The Sun.
London, England, 1828-03-11 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC .JOURNALS.

In the long communication of the Foreign Mini-
ster of France to the Chamber, we find much of
that frank and manly spirit which befits the official

intercourse of a constitutional Sovereign with a free
people.. There is little, if any thing, wanting in his
statement to a complete picture of the crisis which
the:Ottoman manifesto seems to have produced, ex-
cept what arises from the immaturity of the confi-
dential discussions between the Allied Courts, and
from the consequent vagueness of their actual posi-
tion with regard to the affairs of Turkey. it i 3 on
the other side of Europe that matter is to be found,
—not perhaps for complaint, but for something like
hesitation to be satisfied with the speech of M. de la
Ferronays. It, speaking of the relations between
France and Spain, the Minister announces—not, as

we had hoped, the final evacuation-of Spain, but—
merely that " his Majesty intends to concert shortly
(prochainementYwith-the King, his nephew, the con-
ditions and the period of the definitive evacuation !"
We think that the other allies of France have an
undoubted right to inquire why these " conditions,
" and this period," have not been already settled.
If points of such importance still remain afloat, God
knows how long the riegociation may be protracted.
God knows to what year the departure of the
French troops
may be delayed, and the Spanish
portion of the Peninsula continue, as it now is, a
province of Charles X. We put it to M. de la
Ferronays, an enlightened statesman, whether it
would not be infinitely better for France to make
England her confidant on this interesting subject,
than the fanatical and wretched Camarilla of Ferdi-
nand VII., and to ".concert" with the British Ca.t
billet some wise and salutary proposition, to be
jointly made to the Court of Spain, for the just go-
vermnent of that fine but moat unfortunate king
dom,—for her gradual restoration to that high rank
which she is entitled to hold as a member of the
universal commonwealth, and as a safe and bene-
ficial neighbour to the two great monarchies of the
west of Europe.— Times.

Should East Retford be disfranchised, as there is
no doubt ought to be the case, an apprehension pre-
vails that the power of election would not be com-
municated to any populous town, but would be no-
minally diffused over the contiguous hundreds ; or,
in other words, and in reality, would be given to the
Duke of Newcastle. This would .be a most atro-
dons proceeding, were it to take place. Our rulers
and Parliament would show that they forget a
maxim much cited during the French Revolution,
that " the people are eternal" (as eternal as any ,
thing is here on earth)--" individuals mortal,"
That which is given to the people they will preserve,
and the acquisition will in all future time attach them
to the system by which they have been gainer.L.
That which, is bestowed on individuals will ct„g.e
hands, and pass from family, to family, contf,nuing to
iimt
has been
ethne
intinijnudsstlyof
stehla,etreedtearnndal booty from which
'taken away. A
transfer of the prostituted eleefive franchise to the
people tends to the security and permanence of the
present order of things; a transfer of it to an indi-
vidual is an additional abuse, and will aid in upset
ting the existing order.--Ibid.

Though we admire exceedingly the promptitude,
acuteness, and good ser.se, with which the Coroner
of the Tower Hamlets has taken up the lamentable
investigation in which he and his Jury are engaged,
we cannot help thinking that he is allowing the in-
quiry to take a course, in itself, if not interminable,
calculated, we should fear, so to encumber and be-
wilder the mind with useless topics, as to draw it
off from the only point in view=viz., How, and
by whose fault, if any, did the catastrophe happen ?
In applying to the Board of Works, and obtaining •
the assistance of such men as Mr, Nash and Mr.
Smirke, the Coroner has gone to the fountain-head
for information ; and till that information is ob-
tained, and proves unsatisfactory (which is not
very likely to be the case), it seems to be a useless
labour to he carrying on minute inquiries amOng
people, whose inclination, of course, it must be to
justify themselves. We should .be doing great in-
justice to all parties were we to permit ourselves, in
this stage of so momentous an inquiry, te. pro.
notmce any :opinion upon where the blame rests ;
but there are a few plain questions, into which the
matter appears to us to resolve itself, which we are
inclined to throw together, as our view of the main
points to which this inquiry ought to he chiefly con-
fined; and they are these:—

1. Was the undergroundifeleeotftohmoiste;itbindation of the buil...ling
such as to ensure stability to the structure?
2. Were the walla of a sufficient thickness for their
height, and to sustain the weight which r.Aust devolve
upon them ?
3. Were the materials throughout trAil such as wore fit
its
fitness
alPaautral:pesinaecflniollidritdt yiolit'ifosioec
their
1 neteiii•deerseei%i. ii tt.
for such a building?
4. Were the haste, and season of the year in which The
building was erected, calculated to endanger its safety ?
5. Could it have been in such a state as to justify the
:architect in reporting to his employers, or the District
Surveyor to the Magistrates,
occu-
pation? [Morning Herald. 1
Mr. Sykes has a notice of mmoetricoinianot
ns
andthe trade Houselo Il
sr --
ol,mw.l‘faielleCsni
caofloolrmflen:Hcioioi:ltiinliitlssiletg,aeharatlspvga, ehatiriainnet\i,sooeotnrfdt
tooeti
disin-
clination to forego any existing tax, especially a
stamp tax, which is of that class that is levied with
great facility. Nothing can, indeed, more forcibly
indicate their feelings on that head than the Bill in-
' troduced by Mr, G. Dawson, the other day, on the
subject of " Insurance Stamps," which goes to
provide against a beggarly evasion of perhaps a
thousand pounds, filched from the grasping hand of
the tax-gatherer by our wily brethren of the North.
But while we wish to make every allowance fot.
those who levy the money of the State, we must
extend a little of our sympathy to those who pay
it,, And we have no hesitation in saying, that,
the Receipt Stamp Tax• is as vexatious, unpro-
ductive, contemptible ,an impost, as any with
which honest merchants are plagued, and their
oopuriniOnrs:,tif 4atr4i-
commerce with their neighbours hampered and
harassed. As a great deal has been said about
removing restrictions on commerce, and as we have
to the laws of the
of late years removed's great many restrictions from
the commerce of our competitors, it might be well,
merely by way of experiment, which is the fashior:,
nEireof the day, to see whatweeffehcotpweo:buole,lirdir:e:n.4:l::::,ii:)."..,.
niniaggonceonli:etlineporerasityriethiiitoasint
aafsnront
from authority, that the minds of Ministers w„
favourable answer L
Aggrieved, that iF,,,
tmhaodtietyupooin.e tnhoits subject;.exactls inli
kir
than our cote.
teligmeh(piteoleraliracyjntdhaa Psnigieorrts,eicannt.as.v, If he do Ilr•It, it remains onlv
i all who buy and
• sell in Great Britain to' the amount of forty shiiiings„
to try whether force may may not effect what fair
speaking has failed to do. let Mr. Sykes move a
resolution against the
„, tax, and see whether it will be
opposed.—New !Imes.
for the parties

