The Sun.
London, England, 1844-04-11 00:00:00

TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.

SIR,—As a friend of the Rev. C. J. Scratchley,
and an attentive listener to the whole of the evidence
adduced in the case of suicide in Fleet-street, last
week, I feel it right to express my unqualified dissent
from your very harsh attack upon that gentleman.
Your reasons for this censure may be thus briefly
summed up :
First,—That Mr. Scratchley tried to draw from
deceased a confession of a misdeed of which no proof
was adduced in the evidence.

Secondly,—That his language towards deceased
(as overheard through a partition-wall) immediately
before she destroyed herself, was of a "brutal and
callous" character. _ _ _

Thirdly,—That the whole story, as given by Mr.
Scratchley himself, confirms his heartlessness and
cruelty; and,
Fourthly,—That he admitted, " coolly and deli-
berately," having had connexion with deceased pre-
vious to his entering the Church.
To your first reason I answer; that the words of
Mr. S. ("If you confess that you have robbed my
brother, I will see what I can do for you") were no
more than any person would have used, if convinced
of the guilt of the party addressed ; that the charge
was substantiated by the production of fifteen pawn-
broker's tickets found on deceased, all of which were
obtained on Dr. Scratchley's property ; and that there
was no intention to prosecute deceased, since a sove-
reign was given hcr the day before for the purpose of
redeeming some of the property.—(See the Coroner's
notes.) I may add, that no person in his right senses
would prosecute, or allow his brother to prosecute, a
.person who held his reputation in her hands.
Your second motive of censure hangs upon a con-
versation heard through a wall, the witness acknow-
ledging that the person accused spoke so low
that she could not distinctly hear his words. Need
I add more on this head? I will, however,

testify that ten years' knowledge of Mr. S. would have
made me look narrowly to the evidence of any witness
who swore to having heard harsh language from him,
even without the intervention of a wall.

To the third point I reply that the story was not
given by Mr. Scratchley, but by Rebecca Griffiin,
sister to the deceased, a respectable person, mistress
of the diocesan school at Canterbury, who, when exa-
mined, and cross-examined, stated that Mr. Scratch-
ley's conduct towards her sister had been one of uni-
form kindness and generosity beyond his means ; she
moreover, testified to that gentleman's going down to
Canterbury a week previous to her sister's death,
and, after mentioning the unfortunate habits she had
fallen into, conferring with her (witness) on the best
method of reclaiming her sister, offering at the same
time to provide for her maintenance in any respect-
able house they should fix upon for her residence.
Does this look like heartlessness and cruelty?
As to the fourth accusation, that Mr. S. " coolly
and deliberately" admitted having had connexion
with deceased previous to his entering the Church, I
contend that such confession was absolutely necessary,
that it was incumbent on him to lay the truth, the
whole truth, before the public, and thus clear (!) his
moral character as a clergyman, even though by so
doing he left a stain on his younger days.
It is not my purpose to attack the verdict found by
the jury, as I understand that Mr. Scratchley is about
to publish the whole of the evidence, and then trust
to the opinion of the world for removing the odium
cast on him by such public censure.
Allow me, however, to mention one fact (omitted
in the papers), that after the reading of the verdict one
of the jury rose, and protested against " the censure
passed on the conduct of Mr. C. Scratchley ;" and I
know from subsequent inquiry that he did not stand
• alone in his dissent.
Trusting to your feelings of justice for the insertion
of these remarks,
I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
London, April 9, 1844. E. SPENCER.

[We publish Mr. Spencer's letter in our usual de-
sire to act, to the best of our judgment, with strict
impartiality in all cases where the moral conduct of
an individual has been inculpated. Of the letter, as
any justification or defence of that conduct in Mr.
Scratchley's case, we can only say " valeat quantum."
But Mr. Spencer must excuse us if we rely much
more upon the solemn opinion of the Coroner and the
jury, on evidence so recently heard by them, than on
the casuistry of a professed friend of the party re-
buked by their finding and the Coroner's commen-
tary. In these we see but too grave a corroboration
of those remarks,—termed by Mr. Spencer " an at-
tack," which we felt it to be matter of public duty to
offer on the report of the inquest.—ED. Sun.]

FATAL ACCIDENT ON TIIE DOVER RAILWAY.—
On Monday afternoon a fatal accident occurred on the
above line to a poor fellow named Nunn, an under-
guard. The man, it appears, was proceeding with his
train from Dover to London, and while passing under
one of the arches at the Maidstone station, he got up,
and his head came in contact with the brickwork, kill-
ing him instantly. When the train arrived at Tunbridge,
his mate discovered him lying on the carriage where he
had previously sat, his head being literally dashed to
pieces. lie was married, and was a sober and steady
man.—Brighten Guardian.
SINGULAR ESCAPE OF A CHILD.—While the up
mid -day train was passing along the North Midland
Railway, near the Rotherham station, on Saturday last,
a little boy suddenly darted from his father's arms over
the side of one of the second-class carriages. The train
was going at full speed at the time, and it was with
difficulty the father could be restrained from leaping
out of the carriage, so great was his anxiety to know
the fate of his. child. The circumstance having been
communicated to the guard, he ordered the train
to be put back for nearly two miles for that purpose,
when, strange to say, the poor little fellow was perceived
on the embankment, unhurt. On seeing his parent, he
laughed and exclaimed, "Father, father, I am not hurt.'
It turned out that he had fallen on the verge of the line'
and fortunately rolled down the embankment, which
thus broke the shock that he must have, perhaps, fatally
experienced had he come in sudden contact with the
level ground.—Leicester Chronicle.
There stood in Fryup, near Whitby, the king of
oaks, the pride of that and the surrounding dales, mea-
suring in cirewmferenee 14 yards at the bottom of the
trunk ! The age of this monstrous tree is of course un-
known, but it is supposed to have responded to the vege-
tation of spring for about one thousand years ! Forty
pars ago it gay) bloom to its last foliage.