The Sun.
London, England, 1844-12-06 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, DECEMlllillt 6, 1844,

A desultory conversation ensued, in which Mr. Law-
rence,
Mr. Anderton, and other members of the Court
took part, the amendment was put to a show of
hands, and only three hands were held up in its fa-
vour, and the original motion (that the report be
agreed to) was carried by a large majority.

PUBLIC BATHS AND WASHING-HOUSES.
Mr. Alderman Jonicsom presented a petition from
Mr. W. Cotton, the Chairman of the Committee for
Establishing Public Baths and Washing-houses for
the Labouring Classes in and near the Metropolis,
praying the Court to be pleased to aid the subscrip-
tions set on foot for that purpose to such an amount as

to the Court might seem fit.
Mr. Alderman JOHNSON and Mr. D. W. WIaB
seconded the motion, that the petition be referred to

the Finance Committee.

SURGEON TO THE CITY POLICE FORCE.
Mr. lisprELL presented a petition from Messrs.
Abraham, Elwin, and J. IL Lynch, late candidates
for the office of surgeon to the City police force, com-
plaining of the appointment to that office of Mr.
Childs, who, the petition stated, was not duly quali-
fied by law to treat medical and surgical diseases, in-
asmuch as he had not been licensed by the Royal
College of Physicians, or the Apothecaries' Company.
The petition prayed inquiry, and the removal of Mr.
Childs from the office.
Mr. HEPPELL moved that the petition be referred
to the Police Committee.
Mr. Orin Ann opposed the motion, and moved, as
an amendment, that the petition do lie upon the table.
On the motion of Mr. HEPPELL, the Court divided,
when the numbers appeared—
For the amendment 22
Against it