ffli:s. France, s nseentoc bee, advancing rapidly to a crisis it,
ei t
Russia, and England bound
themselves by the Treaty of London to put an end
to the hostilities between the Turks and Greeks.—
The three Allied Powers were bound, under this-
TfeatY, to act in concert—to consider the hostili-
ties which they endeavour to give effect to it might
provoke, as directed against all—and to make com-
mon cause in repelling such hostilities against what-
ever Power they might be directed, and in the pro-
,ecution of such vindictive measures as it might be
deemed necessary to adopt. Butt it does not follow„
because Russia agreed with two other Powers to
compel the Turks and Greeks to arrange their dif
ferences, that Russia may not have separate cause of
quarrel with Turkey, the vindication of which a re -
qard for her own honour will not allow her to de
• yoke in whole or in part on others, and with which
others might not, indeed, feel themselves bound to
interfere. And this we believe is actually the case
at present. Russia, besides the relation in which
:he ,tfirids towards Turkey respecting the honilities

between the Turks and creeks, has to complain of
the infraction of the Treaty of Ackerman on the
part of the former. By joining the two Allies for
the prosecution of a common object, she did not de-
nounce the right to do herself justice for a separate
wrong. It is enough that she can establish a valid
round for hostilities, and that she does not call on
either of these Powers to bear any of the expellee
to which she may be put by such separate
hostilities. Let us suppose the object of the
Treaty of London effected, and the Greeks secured
in their qualified independence, while the differences
between Russia and Turkey remained unsettled, the
Allies could not be called on under the Treaty of
London, to aid Russia in compelling lurkey to per-
form the stipulations of the Treaty of Ackerman.
But it is of no consequence whether Russia proceed
to settle her differences with Turkey, either during
the process of giving effect to the Treaty of Lon-
don, or after effect has been given to it. If Turkey
perform the stipulations of the Treaty of Ackerman
and remove all cause of dissension on that ground,
this would not liberate Russia from the obligation
under the Treaty of London ; and the Treaty of
London, in like manner, cannot deprive Russia of
her rights under another Treaty. It might, indeed,
have been stipulated in the Treaty of London, that
till effect was given to it, all other causes of quarrel
which any of the Allies might have with Tur-
key, should remain in abeyance, or that the
general alliance should extend to the separate
causes of quarrel of any of the Allies; but such a
clause, could it have been proposed, would instantly,
have been rejected with indignation. We under-
stand that a Russian Declaration of War was re-
ceived on Saturday evening, for the Austrian Am-
bassador, from Vienna, by the English Courier, and
that the Messenger sent from Berlin, by Vienna, to
Constantinople, was the bearer of that important
document. In this Declaration Russia avails her-
self, which she is entitled to do, of the breach of the
Treaty of Ackerman, for acting separately against
that Power without consulting either France or
England. Austria and Prussia go hand in hand, and
are quite neutral. The Declaration of the French
Minister of Foreign Affairs, that " whatever hap-
pens, France will know how to to ':e Ind preserve
the rank soiled to her honour, her po ver, and her
dignity," coupled with the orders for the embarka-
tion of 10,000 men, would seem to in ficate a dispo-
sition on the part of that Power to watch with jea-
lousy the operations of Russia. We trust that Mi-
nisters will not allow themselves to be deluded
by any supposed necessity of preserving Tur-
key as an independent State, and excluding the
Russians from the Mediterranean, into a fresh
war. Turkey cannot be long preserved if Rus-
sia be disposed to take possession of the Eu-
ropean part of it, for the rapid growth of the
resources of Russia, in that quarter, must soon
remove all conceiveable obstacles to the fulfilment of
her views. Turkey, though an ancient Ally of this
country, cannot be considered a State, on the per-
manent existence of which other nations are entitled
to calculate, or the annihilation of which can be con-
sidered as detracting from the security of any mem-
ber of the European family of nations. If Turkey
will disregard the usages of civilized nations, and
draw on herself a powerful neighbour, we really do
not see that we are called upon to interfere to pro-
tect her from the consequences of her own stupidity.
The only ground on which other States can have
the smallest right to interfere,would be the danger to
their own independence from the addition which the
occupation of Turkey would give to a power already
too formidable. But this apprehension is in a great
measure a chimera, while the advantage which all
Europe would derive from the destruction of the Go-
vernment (if it can be called such) of our ancient but
barbarous Ally,would be great indeed. Nations must
not watch with this incessant jealousy, the growth of
each other. They ought to persuade themselves that
they are all interested in the prosperity of each
other, and that there is no advantage so great as the
being surrounded by thriving and prosperous neigh-
bours. According to the latest accounts, Russia
has a population of 59,393,500 souls ; in 1806, the
population was stated at 41,105,600 souls; so that
the population has increased one-third in twenty
years. In the course of another twenty years,
the population will probably exceed eighty mil-
lions. Those who are inclined to consider Eu-
ropean independence threatened by the occupation
of Constantinople, ought to view the rapid increase
of the native population of Russia with perfect
horror. We repeat, that we hope Ministers will not
for the sake of guarding against a possible danger,
involve the country in the greatest of all dangers—a
national bankruptcy. If Russia do occupy part of
Turkey, her strength will not be in the ratio of her
extension of territory. Her old provinces will no
doubt be greatly benefitted by the command of an
access to the Mediterranean ; but for a long time to
come, the possession of Constantinople would be a
source of weakness rather that of strength to- her.
We are supposing, too, that Russia will not in time
divide into two or three States.—Morning Post.

