and authority of the Holy Scriptures. Article
6 is as follows :—That by your order or consent, by
way of preface or introduction to the said book,
entitled " Essays and Reviews," it is printed as
follows :-1 To the Reader,—lt will be understood
that the authors of the ensuing essays are respon-
sible for their respective articles only. They have
written in entire independence of each other, and
without concert or comparison. The volume, it
is hoped, will be received as an attempt to:illus-
trate the advantage derivable to the cause of
religious and moral truth from a free
handling, in a becoming spirit, of subjects pecu-
liarly liable to suffer by the repetition of con-
ventional language, and from traditional methods
of treatment.' And that the said book has, with
your knowledge and consent, passed through nine
editions, and that no other preface or introduction
than the aforesaid one has been prefixed thereto, or
printed or published." Article 6 is in the following
terms :—" That the said articulate essay or review,
entitled Bunsen's Biblical Researches,' has not,
during the nine editions aforesaid, undergone any,
or at least any material or substantial alteration,
but is in all of them exactly, or almost exactly, in
the very same words as it was when first published
by you, or by your order, in the first edition." Ar-
ticle 7 is as follows : —" That in the said article,
essay, or review are contained the following pas-
sages As in his "Egypt" our author sifts the
historical date of the Bible, so in his " Gott in der
Geschichte" he expounds its directly religious ele-
ment. Lamenting, like Pascal, the wretchedness of
our feverish being when estranged from its eternal
stay, he-traces,as a countryman of Hegel, the Divine
thought bringing order out of confusion. Unlike the
despairing school, who forbid us trust in God or in
conscience, unless we kill our souls in literalism, he
finds salvation for men and States only in becoming
acquainted with the Author of our life, by whose
reason the world stands fast, -whose stamp we bear
in our forethought, and whose voice our conscience
echoes.: In the Bible, as an expression of devout
reason, and therefore to be read with reason in free-
dom, he finds record of the spiritual giants whose
experience generated the religious atmosphere we
breathe.' . . 'lf we could estimate the truth of
such views, the full import of which hardly lies on
the surface, we find two lines of inquiry present
themselves as criteria; and each of these divides
itself into two branches. First, as regards the sub-
ject matter, both spiritual affection and metaphysi-
cal reasoning forbid us to confine revelations like
those of Christ to the first half-century of our era,
but show at least affinities of our faith existing in
men's minds anterior to Christianity, and renewed
with deep echo from living hearts in many a genera-
tion. Again, on the side of external criticism, we
find the evidences of our canonical books and of
the patristic authors nearest to them are suffi-
cient to prove illustration in outward act
of principles perpetually true ; but not ade-
quate to guarantee narratives inherently incre-
dible, or precepts evidently wrong. Hence
we are obliged to assume in ourselves a verifying
faculty, not unlike the discretion which a mathema-
tician would use in weighing a treatise on geometry,
or the liberty which a musician would reserve in
reporting a law of harmony. Thus, as we are ex-
pressly told, we are to have the witness in ourselves.
It is not our part to dictate to Almighty God that
He ought to have spared us this strain upon our
consciences ; nor, in giving us through His Son a
deeper revelation of His own presence, was He
bound to accompany His gift by a special form of
record. Hence there is no antecedent necessity that
the least rational view of the Gospel should be the
truest, or that our faith should have no human ele-
ment, and its records be exempt from historical law.
Rather we may argue, the more Divine the germ
the more human must the development.' . . .
But if such a notion alarms those who think that,
apart from omniscience belonging to the Jews, the
proper conclusion of reason is Atheism, it is not in-
consistent with the idea that Almighty God has
been pleased to educate men and nations, employ-
ing imagination no less than conscience, and suffer-
ing His lessons to play freely within the limits of
humanity and its shortcomings. Nor will any fair
reader rise from the prophetical disquisitions with-
out feeling that he has been under the guidance of
a master's hand. The great result is to vindicate
the work of the Eternal Spirit ; that abiding influ-
ence which, as our Church teaches us in the Ordi-
nation Service, underlies all others, and in which
converge all images of old time and means of grace
now; temple, Scripture, finger, and hand of God;
and again, preaching, sacraments, waters which
comfort, and flame which burns. If such a spirit
did not dwell in the Church the Bible would not be
inspired, for the Bible is, before all things, the
written voice of the congregation. Bold as such
a theory of inspiration may sound, it was the
earliest creed of the Church, and it is the only
one to which the facts of Scripture answer.
The Sacred Writers acknowledge themselves men
of like passions with ourselves, and we are pro-
mised illuminations from the Spirit which dwell in
them. Hence, when we find our Prayer-book con-
structed on the idea of the Church being an in-
spired society, instead of objecting that every one
of us is fallible, we should define inspiration con-
sistently with the facts of Scripture and of human
nature. These would neither exclude the idea of
fallibility among Israelites of old, nor teach us to
quench the Spirit in true hearts for ever. But if
any one prefers thinking the sacred writers pas-
sionless machines, and calling Luther and Milton
uninspired,' let him co operate in researches by
which his theory, if true, will be triumphantly con-
firmed." It is charged that the defendant, in the
passages quoted, maintained " that the Bible, or
Holy Scripture, is an expression of devout reason,
and the written voice of the congregation, not the
Word of God, nor containing any revelation of His
truth or of His dealings with mankind, nor the
rule of our faith ;" or that he maintained doctrines
or opinions contrary to or inconsistent with the 6th,
7th, and 20th Articles of Religion,—to that part of
the Nicene Creed which declares in substance that
the Holy Ghost spake by the Prophets,—and con-
trary to and inconsistent with the teaching of the
Church, as contained in the Ist Chapter of the
Epistle to the Hebrews, appointed in the Book of
Common Prayer to be read as the Epistle for
Christmas-day ; to the Epistle to be read for the
Epiphany (Ephesians iii., 1) ; and as contained in
the proper preface appointed in the Book of Com-
mon Prayer upon Whit Sunday. Article 8 con-
tains passages selected from pages 65 to 74 inclu-
sive of the essay, which are objected to on the
ground that the defendant did therein affirm that
in the Books of the Old Testament there is, with the
possible exception of one, two, or three doubtful
passages, no element of divinely inspired prediction
or prognostication of future persons or events, and
that such doctrine
7th Articles a was contrary to the 6th and
ofßeligion, to the Nicene Creed, and
to the portions Scripture appointed to be read
as the Gospel for the
Gospel for the Tuesday inndly and the Epistle and
of
the
eer week. Article 9
relates to the passages
work contained in
pages 76 and 77; Article 10, to
passages at pages
83, 84, and 85; Article 11, to pages 56.59, 6el
Article 12, to pages 81 and 87. Article 13aobjects
;
to the following passage as inconsistent vitliethe
27th Article of Religion—" The first Christians
held that the heart was purified by faith ; the
accompanying symbol, water, became by degrees
the instrument of purification. Holy baptism was
at first preceded by a vow in which the young
soldier expressed his consciousness of spiritual
truth ; but when it became twisted into a false
analogy with circumcision the rite.degenerated into
a magical form, and the Augustinian notion of a
curse inherited by infants was developed in con-
nexion with it." The 14th Article charges that, in
the following passage—" Thus the incarnation be-
comes with our author as purely spiritual as it was_
with Sr. Paul; the son of David by birth is the
Son of God by the spirit of holiness," the defendant
affirms that the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ
was purely spiritual, and that the Son of God did
not take man's nature in the womb of the blessed
Virgin, contrary to the second of the Articles of
Religion. Article 15 charges the defendant with
maintaining that justification by faith meant only
peace of mind, or Divine approval, which comes of
trust in a righteous God, and that justification is a
-verdict of forgiveness upon our repentance, and of
acceptance upon the offering of our hearts, which
document is alleged to be inconsistent with the 11th
of the Articles of Religion. Article 16 charges the

