The Sun.
London, England, 1850-12-02 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON,

the proceedings taken to supersede that commission in
1815. I conducted the second commission, in 1823, as
solicitor. I was present at the examination of Sir Gre-
, gory by the jurors. The first commission was super-
seded at the instance of Lady Say and Sole, the aunt of
I Sir Gregory; the second was superseded at the instance
of his brother Sir Edward Verner. That second com-
mission was traversed, and the traverse was tried in
1826. I conducted the defence of that traverse,
and was present at the trial. I was employed
to support the commission. That commission
was established on the inquest on the traverse.
I have had consultations with Sir Francis Milman
Dr. Warburton, and other medical men who attended
Sir Gregory. In the interval between the two commis-
sions, between 1815 and 1823, Sir Gregory was attacked
nearly in every year, beginning with intoxication, which
led on to direct lunacy. Those attacks continued upon
him fora few weeks at a time. On the cessation of those,
attacks he returned to a lucid state of mind. There was
a personal restraint put upon him whilst the attacks
lasted. He was allowed to do as he pleased afterwards.
Sir Francis Milman was on every occasion called in; he
imposed the restraint and he directed the liberation. Sir
Francis Milman is long since dead. I communicated
with the medical gentlemen on those occasions, Sir Gre-
gory having requested me to interfere when he was
in his senses. On his recovery he expressed
perfect approbation of what I had done. The
father of Sir Gregory died in 1805. Sir Gregory
bad not then come of age; but he came of age next
year, when he succeeded to considerable landed property,
part of which be was tenant for life, and the other part
of which he was tenant fee. There was also money di-
rected to be laid out in land, of which Sir Gregory was
tenant for life. The property altogether was worth
about 20,0001. a year. When he came of age Sir
Gregory made acquaintances uncongenial to his own
rank; he mixed in the company of disreputable profli-
gate persons, who sought his society for their own in.
terest, and who led him into habits of intoxication. I
do not know that there was any insanity in the family.
Both father and son were eccentric men. I know he in-
dulged in habits of intoxication shortly before the issuing
of the first commission. After he was put under re-
straint his mind gradually improved, and so much so that
in the following year the commission was superseded.
It was superseded after Lord Chancellor Eldon had an
interview with Sir Gregory. After the commission was
superseded he soon recurred to these habits of intoxica-
tion, which he continued up till 1823. I would certainly
describe Sir Gregory, as at all times an eccentric man.
He was perfectly regardless of personal appearance at
all times, negligent of his person, shy and sullen towards
strangers, had habits of talking eagerly and very loud,
and his demeanour was calculated to create an unfavour-
able impression on the first appearance. Ho had also a
peculiarity, such as sometimes fearing infection; if he
met a funeral he would cross the street rather than meet
it. He would never shake hands with a person with his
naked hand of late years, Ho had a habit of stuffing
large things into his breeches' pockets, which gave him
a grotesque appearance. On further acquaintance he
showed himself to be a man of education; he had very
considerable conversational talents and was greatly ad-
dicted to reading. He graduated at Oxford; I think he
was a student at Brazenose. He had a strong power of
memory. Towards 1839 or 1840 his bodily health be-
came a great deal impaired. Sir Gregory's mind became
much improved as his body began to decline. When
his brother, Sir Edward Turner, came to visit him he
used to declare that he was not his brother, but Captain
Calloway, and was the son of a butler in his family of
that name. On the. 14th of August, 1839, Sir Gregory
called on me and said his brother Edward had been to see
him, with which he was very much pleased, and he de-
sired me to appoint his brother to meet him at my office.
I did so. On the 17th August, 1839, Sir Gregory and
his brother Edward met at my dike. Sir Gregory
addressed him most cordially, appeared greatly pleased
to see him, and they sat in friendly conversa-
tion together for about half an hour. Sir Gre-
gory afterwards expressed his satisfaction at
that interview. That was when I was making his will.
On the 18th of February, 1841, Sir Gregory called on
me at my office by himself, without any keeper attend-
ing him, this being the first time I had seen him after his
liberation from restraint. He said he bad called upon
me to be congratulated, meaning for his liberation; he
held out his naked hand and cordially shook hands
with me. The circumstance struck me, for I
had not for twenty years before known him
do such a thing. Sir Gregory's habit heretofore
had been never to open any door with his naked hand.
If he had not a glove on, he would stand still awaiting ef
me to open the door for him. If I did not do that, he
would take the skirt of his coat in his hand and open the
doer with it. On this occasion be opened the door with
his naked hand. He was always greatly averse
to any medical man visiting him ; but after this
occasion that in a great measure disappeared.
In the following year, when Dr. Southey was called in,
it was at his own request That was in the winter of
1840. He was continually complaining of the existence
of the second commission, but he would not allow me to
mention the word supersedeas. He insisted that it
should be traversed. lam speaking up to the period of
1839. He was dissatisfied with the traverse which had
been tried. Ho objected to the supersedeas, becduse
that implied it was a right act at the time, but he thought
that a traverse would show that it had been wrong from
the beginning. In 1839, however, he talked no more
about a traverse. Ile then wished a supersedeas, but if
