The Sun.
London, England, 1844-12-19 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING, DECEMBER 19, 1844

possible exigencies. But we are satisfied that in
framing the machinery of the Act before us the par-
' ties who drew, and the Legislature which passed it,
must have overlooked the extravagant injustice which
its unmodified application to the most distant and
inhospitable shores of the British islands, and between
the most widely-separated points on those stormy
coasts, their land-locked archipelago, and the wide oc-
casional tracks of barren country on the neighbour-
ing main, will inflict. From points thus remote, how-
ever, to the nearest port which can 'Boast a custom-
house ; or from some secluded creek on the unfre-
quented west, across the wildest districts of the
Highlands, to some luckier and more favoured
locality in the east which possesses a trade and
a revenue station, to look after the duties to be
collected on it, the unfortunate fisherman of the " far
Lewis, or of any part of the rugged coast line be-
tween Far-off-Head and Loch Broom, must find his
way, be it by land or by water, 60, 70, or 80 miles,
to pay his hard-earned shilling and obtain his certi-
ficate, with which he may then return, at this the
most inclement season of the year, over the same
prolonged and dreary track, to the point from whence
he set out ; for the Act is imperative as to the time
within which the certificate must be obtained. The
preamble declares that " from and after the Ist day
of January; 1845, this Act shall take effect." Clause
3 enacts, among other things, that the owner or
master or " every ship under the burden of 80
tons, employed as last aforesaid, shall, before
employing any seaman or other person in the service
of his ship, receive from every such seaman or other
person his register ticket ; and shall retain the same
until the service of such seaman or other person shall
hare expired, and, at the expiration of such service,
the master shall return the register ticket to the per-
son entitled thereto." In a subsequent clause a heavy
penalty is inflicted on a master who shall fail to ex-
plain the meaning of such ticket and receive it, sub-
ject to be returned as aforesaid, from the seaman or
other person so employed by him. And clause 20
expressly enacts that, " every person being a subject
of her MAJsm, intending to serve on board
any ship, subject to the provisions of this
Act (except as master or physican, or sur-
geon, or apothecary), shall, and he is hereby re-
quired to provide himself with a register ticket for
that purpose to apply personally at the General Re-
gister and Record Office of Seamen in London, or at
the custom-houses of the several outports of the United
Kingdom." This clause imposes a rather heavy pe-
nalty on the sailor or seaman for noncompliance with
its conditions. Did the framers of the Act think at
all of Scotland—of the Western Highlands and Isles
—of their intrepid, frugal, and enterprising, though
poor, fishermen ? If they did, did it never occur to
them that to make their Act take effect from the
Ist of January on such coasts, and on such seas,
was to put to needless hazard and fatigue the
lives of a noble set of fellows, whose lot has been
already cast as one of laborious toil, and of incessant
peril ? How are these fishermen, for example, of the
Western Highlands and Isles to make their way from
their rude homes to the nearest custom-house, in
search of these certificates, when, for that purpose,
they may have to traverse the whole distance
between, say Tobermory and Stornaway, or
Stornaway and Wick, or between Thurso and
Inverness ? 11l can they afford the fee, albeit but
one shilling; but still worse can they afford the sacri-
fice of time and occupation entailed by such long
journeys or voyages after these certificates, to say
nothing of the tempestuous weather and difficult
country that interpose their formidable obstacles at
this season. There will doubtless be numbers whom
physical difficulties of this kind, as well as others,
will effectually prevent from obtaining the document
required; but the Act is imperative, and they will
therefore be subject to the penalty. Surely, on a
proper representation of this case in the proper
quarters, an Order in Council might be ob-
tained, either suspending the levy of the
penalty until the re-assembling of Parliament and
the passing of a remedial Bill, or providing a more
practicable and considerate channel for the procuring
these certificates, by authorising the officers of Cus-
toms, always traversing some part or other of the
districts in question, to issue them, on application,
to fishermen or others. Such a relief is no more
than is due to the bold seamen of the coasts of Ross-
shire, Inverness-shire, and Sutherland, of the Ork-
neys and the Western Isles, from whom both our
navy, and our mercantile marine, at all times draw
some of their best and most undaunted sailors.