defendant with having, in the passages contained
lin pages 92 and 93 of the volume, approved and
assented in the substance, of all a e essay,
"as well those parts and words of which
other persons were the original writers as
those written by the defendant." The whole of the
charges are summed up in the 17th Article, as fol-
lows :—" That the manifest tendency, ~cope, object,
and design of the whole essay is to inculcate a
dis-
belief in the Divine inspiration of the Holy Scrip-
tures contained in the Old and New Testaments;
to reduce the said Holy; Scriptures to the level of a
mere human composition, such as the writings of
Luther end of Milton ; to deny that the Old Testa-
ment contains prophecies or predictions of our Sa-
viour, and other persons and events; to deny
the prophets, speaking under the special in-
spiration of the Holy Spirit, foretold human events;
to deny altogether or greatly. discredit the truth
and genuineness of the historical portions of the
Old Testament, and the truth and genuineness of
certain parts of the New Testament, and the truth
and reality of the miracles recorded as facts in the
Old and New Testaments ; to deny, or interpret by
a meaning at variance with that of the Church, the
doctrines of original sin, of infant baptism, of jus-
tification by faith, atonement and propitiation by
the death of our Saviour, and of the incarnation of
our Saviour."
Dr. P hillimore, having opened the case and read
the articles, asked the Court to admit them.
Dr. Deane, Q.C., on behalf of the Rev. Dr. Wil-
hams, in opposition to the admission of the articles,
said he had no doubt that the promoter, in institut-
ing these proceedings, had been influenced by pres-
sure from without. The defendant was no obscure
or unknown man. For many years he had been
known at the University of Cambridge not only as
a man of learning, but as taking a deep interest in
theological inquiry. He was known as the author
a " History of Christianity and Hindooism," and of
several sermons preached before the University of
Cambridge, which had been for years before the
public, and as a Hebrew scholar he was greatly
distinguished. The volume in which :the essay
complained of was published had been before the
public for a considerable time before any particular
notice was taken of it. Its history was somewhat
singular, for it was not till, perhaps unfortunately,
an article appeared in the " Westminster Review"
—the pith of which was that it was a great pity
the writers had not avowed themselves to be infidels
—that the book attracted general attention. Then
came the election at Oxford of a Professor of Sans-
crit, when members of the University from all parts
of the kingdom met and discussed the " Essays and I
Reviews." Then came an article in the " Quarterly
Review," which, with an ignorance that was sin-
gular if not pretended, declared that everything in
the volume was new, while it was well known by
the reading public that the opinions there expressed
were to be found in the floating literature of the
day, which in cant phrase were termed " neology."
Last came the speech of the right hon. member for
Bucks. What was the object of the prosecution ?
Not a sermon, but a review of a book written and
published by another man, in which were set forth
the opinions of the author in question. The com-
ments made were few, and where made were within
the law of the Church of England. He had yet to
learn that it was an offence against the law for
clergymen to review the work of a learned man and
comment upon it. The author of the book reviewed
(Baron Bunsen) was a man of great natural talent,
who cultivated it with more than ordinary success,
and with opportunities at his command which few
ever possessed. He was the pupil of Niebuhr, the
historian, and his secretary during his lengthened
residence at Rome. He had spent a considerable
time in Egypt, and afterwards resided in England
for nearly a quarter of a century. He was the
founder of the Bishopric of Jerusalem, which is in
the gift of England and Prussia alternately. He had
mixed with at least one religious party in this coun-
try, and he must be a bold man that would say that
in works by Baron Bunsen would be found doctrines
that supported infidelity. Some people might think
that strange doctrines were unsafely advanced in
the essays in question, and shortsighted views
might be taken in regard to it. He would instance
the address of a very learned man, the Rev. Dr.
Self, who in his address to Convocation expressed
alarm because he had been informed that infidels
were circulating extracts from the " Essays " at
Leeds. He should have known that Atheists and
sceptics published in parallel columns passages of
Scripture for the same purpose—to show their an-
tagonism to each other and their inconsistency with
science. The watchward of the Bible Society was,
" The whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible"—
that was, leaving the Divine Book to the people
for the exercise of their private judgment. A.
clergyman by his ordination vow was bound to in-
struct others in the right understanding of Holy
Writ. The learned counsel said that the objections
he would state to the articles were threefold. The
objection to Article 5 was applicable to it alone—
those to Articles 6 to 17 upon grounds more or less
applicable to all, and the objection to Article 17 was
limited to it alone and to its form. With reference
to Article 5, he remarked that any person reading
that article by itself would conclude that the pre-
face to the book contained erroneous doctrine, or
that, by what was contained in it, the defendant
became responsible for all the "Essays ;" but the
first proposition is that the writers are responsible
for their respective articles only. The last sentence
in quotation speaks of their mode of treatment of the
subjects discussed, and he contended that no subject
had suffered so much as religion from the use of con-
ventional language. The supposition that Dr. Wil-
liams was to be fixed with the responsibility of the
other " Essays " was excluded by the terms of the
4th and 18th Articles. It was true that the work
had passed through nine editions, and now they
exceed that number, which could be accounted for
by the manner in which it had been attacked. He
contrasted the extensive circulation of the "Essays"
with the fate of "Strauss' Life of Christ," which
was not made the subject of judicial proceeding, but
was replied to by Meander, and the consequence
was that Strauss' book was a dead loss to the pub-
lisher. The article was wrong in substance, and
inconsistent with the scope of the general charge.
It was useless, as the court could not inflict punish-
ment. Dr. Deane repeated that it was no part of
his instructions, nor was it his duty to shrink from
the most thorough inquiry into all the passages
cited. He would not adopt any legal subterfuge in
dealing with them. He was not sent there to ex-
plain away or conceal the opinions of the defendant.
The scheme of the articles appeared to be to ex-
tract certain passages, 'and to suggest a meaning,
or a tendency to a meaning, repugnant to the doc-
trines of the Church. He contended that the pas-
sages selected should have been given with the
context. But the framers of the articles had done
worse; they had actually mixed up passages taken
from different parts of the essay. His Lordship, in
determining this case, would have to decide rather
as a literary critic than as an ecclesiastical judge.
As an illustration of the progress of science he re-
ferred to the belief in a former age of quite a dif-
ferent movement of the heavenly bodies from that
) which'we now entertain, and he wished to know if
there was no improvement to be made in the science
of philology. Was there to be no progress in our
knowledge of words ? He complained that in the
articles no distinction was made between the
opinions of the author of the book reviewed and the
sentiments of the reviewer.
When the Court rose the learned counsel had
entered upon his argument against the admissibility
of the 7th Article, which charges the defendant
with maintaining that Holy Scripture is "an
expression of devout reason and the written voice
of the congregation," not the word of God.
The further hearing of the case will be proceeded
with to-day.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