Majority . —3o

FRB'S CHURCHES—PUSIIYISX.
The report of the Finance Committee, to whom
had been referred the petition of the Rev. James
Tyler, 8.D., rector of the parish of St. Giles's-in-the-
Fields, praying for pecuniary aid towards the erec-
tion of the new free church in that district, was next
brought up and read. It recommended a grant'of 2001.
in aid of the undertaking. On the motion that the
Court agree with the Committee in their report
being put,
Sir PETER LAURIE said he felt it his duty to oppose
the motion. He regretted that he could not concur
with the Committee in their report, the consideration
of which, he submitted, ought to be adjourned. He
was of opinion that the liberality of the Court ought
.to be dispensed with care and judgment, and that a
strong case ought to be made out before so large a
grant as that recommended was agreed to in sup-
port of a church situate without the City.
Some years .ago he had supported, with great
pleasure,. the grant, out of the City funds, of
1,0001., and from those of the Company to which
he belonged, of 5001., in aid of the then proposed
new churches in Bethnal-green, but he regretted that
the benefit arising from those new churches had not
been as great as might have been anticipated, had a
more judicious selection of ministers been made. The
main reason for the grant to Bethnal-green was, that
the poverty of that district was increasing with its
population, while, in the present instance, the reverse
was the case, for the mass of the pauper population of
St. Giles's, in the neighbourhood of this new church,
had been swept away to make space for new streets,
which would be constructed of dwellings suitable for.,
a respectable class of tradesmen—a class which would
cheerfully contribute to the. support of a church
where the clergy did their duty. Although he (Sir
P. Laurie) was sorry to vote against a parish which
had for its ' rector so exemplary a character as the
pious and conciliatory man, Mr. Tyler, still he
thought that the present state of the Church was such
that the Court ought to know something as to the
spirit in which this church was to governed. At-
present, throughout the diocese .of London, discord
and disunion prevailed in the Church. It was hardly
possible to find two adjoining parishes in which the
same discipline and' forms were observed, and yet each
minister could justify his conduct from the charges Of
his bishop. Offensive as was the arrogance and
turbulence of, Bishop Phillpotts, it was infinitely less
destructive to the best interests of the Church than
the undecided, trimming, and Can't-we-split-the-
difference system of the Bishop of London ; and
until such 'information was received, he (Sir P
Laurie) wished the Court to pause before it assisted
in the erection of a building which,' instead of being
a blessing to a parish, might only be the seat of dis-
cord and ill-feeling. The clergy began this disturb
ance, and he trusted that the laity would, by a firm
and temperate' course, teach them, from the humblest
to the highest, that if they wished to retain the affec-
tion of the laity, it must be by a continuance in that
course which first gained their respect and regard,
and not by arrogating to themselves powers to which
they 'had •no claim, and which, if conceded,
they had not the discretion to guide.—(Hear,
hear.) Let the Court, therefore, follow the
precedent set by the Bishop of London at Tottenham,
and, like him, adjourn the consideration of the matter
for twelve months. This church was called a free
church ; but suppose a minister to be appointed who,
regardless of the wishes of his congregation, deter-
mined to enforce the offertory on the plea of the po-
verty of the neighbourhood, no other result could
be expected than that the congregation would be
driven away; or suppose that the minister had a par-
tiality for crosses, candlesticks, and the frivolous
man-millinery which prevailed in some churches to
the offence of all-true Protestants—would the Court
be ready to vote away its funds in aid of such an ob,
ject ? He• hoped not. Ho trusted that, until the
Church became again pure and rational, divested of
the ceremonials of turning, and bowing, and scraping,
the Court would not contribute to it one shilling of
its funds. With these views, he moved, as an amend-
ment, that the • question be adjourned for twelve
.months, until the Bishop of London had given his
decision upon the application made to him by the pa-
rishioners of Tottenham.
Mr. Deputy' CORSET seconded the amendment.
In consequence of the adoption of the Puseyite prin-
ciples in the Bethnal-green churches, they were only
attended by less than half the congregations they
were capable of accommodating. This was a start-
ling fact, which ought to induce the heads of the
Church to establish an uniform system in the per-
formance of its services.
Mr. 11. PHILLIPS opposed the amendment, and
expressed his regret that religious differences should
have been introduced into such an assembly.
Mr. PEWTRESS said the Court ought to be informed
that the sum prayed was not to go to the erection of
the new church, fur it was actually built, but to its
endowinents. Now, he thought the revenues of the
Church, fairly applied and divided, were amply suffi-
cient, without the aid now sought.
The LORD MAYOR, after referring to the original
petition and to the terms of the report, and conferring
upon them with the Recorder, stated that the report
not being in accordance with the reference, the report
must fall to the ground, as the question could not
be put.
A stormy scene here ensued, in which it was con-
tended by Mr. Wien and several others, that it was
for the Court to judge of the fact whether or not
the report accorded with the terms of the reference,
and that the Court' would surrender its privileges if
it submitted in such a matter to the dictum of the
Lord Mayor. A scene, of great confusion pre-
vailed ; but,
The LORD MAYOR persisted in his decision, and
called for the next order on the paper to be taken;
upon which
Mr. DE JERSEY moved that the Court do now
adjourn.
On this motion a division took place ; when there
appeared,
For the adjournment 3B
Against it _
.. 31