DESTRUCTION of the NEW BRUNSWICK

THEATRE, WELLCLOSE-SQUARE.

ADJOURNED CORONER'S INQUEST, MAncrt 10.
Examination of Edward Shaw, continued from our Paper
of yesterday, which appeared in a part of our im-
pression.

Were they used in any part of the walls where they
were required to bear ?—No.
I mean in any part where the strength of the walls
was required to support weight?—Very few were used
in the building above the ground.
Then I understand, that, in your opinion, such por-
tion of these bats as was used above ground, cenld not
affect the security of the building ?—Certainly not.
That's your opinion ?---Certainly it
CoaosEa.--Is the book which you now produce an
original book, kept by you from the time it bears date?
—Yes, it is.
What is it a book of?—lt contains the men's weekly ac-
counts. I did not keep throughout an account of the
whole in a proper manner, but I believe that Mr. Pulsford,
the surveyor, did.
Is the whole of the writing in the book made by you ?
—No, it is not; part of it is my handwriting, and part
Mr. Wilkinson's.
What is the nature of the accounts contained in the
kook ?—lt is book containing a weekly account of the
bricklayer's, carpenter's, plaisterer's, and smith's work,
done at the theatre.
Who is Mr. Wilkinson ?—Clerk to Arr. Carruthers.

Who paid these men I—They were paid by me, as
far as the writing in the hook shows.
Until how recently did you pay them ?—The last day
on which I paid the carpenters and labourers was the 12th
of January.
Whom did you get the money of?—Mr. Wilkinson
used to bring me the money every Saturday night.
Who paid the men after Saturday the 12th of Jan. ?
I afterwards saw Mr. Wilkinson pay them their wages.
A Juror—With submission we don't see the necessity of
going on with this part of the evidence any further.
ComtoNF It—Why, Sir, the necessity of going on with this,
in my apprehension is, that if the evidence of this witness
hereafter should be attempted to he shaken as t o veracity, we
may know who are the other witnesses that may be called,
namely, the working carpenters and others named in this
book, who .may identity or oppose the statements made.
But I have no wish to prosecute this inquiry further.
Now, Sir, will you state what was your remuneration,
and in what way you were paid ?—The money came to
use altogether by 3ir. Wilkinson ; I was paid by the week.
% hat was the amount of remuneration that you were to
have ?—I was to have :10s. is week until the house opened,
and then I was to have 365.
With whom was your engagement ?—With Mr. Car-
ruthers.
With him alone ?—Yes, Sir.
Had yen a written engagement?—No, only verbal.
What do you know, of your own knowledge, of the man-
ner in which the interior of the theatre was built ?-1 had
nothing to do with the brick-work of the interior of time
theatre, except the foundation.
You set out the ground plan of the theatre ?—Yes.
Now, tell us what von know, or what you saw done by
others, of the carpenter's work of the theatre ?—I saw the
stage.

You superintended the erection of the stage ?—No, I
did not superintend tke erection of the stage ; for I could
not have my own way, and therefore cannot say that I
superintended it.

Who interfered with you ?—The proprietors, Mr. Maw
rice and Mr. Carruthers.

\Vete you prevented by any one else?—No.
Now state what you know as to the erection of the pros-
cenium posts, the flies, and workshops over the stage.—
What was the first erection over the stage ? The first tier of
flies.

By a Juror.—You stated that you had an increase of
authority. How did you obtain it?—l had a misunder-
standing with Mr. Carruthers, and he told me to take off
roy coat and work with the mem I thought myself ill
used. I had a meeting with Mr. Maurice, who gave me
authority to do as I pleased.
What part of the work was going forward when this
misunderstanding arose ?—The stage.
How much of the work was done at this time?—The
trimmers were being fitted up, and the joists of the stage
were being laid.

After this misunderstanding took place, under whose
direction d►d you proceed?.—Under the direction of both
the proprietors.

CORONER.—Now, tell us, in your own way, how you
proceeded with the rest of the carpenter's work of the
Theatre ?—After the stage-work we proceeded with the
proscenium posts. They were supplied by Mr. Arding.
They were not ready wrought when they were brought to
the Theatre. They were worked by our own men, and
sometime after we ereeted them. Before we erected them
we got up two tiers of flies. The flies were then put up,
and then the proscenium posts were put into their proper
place. Sometime after we put up the painter's shop, and
then the carpenter's.
By a Juror.—How many flies were erected ?—I erect-
ed two at each side which were sepperted by three up-
rights.