LIVERPOOL DFC • 17.

(Before Mr. Justice Crompton and a Special Jury.)
LIBEL AND SEDUCTION-WHITE V. HOWARTII--.

HOWARTH V. WHITE.

Mr. Edward James, Q.C., Mr. T. Jones, and Mr.
Collingham appeared for Mr. White in both
actions ; and Mr. Overend, Q.C., Mr. Kemplay,
and Mr. Higgin for Howarth in both actions.
The first is an action for libel, and the second an
action for seducing the plaintiff's daughter, and, as
both are in fact founded on the same transaction,
they were proceeded with together at the same time.
It appeared from Mr. James's opening statement
that Mr. White is a dentist, carrying on business
in Lever-street, Manchester, and that Mr. Howarth
is a cotton spinner owning two mills at Middleton,
Six miles from Manchester, and is also a provision
dealer in the
andtfhes ame place, the shop being managed
by his
w
daughter. Mr. Howarth's eldest
daughter, requiring
the assistance of a dentist last
year, went with he mother to Mr. White's, in
Lever-street, Manc
molt:. and several times after
that without her
,Oavailing herself of Mr.
White's professional skill
October he put
was alleged that on the InBetiteho occasion;
but it
her under cho]oform in order tof e.xutsrtact a tooth,
recovering
and that while in that condition or
from it Mr. White improperly conjducted
towards her, and had connection with the girl himself
S le
19 years of age, and was delivered of
cishiolndlyon the 16th of July last. Her father early
a
in October last met a Mr. Chadwick, and stated to
him that his daughter had been delivered of a child;
that he had been informed only that morning that
Mr. White was the father of it, his daughter stat-
ing to him the circumstance of her being put under
chloroform, and her belief on that ground that Mr.
White had then abused her, as shehad never knows
living man unless it were on that occasion, when
she was unconscious. This statement gave rise to