We have seen in the Liverpool Mercury a very
sensible letter, conceived in terms of great moderation,
on the subject of Brazilian sugars. Our readers are
aware of the extraordinary interest which has been
imparted to this question by some of the more ex-
citable opponents—(and in this country it has no
friends)—of slavery. In their zeal to discourage,
and if possible to punish, the States which still permit
the practice of this odious insult upon humanity,
these parties are for excluding from our ports all
sugar the produce of Brazil, inasmuch as it is t-j
inferred that it must have been slave-gre:„. The
expiration of our seventeen years' treaty with that
Power, having left our hands fr:a to deal with it as
we may see fit, we are urnc,t- to punish the sin it has
committed in the toleration of slavery, but which sin
we have, all.thaf, time, ourselves condoned and com-
promised tolerating it, in virtue of that very
treaty.. For sugar was not the less raised by slave
ls:oour, in Brazil, in consequence of her consenting to
abandon the trade or importation of slaves. Brazil,
herself, might honestly consent to, and even fulfil,
this latter stipulation (though that is not now the
question), and yet have not attempted to covenant
with, or coerce, her own subjects to employ only free
labour in the cultivation of sugar. Why, therefore,
the tardy suggestions of our slumbering morality, and
the period of the treaty's decease, should be coinci-
dent, it does seem difficult to account for, on any
broad and intelligible principles. The correspondent
of the Liverpool Mercury argues rightly, that if the
terms of that treaty had been capable of producing
any positive effect towards attaining its avowed
object (the repression or extinction of slavery in
Brazil), the lapse of seventeen years ought to have
sufficed to develop that effect. But since the commer-
cial policy of this country has been—as well before
as subsequently to the existence of that compact—to
discourage the consumption of Brazilian sugar, we
cannot perceive how that Brazilian question is di-
rectly affected by the New Sugar Bill of last session.
The much-complained-of admission of the sugars of
Venezuela, or even of the United States, leaves that
question, therefore, entirely untouched, without
adding to, or taking away, a single customer from
Brazil. The continued exclusion of Brazilian sugars
from our markets for consumption is no novelty, but j
a mere perseverance in a system, long established,
with a view to carry out that scheme of the universal
abolition of slavery for which this country h already
paid so enormous a sum. But to whatt extent we
have achieved that vast object, beyond the shores and
limits of our own colonies, is, unh-Appilv, a point of
by no means easy determination, Much less to be
doubted is it, that, by attempting to enforce on other
States the more than literal adoption of our anti-
slavery views, and to enforce our enactments in
respect of those views, as if we were invoking a
" lex talionis"—is a course more calculated to defeat
than to advance the beneficial end, to the complete
accomplishment of which we have ungrudgingly
made such costly sacrifices.

But what have we gained—what shall we acquire—
in the shape of advantage to our own sugar consumer:,
at home (who have some right co be consik.ed in
such a matter), by straining *le law of our own
country, touching slavery and
k slave trade, against
the commerce of foreign F.,',ates, willing to enter into
trading relations with is of mutual benefit, on con-
dition of our receaving sugars, the fact of which
havlng been rai,..nd by free labour, cannot be certified
'...1 the man,-.,,r prescribed by the New Sugar Duties
13111, to qualify for admission the sugars of Manilla
'and other foreign possessions ? Simply this—the
vindication and unity of a great principle; name]--
I the principle of utterly discouraging the ernplo;,;znent
~,
of Slave labour. But, in 'truth, we have made ship-
wreck of this principle already, by admitting Bra-
zilian sugars for the purposes of "refining." Will
all the boiling coppers and the pans of the White-
chapel houses--all the chemistry and manip.ulation
of the German refiners settled in London or -at Liver-
pool—purify the product on which they 1 cork from
the guilt of the slave labour employed in r wising that
raw commodity ? Will the atrocity or -slavery (to

which no men can be more indignantly alive than
ourselves) be discharged with the scum and the im-
purities that are swept from its surface under the
action of refining ? To give the " unity" which
some parties so hotly contend for to this principle of
slave labour discouragement, you should have pro-
hibited the importation of a single particle of Bra-
zilian-grown suga-r, under whatever circumstanees—
with whatever ostensible destination imported. Its
manufacture, here, for the dealers of Hamburgh and
St. Petersburgh, will not eradicate the slave-growth
taint it had acquired in the plantations of Aroibe or
Pernambuco.