Juror—The bottom upright. I understand you only
went to the floor of the first fly.—Yes, it went to the
trimmer of the first fly.
Juror—Were the joists of the first flies iuserted in either
wall ?—Yes, they were inserted into the wall on both sides,
and the bottom of the upright rested on the stage. The
footing of the uprights stood on a trimmer supported by
the floor of the stage, which was also supported by a quar-
tering partition which was framed into the plates on a
brick wall nine feet high.
CORONER-What thickness was that wall ?—About nine
inches, which had 14-inch piers at different parts. The
wall I speak of extended all along the front.
Mr. Hill—Were not the uprights cut away before the
performances began ?—No, they were not, one on each side
was cut away.

A Juror—l think this question is premature.
CORON ER—Th e most convenient thing would be now to
proceed to the joists.

Do you know whether Finlay was the Clerk of the
Architect ?

Juror—Perhaps the Counsel for the Architect objects to

Mr. Hill—No, not at all, we shall throw no technical
objections in the way. W. Finlay` was the clerk of the
Architect, we shall explain all that bye and bye.
Witness—l can't say what agreement was between Mr.
Finlay and the Architect_
CORONER—Did he act as the clerk of the Architect?—
Yes, I have seen hint drawing in the Architect's office.
CORONER—Having now got the proscenium posts
placed we had better come to the joists of the flies. Where
were the joists of the first fly inserted ?—They were in-
serted in the wall.

CottoNEß—At what time were they inserted, when the
building was carrying up or subsequently?.—They were
inserted after the building was carried up in the wall.
Were the flies supported by uprights ?—Yes, by three
uprights on each side of the stage.
Juror—Had the flies any support at the end ?—Yes, by
an upright at the further end.
Was the trimmer inserted in the south wall ?.
at all.

' —No, not

• Where. did the bottom upright go?—The bottom up-
right went no further than the trimmer to the first fly.
What distance was the first fly from the second ?—About
six feet six inches.

How was the second fly supported ?.
the others tenanted in.

'—By ❑prights over

Now what was the next erection over the flies ?—The
carpenter's shop floor.
-Where was the painter's room?—Nearly level with the
second flies.

Conomot—lf then• were no working drawings, was
there no model ?—Yes, there was a model made which I
Acted on as far as I could, but I was after denied acting on
it. It was destroyed in the fall of the building. There
was a wooden model of the painter's shop made.
CORONER—Where was the wooden model kept ?—The
last time I saw it, it was standing on the floor of the car-
penter's shop.
CORONER—Used the men to consult this model?—l
had it made only for my own inspection.

. .
34. Hill—Von had it made under your own direction,
you mean ?—Yes, exactly.
Have you seen any remnant of that model since the
theatre fell ?—None.

Juror—You say you were denied acting on the model,
by whom were you denied ?—By Mr. Carruthers.
Did the denial von allude to, in your judgment, mate-
rially affect the budding ?
Mr. M'Cann, a juror—Answer deliberately to that
question, for it is very important. Did these denials mate-
rially affect the building ?—ln my judgment they did.
.loror.---What were those denials ?—When I heard that
aniron roof was to be put on the theatre, I tried the best in
my power against it; I called on Mr. Arding the carpenter,
to request him to remonstrate with the proprietors against
it. I also went to Mr. Jones's timber-yard, in Rosemary-
lane, for the purpose of enquiring about the timber, and if
he could allow Os room to frame the roof in his yard.
CottoNr a—Did you see tones ?—I saw bis nephew,

and inquired the price of timber at Which he could serve
us. After this they were a week deciding about the roof.
CORONER-Did you tell them the price of the timber?
—Yes; I acquainted both the Architect and the Pro-
prietors with the prices.
Who is the Architect you so informed ?.—Mr. Whitwell.
Did the Proprietors talk about the iron roof in your
presence ?—They did in my presence and that of Mr
Arding.
Was Whitwell present ?--No ; he was not. The Pro-
prietors asked Arding how long it would be before an iron
roof was got up, and answered, about six weeks.
Juror—Do you think it was determined on then?—No,
they said they would think of it.
CORONER-Before you go further, I think you bad
better tell us when this conversation took place 2_ About
the sth of September.
Juror—You said there were demands such as would
materially affect the building. What were those demands,
or those acts, which Mr. Carruthers prevented you from
' doing ?—I know of nothing that was denied me that ma-
terially affected the building but not having trusses and
truss girders inserted when they ought to have been.
Juror—Having been denied this, did you point out to
Mr. Carruthers the danger that might arise from it?—.l
would not, for I knew nothing about iron roofs.
You applied for trusses and truss girders for the build.
ing, which you say were refused ?—Yes.
What reason did Mr. Carruthers give you for not per-
mitting you to put in the trusses and the truss-girders,
which you say in your opinion were necessary ?—Because
there was not time, as they had determined to open the
house at a certain time, and it would take three weeks to
get them in readiness.
By a Juror—Was Mr. Manrice present at any of these
conversations?—He was.
At all of them ?—I believe he was.
Was he present when you were refused to be Allowed to
get the trusse3:aud truss girders ?—When I got the coun-
termanding order that was given fur them,, he was present.
Was be present at all the conversations ?—He was at
most of them ; I won't say all.
Did he agree with Mr. Carruthers in countermanding
the order for the trusses and truss-girders?—When the
countermanding order was given I got it from Mr. Mau-
rice himself.
Now you have alluded particularly to the iron roof,
against which you say you protested, and to the necessity
of the trusses and truss-girders, was there any other thing
necessary in your opinion for the safety and support of
the building which was refused ?—I don't know that there
was any thing ; nothing but those two particular things,
and they were the principal supporta of it.
The principal supports of what ?—Of the building to
keep the weight from the roof.
Now, as you have stated to us that these were material
things, and necessary for the support of the building, and
which were refused, what in your opinion was likely to
ensue ?---Why, not knowing the strength of the roof, I did
not apprehend that any thing would occur, but I asked
the proprietors whether I might hang weights to the roof;
they then told me that there was a friend of theirs from
Bristol, that would go over and see.
Go over what ?—The roof—go over it and see.
Look and see what ?—What could be hung to it.
What was the name of the person ?—I understood that
his name was Evans.
Did you understand that from Mr. Maurice or Mr.
Carruthers ?—From their calling him Mr. Evans.
Was that the gentleman who was unfortunately killed ?
—I am sure that Ido not know—l did not see him after-
wards, but I understand that it is.
There was such weight hung from the roof ?—There
was—he and Mr. Maurice went up together, and myself.
When Mr. Evans went up with you to see the roof, was
there any weight attached to it then ?—Yes.
You had then attached the whole of these weights to
the roof ?—No ; there were only three bolts at that time
to each side.
What do you mean by three bolts ?—Bolts that went
trough the trimmers.
Did they carry the painter's and carpenter's shops?—No
this was before they were made; there were about two
girders.