the action for libel by Mr. White, and the alleged
transaction was on the ground of the action for
seduction against him by Mr. Howarth.
Thomas Chadwick, estate agent at Wilmstow
and Manchester, said,—The plaintiff White is a
dentist practising in Lever-street, Manchester, and
has a private residence at Alderley, near my own,
and Howarth is a cotton-spinner at Middleton, six
miles from Manchester. Mr. Howarth called at my
office in the end of July or the beginning of August
last, and in the course of conversation with me
said, speaking as if in very groat trouble, that his
daughter had been recently confined; that the father
of her child, he had learnt only that morning, was
Mr. White, the dentist, and that it had been begot-
ten when she was under chloroform; that the first
time she went to see Mr. White was professionally
with her mother; the next time she was alone, and
was put under chloroform, and that must have been
the time when the child was begotten; and that
the third time she went he attempted to take
liberties with her, and she threatened thereupon to
scream " Murder ;" that he desisted then, and she
never saw him again. It was from that circum-
stance that she believed him to be the father, as she
had never had connexion with any living man un-
less it were with him when she was under chloro-
form. Before this statement of Mr. Howarth I had
heard something to the same effect in the street, and
I told Mr. Howarth that I had. I communicated
the conversation to Mr. White on the 3d or 4th of
October, in the street opposite the Manchester In-
firmary, while I was in company with Mr. Green,
Mr. White's solicitor.
Cross-examined—l have not written down the
conversation, but I have it as literally as possible.
I understood that all the information Mr. Howarth
gave me was from his daughter, but T will pledge
my oath whether it was the belief of the father or
the belief of the daughter that events had happened
as they were stated. I certainly understood it VMS
the daughter's belief. Mr. White himself had told
me that he had administered chloroform to a young
woman, but he was not then speaking of Miss
Howarth, and, in reply to a question by Mr. Ho-
warth, I)told him I heard Mr. White say so, but
whether that question was put at the first in-
terview I cannot remember. Mr. White did not
say that ho was in the habit of administering chlo-
roform, but in the course of a conversation at my
breakfast table, in presence of my wife and family,
he mentioned one instance in which he had had
considerable difficulty in re3over'ing the patient
from the effects.

This closed the plaintiff's case in the action of
" White v. Howarth" for libel.