that could noesbe done he should be content if he was
freed from personat restraint. That was in 1840.
When he came to me, in 1841, be was freed
frpin personal restraint, seemed in high spirits,
and was perfectly satisfied. Dr. Warburton approved of
the restraint being removed, in conjunction with Dr.
Southey. The committee of his person were Lady
Turner and Mr. Dryden. Those particular delusions
never occurred again to the end of his life; never any of
them, to my knowledge. In July, 1838, I received in-
structions from Lady Turner and Mr. Fryer to prepare a
marriage settlement for the daughter of Sir Gregory. Miss
Turner was then under age, and an application was
made to the Court of Chancery to permit the marriage.
That was referred to the Master, to inquire whether it
was a proper marriage, and the taster reported that it
was. The date of the report is August the 2d, 1838.
I then gave instructions to Mr. Hodson,: the con-
veyancer, to prepare a draft settlement, and he
diet so. Mr. Stephens acted as solicitor on behalf
of Mr. Fry or, and I submitted the draft to Mr.
Stephens, who returned it with some alterations, sub-
stituting other properties for the sum of 20,0001. origi-
nally proposed to be settled by Mr. Fryer. I submitted
those alterations to Mr. Hodson, who would not
approve them unless with the approbation of the
Court, of Chancery. I called on Mr. Fryer to
complete tho original agreement for a settlement made
at Southampton, but a year elapsed without any com-
pliance. The marriage had then taken place. Mr.
Fryer did not complete the article, and a bill was filed
fifteen months afterwaras. Mr.- Fryer was eventually,
though not at first, made a party to that bill. Upon
the bill being filed Mr. Fryer applied to the Master of
the Rolls, who eventually ordered that the infant wife
- should be made a party plaintiff. In Feb., 1841, she came
of age; when she disavowed the bill, and desired her name
to. be struck cut as plaintiff in an application to the
Master of Rolls. The Master of Rolls desired to see the
lady herself, and on the 19th April she went before him
and disavowed the suit. (Shown the will in question.)
I saw that will signed by Sir Gregory Page Turner on the
15th June, 1841, Henry Elston being the other attesting
witness. When ho signed his will I thought Sir Gregory
as, perfectly competent to make a will as any man who
now hears me. The will was executed at my office. The
first time be mentioned to me the subject of a will, by
the name nameof such, was on the 22d April, 1841; that
was at my office; be gave me generally to understand what
his wish was with respect to the disposition of his
property; he eaid his great object was to protect his
daughter, and he appealed to me, that I must see the
necessity of this from what had taken place on the
,19th. During the proceedings in Chancery Sir Gregory
was continually calling on me to hear how things went
on, and expressed very great anxiety about them. Sir
Gregory called on me again by appointment on
the 29th of April. He came alone, as on the
former occasion. I think then Rook had discontinued
'attending him. Thege was a general conversation on
the 29th about the will, and he explained more fully his
object. He made an appointment to call again on the
6th May, and he same on that day pursuant
to his appointment, when there was nothing
passed but general conversation. He made an
appointment to come on the 13th. I rather
induced him to come again and again that I might not
be in haste to prepare the will for him. Between the
6th and the 13th May I prepared a draft will (pro-
duced) pennant to hii instructions. That is wholly in
ray handwriting. The original instructions were so
simple that they required very little memorandum and
'I carried them in my head. When Sir Gre-
gory called en me, on the 13th, I spread the
draft en my desk; I invited him to come and sit down
by my side, which ho did. I read the whole over to
him, and with him. He made his observations as we
went on, and he directed certain alterations or addi-
tions to be made. There were several parts of his will
that he required to be read more than once.
He appointed to come again to me on the
.20th of May, and :'desired me to have ready,
when he should come, the will of his father. Between
the 13th and 28th May I made a new draft, which was
a copy of the alterations he had directed to be made in
it, and that I submitted to him on the 20th (produced).
In the first draft there were no trustees appointed, nor
was there any disposition of the ressdue. The second
draft was laid before Sir Gregory in the same
manner; he sat down by my side; I read it
aloud to him throughout very deliberately,
be overlooking and reading with him. As before, he
immediately stopped me to read again a passage he did
not exactly comprehend, and he directed further altera-
tions. One ale ration was the name of his trustee. He
had inserted the name of Henry W. Bayfield, his wife's
brother, a captain in the navy; he observed he was
not a proper person for trustee because he
might be absent on service, and he directed me
to insert ina!ead of him the Rev. Lemster Dryden, his
cousin. tie requested me to make an alteration which I
suggested to bun respecting a building lease, and that
was
wpahpsuoi
ia btnnln ttnheoseinly
tl fo ssuggestion Pmade to him throughout the
,r he 2
and th7at „,
cthethat
by whichadopt time
adopted. Ho de
e d another
raf
Imhaadth
cugmssed for his execution. He came again on that
mt;andh! atiji spreadlcwli 111; Copy
of the will be fore
side aain, and
tai© Will over with him wordy Perword he ve
r-
rcialiitry me; and ::e direct. d tvru, alt, •-
icAd
u ations to he made
111' it, t2l)ne Itts'En haying refer,--lle' e. to a legacy to
his
executori. 1:10 utld me ' itrreabaner Stackpook".
r(.1.•!,.0ce to hi:: fat:l.:Pe., will, an executer of
gl'aldrr bee ttifili i'o amgL(h,Atieotdit inatacuovinhi,!e:
.execuior
JW—Aitt crvciltlnetossilwill"situil?dinidter(;rliebxlearilhation when our re-
port left, and the trial was likely t') last several days.