Can you not give us a date ?—lt was in January last.
What did these bolts support?--.They helped to sup-
port the flies, and girders that were then on the carpenter's
shop.

Were these flies and the carpenter's shop wholly finished ?
—No, Sir. •
Only in part ?--Only in part.
Now, when Mr. •Evans saw these bolts, did he express
any opinion to you respecting them ?—The answer he
made was at that time, that he thought nothing in a per-
pendicular way would hurt the root, but he would ascer-
tain when he went to Bristol again, and a letter would be
received.

. He would ascertain whether it would or not ?—Do you
know whether he did write or not ?—Yes ; sometime af-
terwards, I dare say it might be a fortnight. I gave Leslie
the smith orders to get the ends bolt-screwed and beaded ;
that they might be ready when they were wanted.
When you gave that order to Leslie, did you give it in
virtue of the menaced authority you stated you had received,
or by virtue of any authority from the architect or pro-
prietors, or from any other person only told
him I waited for a letter, that such things I had no doubt
would be wanted, and that if he would prepare them they
would be all ready.
When you state that Mr. Evans said he would go to
Bristol, and then write something, you of course depended
on that letter ?—Yes, certainly.
How did vou come to give the order to Leslie, then ?
Because I used to inquire of Mr Maurice every day, and he
used to say—" Pooh, don't he afraid—go on, you can put
what weight you like to it."
CORONER—Did you say you saw Mr. Maurice almost
every day ?—Every day, regularly.
Well, and what did he say ?—" Pooh, go on—l don't
think any weight will hurt it.
Juror—But that might have been in answer to some
question put to him—what question was it?-Concerning
whether he had heard from Bristol, I used to ask him.
What more did he say than " go on"?—Nothing more.
You said he did say something more.—He said " Pooh,
go en, there's no fear of the weight."
Now did you go on hanging weight to the roof?—Yes,
two bolts niece, that made four on each side.
Now will you state to us what was attached to them ?
—The girders of the carpenter'e. and painter's shops--
three to the carpenter's and one al the painter's shop.
Were any part of the flies attached to them ?—Not at
that time, at least no weight arising from the flies, be-
cause then the flies had uprights that kept the bearing of
them, the flies were then no stress on the roof.
Still, what was attached to the roof on Monday, the day
of the opening of the theatre, up to the latest period be-
fore the admission of the public, say at six o'clock ?—The
latent period, at half-past five o'clock, there were fire girders
over the proscenium post, over the pit they had four
of them, uprights on each side. The pillars or iron co-
lumns supported four of the girders. On the stage de-
partment four more girders, supported by iron rods; from
the roof on the prompt side was a flat iron clamp, it was
clampt in different directions where it hooked in, that sup-
ported the corner of the flies near the proscenium post,
where the uprights were taken away.
Nothing more ?—I before mentioned the carpenter's
shop, and the painter's shop.
Were the trimmers of the flies let into the proseeni urn
pest ?—No.
Do you recollect any thing else that was bearing on the
roof ?—Nothing.
How was the chandelier sustained ?—I know nothing
as to who ordered the chandelier to be suspended, but I
have no doubt of its being hung from the roof, with the
exception of what I stated.
The flies were partially supported ?—One of the uprights
on each side was taken away the week before the opening
of the Theatre. They were removed by my direction, be-
fore the grooves were fixed.
Did you desire them to he taken away ?—Certainly.
Then two on each side were removed ?—Yes, Sir.
Were any of the four supporters removed on the (lay of
the opening of the theatre, or on any day before the acci-
dent ?—Yes, two supporters, about a week before the
opening.
But were any of the four removed up to the time of the
accident?—They were there on Thursday morning at
eleven o'clock. I saw them there myself.
Juror—Nosy I have to ask you, Mr. Shaw, a most im-
portant :question, and it is this—what in your judgment
caused the calamity?..-Gentlemen, it is a thing which I
cannot possibly answer ; I can have no idea upon it, but
since the accident some thought—
CoRONER-We cannot take such evidence.
Juror—Surely he could net know of it before the acci-
dent happened. I now ask you, as a professional man,
what in your judgment caused the fall of the
Theatre ?—The idea that since came to me was this—
the vibration caused by 40 or 50 men working in the
carpenter's shop attached to the roof on the Tuesday before
the accident, caused a jar ; but there was no settlement of
tilt walls one way or the other that I could perceive.
'Fire Juror—Do you mean to say that the vibration
caused the accident ?—I (lid not say such a thing; it caused
I think great harm to the roef, it was dor* by the jar, al-
though not then perceived ; that's as nigh as I can ac-
count for it.
Now can you assign in your judgment as a professional