Mr. Overend tben addressed the jury for Mr.
Howarth as defendant in that action, and opened
the case for the plaintiff in the action of "Howarth
v. White" for seduction of the daughter, producing
the following evidence.
Mary Howarth—l am daughter of Mr. Edmund
Howarth, of Middleton, the eldest of seven children,
and 19 years of age. My father is a cotton-spinner,
and has a provision shop. Since I was at school I
have been assisting in the shop. I had occasion for
the assistance of a dentist, and therefore went with
my mother to Mr. 'White's, in Manchester, early in
September, 1860. I returned to him the week
following by his appointment, because he was then
engaged. My sister, and not my mother, was in
company with me on that occasion. He filled one
tooth, and prepared another, and I paid him for it
then. By appointment I went again the following
week alone, and had two teeth filled. I paid him
on that occasion, and went by appointment again
the following week alone. This was on Wednesday,
I think, in September, but I cannot tell the day of
the month. I was put into Mr. White's room and
he came in afterwards and shook hands with me,
asking how I was, He had not done so before. I
had two teeth filled, and while he was doing so he
addressed me as "love" and " dear," and by other
words to soothe. We had conversation about
Middleton and people there. I paid him that time
and made no appointment to go again, but he said
that if I wished to go again I must write and inform
him a week before the time. Middleton Agricultural
Show took place last year on the 4th of October, and
the week after the show I appointed to go to him
the following Thursday week, writing him on the
Wednesday. I went accordingly on Thursday, Octo-
ber 18, alone. Mr. White came into the room, shook
hands with me, asking how I was, and kissed me. I
sat down on his operating chair, and had one tooth
filledand another taken out. While he was operating
he addressed me as before, " love" and " dear.
" Don't be afraid ; it won't hurt you." Before he
gave me the chloroform he said the tooth would not
be much good to fill, and that there would be violent
pain for three or four hours. I said I dared not
have it out. He wished me to have chloroform. I
refused three or four times. He said it would do
me no harm if my things were loose about me. He
then asked me whether I wore stays, and whether
they were tight. I said I did wear stays, and he
said that I had better loosen them. He left the
room while I did so. He returned about five
minutes after, and administered the chloroform on
a white handkerchief. He got the chloroform from
a bottle with a yellow cork to it that stood on a
kind of sideboard. I was on the chair fa large easy
chair with a back rather reclining, and a footstool
in front. I was leaning back, and my head in
something that fixed the head. He held the hand-
kerchief to my mouth and nostrils, and I felt going
to sleep very fast. I drew my breath very quickly,
and he said, "Do not breathe so fast; it will be
better for you." When I came round I asked if
my tooth was out, and he said it was, and was on
the side table. At that time he was rubbing my
feet, about my ankles. Afterwards he put his hand
on my heart and said, " Your heart is beating all
right now." He then slided his hands from my
heart to my hands, which were on my chest, and
kept them there. (The witness then described the
defendant's conduct before and while he had con-
nexion with her.) I denied him many a time • I
did so because some one might see it from Le
window. I did not cry out, because my passion
was great ; but I said if he ever did so again I
would scream out. The defendant then left me
alone in the room for half an hour. After he re-
turned he remarked upon the break out on my face,
and wrote:out a prescription for me (put in evidence),
and bade me take it to Standering's, in Piccadilly, to
have it made up. lie gavo me also some brass metals
to put round my wrists and ankles (said to be gal-
vanic chains). I paid him half a guinea just before
I went out. He said ho would not charge for ex-
tracting my tooth. 1 asked him if there was any
discount, and he said " No." My mother bade me
do so always, for haying paid ready money. He
said he did not allow any discount, but ho would
give me either ss. for the bazaar or three half-crown
boxes of tooth powder, and I preferred the ss. He
gave me the ss. and a half-crown box of tooth-
powder, and bade me get such a toothbrush as he
showed me at Standering's. He then shook hands
with me and kissed me, and I came away. I had
been there in the room with him from about half-
past 2 o'clock to a quarter to 5 o'clock. He told me
before leaving not to tell my mother that I had had
chloroform. He urged me very hard about that.
About a fortnight after this I found that I was not
as I ought, and sent a note to Mr. White, stating I
was distressed on account of it, and that I should
be obliged to tell my mother of the proceedings that
had occurred at his place the last time I was there.
I asked him to write me by the bearer, but to say
nothing in the letter except about my teeth. He
wrote me by post next day, requesting me to go to
him, and I went alone on the 9th Nov. When I saw
him in the waiting-room he asked me how I came
to write such a note as that by any person or a
friend either, but I said he know what it was for,
and told him who brought it. He was angry with
me, and said I should have sent it by post. I said I
sent it by the girl because I wished to come on the
following day, the Thursday. The letter, he said,
looked as if it had been opened. In his room after
this he scaled my teeth, calling mo endearing names
as ho had before, and then began to take liberties
with me again, but I would not allow him, and said
I would scream out. He again worked at my teeth,
and then attempted liberties again, using very low
terms, and I cried "Oh," but I do not know whether
any one heard me. He tried to have connection
with me, but I would not allow him. He said, " We
must set you right." He would not take payment,
and I went away. I called on him again the day
the Empress of the French was in Manchester.
Miss Richardson was with me, but I was called
alone into his room. Ho said the pain of
my teeth and the cause of my not being right
arose from cold. I left him on the 9th November
without shaking hands, being rather angry, but
bade him good bye. I was delivered of a child
on the 16th July this year. Mr. White is the
father of it.

Cross-examined by Mr. James—l was seven
times altogether at Mr. White's, and I think on
four of these I paid him. The first call atter I
had been with my mother I paid him for the first
time 10s. 6d. ; the week following 21s. ; the week
following that 21s. The fourth time was on the
18th October, and that would be after an interval
of three weeks. I am sure of that. I am quite sure
I did not pay two guineas the first time, nor one
guinea and a half the second. I never saw him
or wrote him after that day the Empress of the
French was in Manchester.
_ Witness was then examined as to her previous con-
duct, and especially with certain men, who were
mentioned, one of them being a carter in her father's
service. Her answers were not such as to give a
high_ idea of her prudence or her morality.
Mr. Lunn, one of the surgeonsri of the Manchesterir.
Infirmary, said—Chloroform it in an
immense number of cases weekly. have seen it
administered to women. Before
sleepl
comes on I
have seen it produce excitement. If you smother