GERMArI Y.

The Berlin journals of the 30th give the following
as the draught of the addresss of the Lower House.
In this draught the Garman question i 3 mentioned
with an expression of grief respecting the inefficiency
of the measures for an arrangement of the German
Constitution.

A hope is added that the Constitution, as fore-
shadowed by the League, will sooner or later become
a reality, and that in this arrangement of affairs
Prussia will have a suitable position.
The address protests against the regeneration of
the Federal .Assembly.
In the Schleswig question the address protests
against foreign intervention, but it adds that if this
question cannot ha settled without intervention, it
hopes that all the Governments of the Confederation
will combine for the purpose of terminating the con-
flict in a manner which shall protect the well•founded
rights on all sides.

—The address makes no mention of the Press Law.
The Prussian troops at Cassel have been reinforced
by a detachment of 6,000 men.

BELGIUM.

BRUSSES.—A regular steam communication is in
progress between Antwerp and New York. The re-
quisite capital, estimated at 3,000,0001., has already
been subscribed in England. A requisition has been
sent to all the manufacturers in the Prussian• Rhenish
provinces to co-operate in the undertaking, and to
transport their goods and manufactures through this
channel ; five new vessels are to be built, and are to
be fitted up expressly for emigrants. The success
of the enterprise is looked upon as secure, as the
Belgian Government has guaranteed 4 per cent.
interest.

In the recent sitting of the chambers, the Minister
for Foreign Affairs, submitted the diplomatic corre-.
spondence with Rome relative to the Latin address
pronounced by the Pope in a private consistory,
on the 20th of May, 1850, which has excited
such great astonishment in the Cabinet, at th
displeasure expressed by the Pope at tho recent
Gemernment measure relative to national educa-
tion. In this address the Pope says that he
cannot fail to express his grief at the danger
which threatens the Roman Catholic reli.
gion in Belgium, and calls upon the King and
those who hold the reins of Government to consider
as their paramoent duty to protect and defend
the holy prelates and ministers of the Church.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs, in reply to a
lengthened communication from Rome upon the
subject, expresses the surprise of the Cabinet at the
reproof given ay the Pope to the King and the
Government. He presumes that the said reproof
has been given in ignorance, and that the fact
has been overlooked; that in Belgium the
State interferes neither with the nomination
or induction of the Roman Catholic clergy, but
pays and pensions them ; under these circumstances
the Cabinet appeals to the Pope, who has been mis-
informed of the actual state of things, and concludes
by stating that the Government of his Majesty
regrets being placed under the painful necessity of
making a decided protest at the present moment
against assertions which are in direct contraditicn
to existing facts. The Belgian Ambassador at Rome,
in the name of the Pope, gave a qualified explanation
of the charge of his Holiness against Belgium. After
reading the documents the Chambers passed a una-
nimous vote against the Ministers.—Anziegar Zei-
tang.