man, and on your oath before us, any other causes than the
vibration ?—When I stated that to be the cause, it was in
this way, that it was the principal cause, but if things
were attended to that ought to have been, the vibration
would not take place.
If these trusses to the girders were applied you think
that it would not be occasioned ?—I am of that opinion.
Distinctly ?—Yes, I can distinctly say so—if these
trusses were inserted where required, the ♦ibration would
not have taken place.
The CoaoNxx now desired witness to point out all the
steps used in the progress of the building.
Juror—Was there a cistern of water; any where near the
door ?—Yes, there was a small tank, three feet square and
four feet deep.
Was there not one near the gallery stairs ?—Yee, but it
bad no connexion with the roof.
CORONEIt-How often did the district Surveyor come
round to see how the work was going on ?—I saw him
every day early or late. I mean Mr. Gough, perhaps I
did not see him every day. But I know that lie seldom
omitted calling ; he went round the scaffolding as the
work proceeded.
Mr. Hill.—Did you know the old theatre which had
been burned down ?—I know that it was burned down.
Do you know how it was built ?—I was in it and
of course know.
Were there two galleries in the old theatre, supported
by the north wall, by binders to it ?—Yes.
Did that circumstance render it proper that the north
wall of the old theatre should be stronger than the new
one ; are the galleries in the new theatre supported by the
north wall ?--They receive a trifling part of them.
Bearing in mind that the north wall of the old Theatre
supported the two galleries, and that in the new Theatre
only part of them were supported by it, does not that render
it probable that the wall of the new Theatre should not be
so strong as that of the old.—Certainly.
And yet the difference in strength between the two walls
was only half a brick, and that in only part of the wall.
Is it not usual for walls to set off, and not go up of a regu-
lar thickness?—lt is usual that they should set off; the
strength of the two walls was the same until we got to a
certain height.
Would it not be a bad placing of strength to keep the
walls uniform ?—Certainly.
Now, I have one general question to ask you about the
walls. Was there, in your judgment, in the materials, the
workmanship, or quality of the materials ; any thing
omitted, necessary or proper for the strength or durability
of the walls?—Certainly none.
You have explained the stage departments to consist of
the stage,flies,carpenter's and painter's shops ?—There was a
part of the shop not belonging to the stage department ;
where, iu front, it covers the pit.
Had you any instructions respecting the stage depart-
ment, or the carpenters' shop, or the painters' shop, from
Mr. Whitwell, the architect?—Never: I mean from the
stage upwards. I don't include the parts under the stage.
You have told us the flies were supported by uprights.
Describe the position of the uprights?—One was at the
south extremity of the trimmer, another was at the centre,
rather bearing to the north or front. .
The third was at the north end of the trimmer before it
was taken away, how far was the south upright from the
south wall ?—Eighteen inches.
What then did this south upright rest on ?—lt rested on
a trimmer with three joists, each of which bad an upright
support.

Do I understand right when I say that the north end of
the fly, had little support except from the roof ?—Yes.
I think you said that these upright. were continued from
the lower to the upper fly ?—Three of them.

Then the north fly had no support but the iron coming
down from the roof ?—Yes.

On the night of the opening you remember the eastern
flies coming down ?—Yes ; the eastern fly, what we called
the 0. P. fly.
Explain how it came down.—The eastern fly was held
up by a long iron rod, bent at each end ; the upper
crook of the rod was fastened to a plank which rested
on the ties of the roof edgeways. The plank was not
fastened in its place. From the weight of the persons
on the fly the plank fell flat, the rod slipped nearly
four feet, and struck one of the wing grooves of
the scenery on which it lodged its whole weight.
The fly itself fell two inches. The falling of such rod
produced a disarrangement of the working of the =chi=
nery of the wing. Our attention was thereby called to
the circumstance.
Was that accident produced in any say by the failure
of the roof?—No ; not by any means whatever.
This was on Monday night. On Tuesday were there
not considerable weights carried up to the carpen-
ter's shops ?—Yes, benches and timber of different kinds
that the men had been working on in different parts of the
theatre.
By whose orders ?—By the directions of Mr. Carruthers,
he wished them to be removed from the body of the theatre.
Can you form any estimate of that additional weight?—
. _ . _

The timber and benches were about a ton, not including the
Isright of the men.
Plow was that hoisted up ?—By a tackle attached to the
roof.