the patient with chloroform there will be less ex-
citement. Afterwards, in coming out of the chloro-
form, persons ate differently affected. I have seen
in women in that case a manner more than hysteri-
cal, what might be called an indecent manner,
moving the arms as if to embrace and the lips as if
kissing, and using lewd dirty language—the lan-
guage rarely, but I have heard it. Chloroform if
given in a particular dose would have an effect on
the sexual passion ; an over-dose would have quite
an opposite effect and pros trate the patient's strength.
Vomiting shows that chloroform has been over-
administered. The effect of chloroform would in
time make a cork light yellow. A handkerchief
more than an inhaler would have a sexual effect.
Anything about the neck of the patient should be
loose; it might be prudent to loose the stays, but I
have never had occasion to require that. I never
ad minister chloroform when alone with the patient.
Cross-examined—Chloroform prevents the sensa-
tion of pain. I know Mr. Simson, of Edinburgh,
and his book on " Anaesthesia," and that he denies
the sexual effect on women, but that is in obstetric
practice, and there I agree with him. I speak of
hysteria in two cases, and of the indecency in only
one. That was the case in which chloroform was
given at a dentist's house by myself, to a lady who
was to have a tooth extracted ; that is the only case.
T. M. Lall, assistant to Standering, chemist, in
Piccadilly, Manchester, proved that the prescrip-
tion spoken of by Miss Howarth was made up on
the 18th of October. He did not know of its being
made up again till three weeks ago. There was
no date to the prescription as it appeared in the
book, but he had no doubt, from what preceded and
went after, that it was the 18th of October.
Mr. Manifold, of the Northern Hospital, Liver-
pool, spoke to the sexual effect of chloroform.
Cross-examined—He spoke of only two cases,
although his experience extended to 400 or 500
cases of chloroform being administered. He would
not ss.y that sleep had an erotic tendency, although
the fancy might operate under sleep.
Mrs. Anna Howarth, the mother of the young
woman in question, said she thought it would be
the beginning of September when she and her
daughter went to Mr. White's. Ile 4ould not see
them then, but appointed for them to return a week
after. Her daughter did go several times, and she
always paid, but site could not tell how much money
she had given her. She had spoken to her daugh-
ter about asking discount. She remembered her
getting a prescription; it was on the 18th of Octo
ber, about a fortnight alter the show.
Eliza Howarth, the daughter of a publican at
Middleton, proved the delivery of a letter from Miss
Mary Howarth to Mr. White at Manchester on the
7th of November. She remembered the date, be-
cause Mrs. Whitehead was lying dead at the time.
She waited for an answer, and Mr. White came
down stairs and said he could not give her an an-
swer, but he would write.
Robert Fielding, a corn merchant at Middleton,
said he heard of Miss Howarth having a child in
July. He knew Mr. White. He went to him to
his place of business in Lever-street before Christ-
mas, 1860, for the purpose of having something
done to his teeth. Mr. White know him, and knew
where he came from.

Mr. Overend—Did he draw your teeth out, or
stop them, or clean them ?
Witness—That's my business. (Laughter.) He
did what was required. Mr. White asked him if he
knew Miss Howarth, and he said he did. He asked
him first if he came from Middleton, although he
knew. He answered in the affirmative,lnd then
Mr. White asked him if he know Mr. Howarth.
He said he did; and, after asking him about seve-
ral other persons, asked him if lie thought Middle-
ton was a place which would pay if he went over
and endeavoured to establish a practice there. He
replied that it would. Mr. White then said he had a
great many patients coming from there. He next
asked how Mr. Howarth stood—if he was a respec-
table man, and if he was a wealthy man. Witness
replied in the affirmative to both questions. He then
asked if Miss Howarth was engaged to any person.
Witness said two or three had paid their addresses
to her, and that was all he knew about her. Mr.
White also asked if she was respectable. To that
question he gave no answer. White went to Mid-
dleton about six weeks or two months age, and was
making inquiries from witness about the character
of Miss Howarth.

Frederick Andrew Taylor, assistant to his father,
Mr. Edmund Taylor, a surgeon at Middleton, said
he attended Miss Howarth during her cdrtifinement,
and he heard a statement made by her.
Susan Aldis, the keeper of a boarding school at
Harrogate, said Miss Howarth was a pupil of hors.
She left school 12 months last Christmas. She re-
ceived a letter from her last January.
Mr. James at first strongly objected to the admis-
sibility of this letter, but afterwards consented, al-
though it was not evidence, that it should go before
the jury.
Another letter in reply to this was read from the
witness, advising her former pupil to communicate
the whole of the facts to her parents immediately.
This was the evidence for the plaintiff in the action
of " Howarth v. White" for seduction.

Mr. James then put the defendant himself into
the witness-box.