Majority... —7
The Lord Mayor then retired with the other au-
thorities ; but
Mr. W. 11. ASUURST called upon the members to
remain, as he maintained the privileges of the Court
has been invaded by the decision at which the Lord
Mayor had arrived.
A large body of the members of the Court re-
mained, and eventually
Mr. ASUURST was called to the chair, and on tak-
ing it, said it was important, after the course which
the Lord Mayor had pursued, that they should come
to some decision for the assertion of their privileges;
for if the decision of the Lord Mayor was right, there
was an end to all their right of free discussion, and to
their privileges as a deliberative assembly. If the
Lord Mayor was wrong, it was proper that their
privileges should be asserted.—(llear, hear.)
Mr. R. TAYLOR concurred in the opinion that the
deliberative character of the Court would be destroyed
if the rule laid down by the Lord Mayor were to
hold good.
Mr. Sheriff SIDNEY could not think this was a
question of privilege. It was unquestionably the pri-
vilege of the presiding authority of any court to de-
cide whether a particular question could or could not
•be put, and he respectfully submitted to the Common
Council that their privileges would he far more en-
dangered by the resistance of the proper authority of
their chairman than by any accidental error of that
functionary. It was important, first, to ascertain whe-
ther the report of the Committee was in strict accord-
ance with the reference.
Mr. Alderman llumriiisnY said that would have
been fully ascertained if the Lord Mayor had freely
allowed the discussion to have proceeded. He con-
ceived the report and the reference to be in strict ac-
cordance with each other.
Mr. DE JERSEY contended that the report was not
made to the Lord Mayor but to the Court, and it was
for the Court to judge of the matter. By this pro-
ceeding on the part of his Lordship, the go-bye was
given to the subject. The fitting course would have
been, if there really existed a variance, to have re-
ferred the report back. to the Committee.
Mr. STACEY urged that the Court was beund to

decide the question for itself, and not to surrender to
the dictum of the Lord Mayor.
Mr. D. W. Wm was sure the Lord Mayor had
an anxious desire to do his duty, but if the power
he had exercised to-day became a rule, it would be in
the power of any Lord Mayor to stop all discussion.
He begged to propose a resolution, to the effect that
"It is the opinion of this meeting that the ruling of
the Lord Mayor, on the discussion of the report of
the Finance Committee touching the rant of 2001. to
the new free church in St. Giles-in- the-Fields, is
subversive of the right of free discussion, and inter-
feres with the privileges of the Court of Common
Council."

After a lengthened discussion, in which Mr. Stacey,
Mr. King, Mr. Prior, Mr. Alderman Humphrey, Mr.
Deputy Peacock, Mr. R. Taylor, and Mr. Gresham
took part, the resolution was agreed to.
A deputation, consisting of Mr. Wire, Mr. Ashurst,
and Mr. Deputy Finnes, was then appointed (after
some consideration) to wait upon the Lord May or, to
communicate to him the resolution adopted by the
meeting.
Thanks having been voted to the Chairman, the
meeting separated at half-past five o'clock.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Dee. 5.
BENTLEY V. CARVER.

(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
No evidence having been called for the defence,
The LOAD CHIRP JUSTICE summed up, and, after a
deliberation of half an hour, found for the plaintiff.

Some evidence was given of the accomplice's state-
ment—such as showing that they were met on the road
to Dixon's about the time specified, and that there were
traces in the hedges between Dixon's and Neville's show-
ing that some persons had lately passed that way.
The prisoner, on being apprehended, made a statement
to the constable, in which he alleged that he and Golten
had gone to Dixon's, and that Golten lit a match and
threw it into one of the loopholes at the barn. That
they went to Neville's, and that Golten, notwithstanding
his expostulations, sot fire to the thatch. He said they
then went home, and that witness told his father and
mother-in-law what had been done, and that they eau-
, tioned him not to say a word about it to anybody.
This, however, Mr. Golten denied.
His LORDSHIP having summed up, the jury found the
prisoner Guilty. Sentence deferred.
The case against the prisoner for firing Mr. Dixon's
barn was not gone into. It was stated that the prisoner
had assigned as a motive for the act, that he, being a
bricklayer, expected to get the job of rebuilding the pre-
mises, and that after the fire he actually applied for it.