How many men were at work in that carpenter's shop
and painter's shop on that Tuesday P—About 40 in the
carpenter's, in the painter's shop about eight.
Now, Sir, did you put up all the iron columns that you
intended, between the gallery and the carpenter's shop
floor ?—No.
Hew many were omitted ?—Two.
Which two ?—The two columns that would be nearest
to the centre of the gallery.
What length of girders did the omission of these columns
leave unsupported, except from the roof 2—about 54 feet
of girders.
Were those columns brought to the theatre ?—No ; first
of all thirty columns were ordered for the boxes and galle-
ries, from Mr. Leslie the smith. Mr. Carruthers asked
me why I could not do without any support whatever by
columns from the galleries ; I told him that if I had a tim-
ber roof to trust to, I could then answer, but that I knew
nothing dal iron roof. Mr. Carruthers then ordered
eight more columns from Leslie.
Was thirty-eight the number originally intended ?—I
always understood forty were intended.
Were thirty-eight put up ?—Yes.
What did you mean by two columns having bent-
countermanded ?—(Here the witness entered into
an unintelligible explanation, which lasted nearly ten
minutes. At length he stated that Mr. Maurice and Mr.
Carruthers directed him to countermand the order of two
of the ten columns which had been ordered as part.of the
40 originally intended.)
Now, Shaw, you said that Mr. Evans promised to
get a letter from Bristol as to the weight that the roof could
bear ?—Yes. The letter was read to me. Mr. Maurice
told me in the presence of Mr. Evans and Mr. Carruthers,
that a perpendicular weight of any kind might be suspended
from the roof, which gave use great pleasure. This
was in the beginning of last February, he read what
be told me from the letter in question.
Mr. Hill here mentioned that he attended to-day en be-
half of the contractor for the roof, as well as for Mr. Whit •
welh

Examination continued.
Mr. Maurice told me that the letter came from the con-
structor of the roof at Bristol.

What state was the roof in then?—The girders of the
carpenter's shop before the curtain were not attached to
the roof.

Who designed the stage department and the carpenter's
shop ?—I
Although you never received directions froni Mr. Whit-
well, did he ever talk to you respecting the weight you
were banging from the roof?--Yea.

Did he encourage you to do so ; or did he not most
strongly express his opinion against the propriety of such
proceeding'.' —lle did not encourage the ; be expressed his
decided opinion against it.
Did he always use gentle terms when so speaking to
you 9—No, he used violent expressions of disapprobation
•
__in short, he was in a violent passion about it.
proprietors of the theatre ?--Yes.
Did You communicate Whitwell's disapprobation to
both the

What did they say to you on the subject?—Mr. Carru-
thers asked me who employed me, I said that he did ; and,
therefore, said he, " I am your toaster, and not Mr.
Whitwell."

Did you ever hear Mr. Whitwell express an opinion to
the proprietors on the subject ?—I never heard him.
Were you present when a letter was brought?—l war
not near them sufficiently.
Now, dig you ever hear Mr. Carruthers say any thing
about Mr. Whitwell's duty 59 an architect having teased ?
_Yes, Mr. C. told me he had paid to Mr. Whitwell all the
good an architect ion liliiisnOwnanldmhtall'aftashllelr(A.llr4 Cit2ewllassvaass,
ann'ilmtehyabtelitoencgoiunlgd manage the men as well as I could.
You were in the carpenter's shop whoa the accident
happened—how did the floor of the carpenter's shop fall?
don't know.

You were too frightened ?—I was going to speak to Trot-
man, who was on the parapet—he ran give the beat account
of it.

When first did any one speak of the.danq:er of the thea-
tre ?—No one ever did.

A Juror—Yon have said that no one told you so ; did
you see any one employed in any particular works about

the theatre that gave you reason to think that the building
was unsafe ?—No.

Any shoring or screwing ?—Yes, there were persons
employed about the fly which I before told you had settled.
Mr. Pullen, Solicitor for Mr. Carruthers, said, that as
direct charges of criminality had been brought against hie
client, he wished to have the opportunity of au interview
with that gentleman before he proceeded with the cross-
examination of Shaw.

This was deemed reasonable both by the Coroner and
the Jury.

Mr. Hill now implored that the inquiry should
be de die in diem, adjourning ever every alternate
day. This was but just and merciful to the in-
dividuals whose characters had been assailed in some pub-
lications.

After some discussion, it was definitively arranged that
the Jury should meet again to-morrow morning at
nine o'clock, and that the inquiry should he prosecuted
with all possible despatch.--Adjourned.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, MARCH 10.

EX-PARTE ARMISTEAD IN THE lIATTER. OF DILWORTH,

His LORDSHIP gave judgment in this case to-day. Mr•.
Armistead carried on the business of a merchant, at Lan-
caster; Messrs. Dilworth and Co. were bankers at the
someplace, and Mr. Armistead kept his account with them.
Messrs. Barclay, Tritton, and Co, were the London agents
of Dilworth and Co. ; the account in town being consi-
derably against Messrs. Dilworth and Co. in 111125, title
deeds of estates of considerable value were deposited with
Messrs. Barclay and Co. as a collateral security. Mr.
Armistead being in possession of two bills of exchange for
the sums of five hundred and two hundred and fifty pounds,
placed those bills, after endorsing them, in the hands of Dil-
worth and Co. Dilworth and Co. transmitted these bills to
Messrs. Barclay and Co. ; they discounted one of those
bills, but the other remained in their hands till after the
bankruptcy, and they received the produce from the
drawee. The question was, whether these bills of exchange
had become the property of Messrs. Barclay and Co. ?
, Mr. Armistead swore most positively in hie affidavit that he
gave them no authority to discount, to deposit, or to pledge
these bills. It was contended, from the nature of the ac-'
count kept between Armistead and Dilworth and Co., that
an agreement by implication, must have existed, that bills
of exchange, when entered without account, became their
property, and therefore they were entitled to the-
pose of them. At the time these bills were given the
account was in favour of Armistead, and continued so up
to the period of the bankruptcy. The question arising out
of the manner in which the account was kept, appeared
to his Lordship, to have been decided by the case of
" Giles and Thompson," there could be no doubt that the
mode of keeping them was the same as is usual in that
county. It appeared to his Lordship, upon the whole, that
Messrs. Dilworth and Co. had no right whatever to dis-
pose of these bills as they had done, and that Mr. Armis-
tead is entitled to stand in the situation of Messrs. Barclay,
and Co., to the extent to which the balance had been re-
duced by the misapplication of the bills ; that the prayer
of the petition was proper, and ought to be granted with
costs.