John Haynes White said he had never any con-
nexion with Miss Howarth at all. Ho had been in
business 15 years. A man and his wife named Sher-
ratt resided at his place of business in Lever-street,
and took care of it. The wife or the man attended
to the door. The man was an assistant in the
mechanical part of the business. Witness himself
resided at Alderley. His operating room in Lever-
street was on the first floor, to the front. He had
as large a practice as any other dentist in Manches-
ter. Mrs. Sherratt was in the habit of entering the
names of people as they called. He himself had a
book in which ho entered the days for which he
made engagements. That book would enable him
to state on what days he had made engagements with
Miss Howarth. The first engagement entered in
the book for Miss Howarth was for the sth of
September. By reference to Mrs. Sherratt's book
it would be found that it was the 28th of August
when they called. On the sth of September he filled
some teeth for Miss Howarth, and received two
guineas from her, which was entered in his cash-
book, produced. The next engagement was made
for the 12th. In his cash-book there was an entry
of 13 1 ls. 6d. received from Miss Howarth on that
day. He filled two teeth on that day, and removed
some teeth. He used chloroform. He had used
chloroform for 12 years in extracting teeth, and had
always used it by himself without assistance. On
this occasion he used the same dose as on other
occasions. He did not take the slightest liberty
with her while she was under the influence of
chloroform. Sho recovered almost immediately.
That was the only instance in which he used
chloroform to her. He always asked females if they
laced at all tight. He asked her the same question,
and her reply was that she did not think she was
tight-laced. He told her she had better be cautious,
and he would leave the room for five minutes.
She was under his treatment altogether about
an hour or an hour and a half. He never kissed
her. He did not remember making use of en-
dearing expressions, such as "dear" and "love," to
her, but it was not at all unusual for him when
treating young persons and children to use the word
" dear." He was a married man and had three chil-
dren. Immediately after Miss Howarth left he went
to the station to go to his residence. The next en-
gagement was for Oct. 18. Referring to his cash-
book, he found that on Oct. 18th he received from
Miss Howarth one guinea. He might have given
ss. and a box of tooth-powder. He had given tooth-
powder on various occasions for bazaars. On Oct.
18th he filled two teeth for her. He did not extract
teeth more than once. He never charged her or re-
ceived anything from her afterwards. He only re-
ceived money three times. He certainly did not
take any liberties with her on that day nor on any
other day. Referring to Mrs. Sherratt's book, he
found she was there ea Nov Ist. He removed some
filling on that day, and scaled some teeth for her.
Ho made no engagement on that day for the future.
He remembered receiving a note from Eliza
Howarth about Nov. 6th. He told her he could not
give an answer then, but he would write an answer.
He was very busy at the time, and that was the
reason he did not give an answer then. He believed
that letter was destroyed. He had looked for it and
could not find it. As far as he could recollect—and
he thought he could recollect it all—the letter com-
menced, " Mr. White, Sir,—ln accordance with your
wish I write to say that I am not as comfortable as
I could wish, and. I should be glad if you would send
me something to use, and direct it to the Post-office,
Middleton." He thought that was about all. The
learned counsel having read the girl's statement as
to the contents of the letter, the witness said it was
quite untrue. The letter contained no allusion to
her being pregnant, or to anything improper having
occurred. He wrote a reply on the 7th, and addressed
it to her own house. He did not send it according
to her request, because he did not wish to lend him-
self to any underhand proceeding. He was stating
this with regard to the address to the best of his be-
lief. He wrote : " Mr. White's compliments to Miss
Howarth, and he does not quite comprehend the
meaning of her letter ; and if her teeth are at all
uneasy, she had better come to Manchester." Ac-
cordingly, on the 9th she came to Manchester.
Nothing of any moment took place. She said her
teeth were less painful, and he told her he thought
it was a slight cold, and in two or three weeks it
might all pass away. He did not got to her and
say, " Why did you send such a note by any per-
son P" He denied the truth of the girl's evidence on
that point. He did not on that occasion take any
liberties with her or use any low terms to her. She
calleiL again on the 30th of November. She did not
on that occasion say anything about not being right.

She never charged him with having had connexion
with her. Mrs. Howarth called on the 18th Sept.
and requested him to make some reduction in his
charges. He said he would make no reduction, but
he would do the best he could for her mouth. The
prescription produced was in his handwriting. He
had some conversation with her about a scorbutic
affection before he gave her the prescription.
Cross-examined by Mr. Overend—He saw she
had some scurvy on her hands, and he suggested a
remedy. He did not say "This will do you good,
my dear." He charged sometimes half a guinea, and
sometimes five guineas, according to who the patient
was. The witness went on to say that he had no re-
collection of having administered chloroform to a
young woman in the absence of a third party. The
lady referred to having been brought into court, he
said he had no recollection of her. He sometimes
gave the ladies a kiss when they were young, but
not strangers—sometimes when their mothers were
not there. He bad not kissed young women, stran-
gers, who had come to his place. He might have
kissed a young woman who was his patient if she
was not a stranger. .

Rebecca Sherratt verified the entries made by
her in the register of visitors. She said she re-
membered Mr. White using chloroform to Miss
Howarth. She did not remember the date. Mr.
White went home soon after Miss Howarth went
away. It was before the 18th Sept. the day on
which Mrs. Howarth came. When Mrs. Howarth was
talkin; with Mr. White on that day, she thought
she was making a complaint about the chloroform
having been used.
Cross-examined—She did not know that there
was any charge against Mr. White until after the
child was born.
This concluded the evidence on both actions.
Mr. Overend this morning addressed the jury for
Mr. Howarth, and

Mr. James replied upon the whole for Mr. White.
Mr. Justice Crompton having summed up the
evidence,

The jury retired to consider their verdict, and
after being three hours and a-half in deliberation,
returned a verdict for the plaintiff White in the
action for slander, because they were satisfied that
the alleged seduction did not take place while the
young woman was under chloroform ; they, there-
fore, gave one farthing damages. In the action for
seduction they found for the plaintiff Howarth—
Damages, 40s.