OXFORD ClRCUlT.—Worcester, Dec. 4.
(Before Mr. Justice Covrats.x.)
William Rea, aged 17, a clownish-looking lad, de-
scribed as a nailor, was indicted for having, at Broms-
grove, on the 11th of October, maliciously shot at and
wounded Hannah Whatmore, with intent to do her some
grievous bodily harm.
Mr. H. S. Silfe conducted the prosecution, and Mr.
Huddleston the defence.
It appeared from the evidence, that after dark on the
evening in question, as the prosecutrix was walking in a
lane near Bromsgrove with a young man named James,
the prisoner, who was on the other side of the hedge,
discharged a gun, the contents of which lodged in the
left leg of the prosecutrix. The light from the flash of
the gun and from an adjoining cottage enabled the pro-
secutrix to identify the prisoner, who was seen imme-
diately after the discharge running from the spot to-
wards a place where the gun was subsequently found,
and where the footmarks of the person depositing such
gun were clearly established to have been made by the
shoes of the prisoner. The gun in question had been
borrowed on the morning by the prisoner for the pur-
pose of shooting sparrows, and was charged only with
a pellet of paper, which had penetrated the leg of the
prosecutrix andibecome hidden in the flesh, requiring an
incision by the surgeon for the purpose of extraction.
No motive, either of jealousy or otherwise, was sug-
gested for the act ; indeed, the parties appeared to have
been comparatively strangers to each other. For the
defence it was contended that the discharge was acci-
dental, or at the utmost a boyish freak to frighten the
prosecutrtx and her swain, without any intention of in-
flicting any bodily harm on either.
The jury found the prisoner Guilty of an assault, and
he was sentenced to three months' hard labour.
Thomas Wridgway, aged 24, joiner, and William Kent,
bricklayer, were charged with stealing from the person
of Richard Holtham, at Upton-on Severn, on the 13th of
October, nine sovereigns, a 51. Bank of England note,
and a purse.
Mr. W. H. Cooke conducted the prosecution ; Wridg-
way was defended by Mr. Beadon, and Kent by Mr.
Huddleaton.
The prosecutor, an elderly and frugal labourer, came
to Upton at an early hour on Sunday, the 13th of Oc-
tober, to purchase a stock of provisions for the ensuing
week, and had with over-caution brought with him 141.,
the amount of his savings, from an apprehension of
losing it during his absence if left behind at his lodgings.
As he proceeded down the street with his groceries, &e.,
in a handkerchief, the prisoner Wridgway seized tin
bundle and carried it into the house of Kent, where its
restoration was refused until the prosecutor had stood
treat for some beer, a gallon of which beverage was or-
dered from an adjoining public- house, and pail for by
old Holtham, who incautiously exposed his wealth to the
gaze of his companions. The liquor very soon had the
effect of confusing the simple-minded countryman, and
Kent undertook to count the money, and pretended to
place it safely in the breeches-pocket of the prosecutor.
who, suspecting no fraud, made no effort to ascertain the
truth of the assertion. On the supposition that his cash
was safe, Holtham proceeded homes ards, accompanied
by Kent during a portion of the walk, and, on emptying
the pockets of his smallclothes previous to retiring to
rest, discovered his purse and money to be missing.
The Si. note, part of the plunder, had been in ,the
old man's possession for two years, and was the only
note of that amount he had ever been the owner of. Its
number had been taken down for him soon after its re-
ceipt by a neighbouring farmer, whose written memo-
randum was fortunately in existence. This note, thus
clearly identified, was passed by Wridgway at an early
hour on Monday morning, and in the course of the same
day he was proved to be exhibiting many sovereigns in
the public-houses at Upton.
The counsel for the prisoners severally urged the in-
nocence of their respective clients, who both received ex-
cellent characters up to the period of this offence, and
The Learned JUDGE left the jury to decide whether
both or either had committed the offence.
A verdict of Guilty, accompanied by a recommenda-
tion to mercy on account of their former characters,
having been returned, the prisoners were sentenced to
one year's imprisonment with hard labour—Wridgway
expressing a wish that he might be transported instead,
a request to which no attention was paid.
The Grand Jury came into Court about five o'clock
this afternoon with an ignored bill against Mr. Hassell
for the manslaughter of his wife—a decision which had
been awaited with much impatience during the day by a
very crowded audience.
It has been noticed as a curious and unusual circum-
stance that out of a panel of 52 jurors summoned for
these assizes, 30 should be inhabitants of Kidderminster,
and the remaining 22 of Dudley, in which vicinity the
excitement on the subject of Mr. Hassell's case has pre-
vailed to a very formidable extent against the accused.
and that not a single juror should have been selected
from the other parts of this populous and very straggling
county.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
(YESTERDAY.)
MANSION,HOUSE.