ROLLS COURT, MARCH 10.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. MULLET.

This was an information of a very novel description.
It was filed by the Attorney-General at the relation of the
parent of a minor, under the provisions of the last Mar-
riage Act, 4. Geo. IV. c. 76. By this Act it was provided
that if any valid marriage by banns should be procured by
a party to that marriage to be solemnized between persons,
one or both •f whom should he under the age of 21 years,
such party knowing that such person under the age of 21
years bad a parent or guardian then living, and that such
marriage was had without the consent of such parent or
guardian—and knowing that banns had not been duly pub-
lished according to the provisions of the Act—and having
knowingly caused the undue publication of the banns, then
it should be lawful for his Majesty's Attorney-General by
information in the nature of an English Bill, in the Court
of Chancery, at the relation of a parent or guardian of the
minor whose consent to such marriage had not been given,
to sue for a forfeiture of all estate, right, title, and interest
in any property that had accrued or should accrue to the
party so offending by force of each marriage ; and such
Court should have power to declare such forfeiture. The
Act proceeded further to direct, that if both the parties so
contracting marriage should be guilty of such offence, it
should be lawful for the Court to settle such property for
the benefit of the issue of the marriage.

Mr. SUCIDEN appeared in support of the information,
and stated, that this was one of the dearest he ever knew.
Two young men had married two girls, the one sixteen
and the other about seventeen, and had thought proper to
swear that they were of age. The girls bad been carried
up to town, and married without the consent of the pa-
rents, and the consequence must be a forfeiture, as directed
by the Act.
Mr. PEMBERTON said the girls had been met at a fair,
and had got married to young men who were of age.—
The ladies were about seventeen.

Mr. SUGDEN observed that one of them was only
sixteen.

Mr. PEMBERTON did not see the value of a few months,
If they were worth any thing, Mr. Sngden might take
the benefit of it. The prayer of the bill should be here
attended to.
The MAsTErt of the Rou.s did not think the wife in
any way guilty, she therefore was not brought within the
provisions of the Act. He must therefore declare, in the
language of the Act, " That the husband has incurred a
forfeiture of all the estate, right, title, and interest in
the property which bath accrued, or which shall accrue, to
him by force of such marriage ;" and refer it to the Master
to inquire what property had accrued to the husband, and
to make a proper settlement with respect to all such estate,
right, title, and interest which had accrued, or should at
any time accrue, to him during coverture.
On account of the novelty of the case, considerable in-
terest was excited in the Court.

DARING BURGLARY.—On Saturday night
some thieves entered the house of Sir G. FARRANT, the
Magistrate, in Brook-street, Grosvenor-square, but luckily
obtained no booty.

CHURCHWARDENS' ACCOUNTS.--We learn
that in the accounts of the Bradford Churchwardeus,
audited on the 27th nit., there is a charge of 21. 10s.
" for painting flags." This singular item naturally enough
produced the inquiry—for what parish purpose were these
flags used? To which it was replied, that they were pa-
raded in Messrs. WILSON and DUNCOMBE'S procession, at
the late election of members to serve in Parliament for
the county of York, and that as they had been used in the
" Protestant Cause," and on behalf of the " Church and
King" Members, it was judged quite proper to include them
in a rate, imposed for " the necessary repairs of the Parish
Church." This reasoning was thought so conclusive, that
the item was passed with only three dissentient voices !
At the next election the parishioners of Bradford, if they do
not look better after their own affairs, will probably have
in their Church rate expenditure a charge " for conveying
the Protestant voters to York."—Leeds Mercury.

ROBBERIES BY SHOPMEN.—Several meet-
ings have taken place amongst the tradesmen in the city,
in the haberdashery line, on account of the evidence given
at the Old Bailey, last session, by an accomplice in a rob-
bery committed at Bath, who had acknowledged that he
knew several shopswn who had been in the daily habit of
robbiue- their masters to a ruinous extent. The meetings
were held at the Sun Tavern, in Ludgate, and the disclo-
sures made by this accomplice were singular enough, and
exhibited the system upon which this description of plun-
der is carried on. BuartowEs and ADLAM, the persons
convicted of robbing Mr. Rosy, of Bath, bad long been in
the habit of robbing their employers. Immediately after
the Bath robbery, Btrartowes wrote to Mr. ROSE, request-
ing a character. As 80011 as he should receive the chitac-
ter, he was to give it to ADLAM, who was to use it in get-
ting a situation at the house of a Quaker, a very desirable
master to those who engage themselves in a concern for
the purpose of plundering it, as prosecution is out of the
question wherever the Society of Friends are sufferers....—
ADLAM would have stolen every thing he could lay his
hands upon if Le should have bad the opportunity, and
BURROWES would have been active in another shop. Those
fellows were accompanied to Bath by a woman of the
town, whose practice it was to go and purchase as much
silk as would make a pelisse, and BurotowEs used to give
her as much as would make three or four gowns besides.—
He had been in the habit of going round with his goods to
the brothels, where he sold them for about half-price.._
There are gangs of this sort of shopmen who meet toge-
ther when out of place, and change characters, by which
means they can manage to rob, sometimes to the value of
201. a week, before it is discovered that they are imps_
tore. The accomplice described the mode of secreting the
money which they receive before the eyes of their masters.
He pointed out a man who calls himself Captain, in the
saloons of the theatres, and is enabled to drive a gig and
keep two brothels, from his former labours iu this way.—
The shopkeeper's have been enlightened upon the subject,
but they came to iso deeuitit'e resolution.