WESTERN CIRCUIT.—EXETER, DEC. 18.
(Before Mr. Justice Williams.)
Sarah Sheppard was indicted for the wilful mur-
der of Mary Ann Ashton, at Stockland, on the 26th
of October.
Mr. Carter and Mr. Bere prosecuted; Mr. H. T.
Cole defended the prisoner.
This was a charge of wilful murder, but different
in its details from most other cases. The murder
was said to have arisen from various acts of omis-
sion and commission. The prisoner was the wife of
a labouring man. They had both been married be-
fore. By her first husband the prisoner had a daugh-
ter, whose death was the subject of the present in-
quiry. The deceased was about 18 years of age.
She occasionally went out to service, but was at
various times at home with her mother. After
Midsummer last several persons had conversations
with the prisoner, who was told that her daughter
Mary Ann was in the family-way ; when the pri-
soner said, if it should prove to be so, no one should
come near her until she was dead, that she would
not put a finger near her, and no one else should
so long as she was living. One person asked
her if sic thought her (the prisoner's) husband
was the father of the child. The prisoner replied
" No," but she was afraid something was wrong, as
she thought her husband had more feeling for her
daughter than for her. The young woman then
lived with Mrs. Turner, who suspecting something
charged her with being pregnant. The girl admitted
that she was so, and this fact Mrs. Turner after-
wards communicated to the prisoner, who replied
that if she was in the familyway by her husband
she would run the pick into her and kill her. The
young woman left Mrs. Turner's and went to reside
with her mother. On the 26th of October the pri-
soner went into Mr. Stack's, a chemist at Honiton,
about 4 o'clock in the afternoon, and asked for some
smelling salts, and then asked for something for her
daughter, who, she said, had just been confined.
The chemist asked the prisoner where she lived.
She said at Stockland, which was six miles from
Honiton. The chemist asked if she had left any
one with her daughter. The prisoner replied that
she had left four women and a midwife with her
daughter, who had had a fainting fit. This was
untrue, as no one was left with her daughter. The
prisoner said the child was dead. The prisoner
called in a midwife about 1 o'clock the next morn-
ing, as she said, to assist in the confinement, but
upon going to the prisoner's house the midwife
found the girl dead, and she had been so for several
hours. It was therefore alleged that the prisoner
had purposely allowed her daughter to die of ne-
glect, and that this, coupled with the prisoner's
expressions, amounted to the crime of murder, be-
cause if she undertook a duty and by reason of
want of skill or care she caused the death of another
she would be guilty either of murder or manslaughter.
After all the evidence had been gone through,
the judge said he thought the prosecution ought to
call the only person who was in the prisoner's house
at the time.
A girl of fifteen, who was the daughter of the
prisoner's husband by his first wife, was then
called, and she stated that the prisoner went to
Honiton on the day in question about two o'clock,
and did not return till seven. No one else was
left in the house bat witness, Mary Ann Ashton,
and two little children. The deceased was assist-
ing to clean the house ; she was not in bed when
the prisoner returned. They then had tea, and the
witness went out to look after the geese. She re-
turned about 9 o'clock, and went out again to look
for her father; the prisoner accompanied her. The
prisoner came home again, and the witness went
again to look for the geese. Witness came home
again about 11 o'clock, and then found the prisoner
helping deceased into bed. The prisoner went about
12 that night to fetch a woman (the midwife). The
deceased was then alive, but died in about ten
minutes after the prisoner went away. The pri-
senor returned about one o'clock.
Cross-examined—The prisoner gave the deceased
some brandy and water when she put her into bed,
and asked her how she felt, and she said " Better."
The prisoner sent witness out to get assistance, but
the woman refused to come, and then the prisoner
went off after the other woman. The prisoner
seemed kind to the deceased. On the previous Tues-
day the prisoner asked her if she was in the family-
way, and she said she was, but she had a long time
yet.
Its-examined—Nothing was said as to who the
father was. The prisoner had often asked deceased
if she was in the family-way. Deceased said, " Time
will make mention, and then you will see." The
deceased was at home from the beginning of hay
harvest until she died. The child was born when
witness went to fetch the first woman the prisoner
sent her for. The child was born while witness
was out, but it died as soon as she returned, at 11
o'clock. Deceased went into the bedroom several
timeslarhen the prisoner was at Honiton.
By the Judge—The baby was born before the
prisoner was trying to put deceased into bed ; she
was standing on the floor. The baby was lying on
a hoard on the floor, wrapped up in flannel. The
father went away to market that morning at seven
o'clock, and did not come back till after the baby
was born.
Mr. Gerard, the surgeon, stated that he made a
post-mortem examination of the body of the de-
ceased and the child on the following day. The
child bled to death. The umbilical cord was not pro-
perly tied. He then examined the body of the
woman, and she had bled to death. Had a proper
person attended in time, the life of the woman
might have been saved. From what he had heard
sworn to-day, the woman must have been dead
seven or eight hours before the midwife came. The
body was in a healthy condition.
The witness was cross-examined at great length
as to the progress of labour.
Mr. Cole submitted that there was no case to go
to the jury.
The Judge said, of course he had considered it,
and he should tell the jury that if they thought the
daughter was living with her mother and was taken
in labour, it was her duty to take all reasonable
care to procure assistance, and if she omitted to do
so it amounted to manslaughter; but if necessary he
should reserve the point.
Mr. Cole then urged that, as the deceased was
emancipated, the mother was not obliged to render
the assistance, but the husband's daughter had put
the case out of court.
The Judge said he should leave the whole case
to the jury, and would reserve anything that might
be requisite. He should put it to the jury how far
they could believe the girl, because she was called
by the prosecution under peculiar circumstances, as
he had tolo the counsel for the prosecution that he
ought to call her, as she was in the house at the
time.
Mr. Cole then addressed the ,j ury for the prisoner.
Mr. Justice Williams having summed up,
The jury found the prisoner guilty of man-
slaughter.
The Judge told the prisoner that he had reserved
a point of law for the consideration of the Judges,
and it would be argued at the earliest convenient
opportunity, and he should therefore respite the
sentence.
Mr. Cole applied to the Court to allow the pri-
soner to be bailed.
The Judge said it was not a ease for bail.
The prisoner was then removed from the bar,