A decently-dressed woman, named Mary Higgins.
who appeared with a cap, but no bonnet, was brought
before the Lord Mayor, charged with having threat-
ened to break the Mansion-house windows.

A. policeman stated that he saw the defendant in
the neighbourhood of the Mansion-house on the pre-
ceding even'ng, and when he asked her what she
wanted, she said she wanted him to take her to the
station-house, and if he thought proper to refuse her
that favour, she would most certainly smash the win-
dows of the large house. As he had every reason to
believe that she meant to be as good as her word, he
conveyed her to the station-house, and he brought
her before his Lordship to account or her conduct.
The LORD MAYOR—Where do you live, defendant?
The defendant—ln Tottenham-court-road, with my
father, who is a shoemaker.
The LORD MAYOR—Why don't you walk home ?
Defendant—Why ? Because I can't go home.
The LORD MAYOR—What do you come here for ?
Defendant—l thought you'd give me some silver to
buy an article, without which I can't think of going
home.

The LORD MAYOR—Oh, indeed! What article is
that, pray ? Defendant—A bonnet. I can't go home
at all without a bonnet, nor I won't, neither.
The LORD MAYOR— So you come to break our ,
windows, in order to be supplied with a bonnet ?
Defendant—l'll get one for a few shillings.
The LORD MAYOR—You shall go to Bridewell for
fourteen days first. You won't want a bonnet there.
Defendant—l can't go home without a bonnet ;
they won't let me in.
The LORD MAYOR—If you come about this place
to do mischief, I shall make you find bail to keep the
peace for twelve months, and you shall remain in
prison till such bail be produced.
The prisoner, who is a strong, sulky-looking young
woman, was then committed to Bridewell.
Three desperate women were charged by Evans,
the officer of the union in Cannon-street, with having
thrown stones and brickbats at the windows of the
house, and assaulted him.
The officer stated that one of the women bad been
frequently committed, and that punishment seemed
to have no effect upon her but that of hardening her.
The window of the house was, it appeared, open at
the time they flung the missiles, and one of the brick-
bats fell near the head of a child, who, if struck
with it, would probably have been killed.
Two of the prisoners, while Evans was speaking, flung
their shoes at his head; and one of them said to the
Lord Mayor, " You know me well enough. I've
broken many a window, and will again, I'm blowed."
The LORD MAYOR—Not for some time. You
shall procure bail to keep the peace for twelve
months, and stay in prison till you produce the bail.
Prisoners—" Procure bail 1" What do you mean
by that?
The LORD MAYOR—You must procure two good
persons to be answerable for your good conduct for
one year, under a penalty of 201. each, and you will
be yourself responsible in the sum of 401.
The prisoners were taken from the bar screaming,
and struggling with the policemen.
The LORD MAYOR said that, in order to put a stop
to the practice so generally resorted to by the idle
and dissolute, he should require each delinquent to
find bail for good behaviour for twelve months, to the
amount mentioned above. He hoped and believed
that the imprisonment and hard labour would operate
as a remedy, and he trusted that such violators of the
law would take into consideration the probable time
they would have to 'remain in durance if they vio-
lated the law in that manner.

A very rough-looking fellow, named John Smith,
was charged with having smashed the window of the
shop of Mr. Dean, of Tower-street, and stolen four
watches.

A policeman heard a smash, and upon running to-
wards the place saw the prisoner running in St.
Dunstan's-hill, where another policeman got hold of
him. The fellow had a watch in his hand, and three
watches were found close to the spot on which he was
apprehended. Mr. Dean identified all the watches
as his property, and said that the prisoner had broken
the pane with his elbow, and snatched away the
property.
The prisoner was committed for trial.