But the theory of thus utterly excluding Brazilian,
as slave-grown sugars, from our own markets, in-
volves one enormous error, whilst its practical en-
forcement entails a commensurate evil. The theory
falsely assumes that, in foro conscientice, Govern-
ments (and we will suppose the case of those which
are ten times more highly organised, efficient, and
powerful, than that of Brazil) are to be held as
responsible, as private individuals or communities are
in respect of the conduct of their servants, for the
good faith with which their subjects shall discharge
the obligations contracted, on their behalf, by those
Governments. But there are prejudices of habit
and occupation, as well as of opinion, which the
most wise and the best established Government can
only eradicate or defeat with the aid of time, and by
the exercise of consummate prudence. The toleration
of negro slavery by a civilised Christian community
is one of these prejudices; and in respect of any
nation wherein it exists, no other nation has a right
to look too harshly or implacably at the offences of
individual citizens who have an immediate personal
interest in contravening the stipulations entered into
between their own SOVERNIGN and any other poten-
tate. If French smugglers succeed in largely running
contraband goods into this country, all we can expect
of a French Minister is his honourable assurance that
every possible means have been adopted, on his side,
to discourage and disavow such practices. No man
would dream of retaliating on the legitimate com-
merce of France with England, by encouraging Eng-
lish smugglers to run prohibited English goods into
France. We have done enough to vindicate our
sincere anxiety for the abolition of slavery. Our
,anti-Brazilian policy is becoming, like Hamlet's
metaphysics, apt to "deal too curiously'' with diffi-
cult and unsatisfactory premises. So much for the
theoretical error. The practical one is that which,
in the letter before us, is thus succinctly disposed of;
and we have nothing to add to it, unless it be to
commend it to the reader's. best attention :
" We see England making great sacrifices in life and
treasure, in her attempts—hitherto fruitless—to abolish
slavery and the slave trade in foreign countries. She
deprives her population of the advantages to be derived
from the admission of Brazil sugars, and from an ex-
tended and beneficial commerce with that country; and
whilst she is doing this, her rivals of the Zollverein and
elsewhere are preparing to profit by her anti-slavery
policy. She stands alone in her refusal of slave sugars,
and unless she can prevail upon other nations to join
her and to ' do likewise,' and thus succeed in closing up
all the European markets against them, can there be any
reasonable expectation of her ever being able, solo, to
accomplish the object' she has in view in keeping out
those sugars ?"

Madrid papers of the 11th instant have been re-
ceived. The report that the lives of REUGIFO and his
comrades had been spared is confirmed, but we regret
to find on the condition that they be banished for
life. After such a mock trial, and the decision of
the Supreme Military Tribunal, this sentence, so far
from showing the royal clemency, is an act of savage
cruelty. We placed no confidence in the reputed
clemency of NARVAEZ, and have not, therefore been
disappointed.
MADRID BounsE, DECEMBER 1 1 .—There were

110,900,000 reals done in the Three per Cents. to-
day ; closing prices, 32 3-16 cash, and 32k at sixty
days. Five per Cents. 21i at sixty days. Floating
Debt, 77 cash. Coupons, 26k at sixty days.

Though the opening of the French Chambers will
ake place within a week, we find not one note of pre-
paration in the Opposition journals for an attack on
the " Man of Ghent," or the discussion of any great
political measure, which may endanger the Cabinet.
For many years there has not been, at this season,
such a monotonous dulness in the radical and war
journals. The state of Spain, and the part which
Lours Pim-arra and his Minister have taken in
placing Queen CHRISTINA and NARVAEZ in power,
will form a good subject for conteution, but even that
now is scarcely alluded .to. Enough is said in the
National and Constitutionnel about the military execu-
tions, and the other atrocities of the Government,
the responsibility of France for the wre:...e.ned and
lamentable condition of her
near neighbour
is kept almost entirely "in the back ground.
The only question, at present that appears
to excite the sl.;.,;ntest interest is the election of Pre-
sident of 'one Lower Chamber, and even that is of the
trifling description. Last year the Opposition
preferred M. Durng to M. SAUZET, but were opposed
by the Government, and SAUZET was elected. Now
he is out of favour with the leading organ of the
Cabinet, and with some reason. Most of our readers
will remember the disgraceful scenes in the Chamber
last session when the " pilgrimage to Belgrave-
square," the right of search, and some other political
questions were discussed, and the utter inability of
M. SAUZET to preserve order. The Journal des
Debats admits the fact, and would, therefore, now
have a President like M. DUPIN, who though not al-
ways obedient to the Court and Cabinet, is a
consistent and constitutional politician, and moreover
has a firmness of character which peculiarly fits him
for preserving order in a popular assembly. The
contrast between these two members is thus drawn
by the Journal des Debats:—" The session is on the
point of being opened, and the political discussions
which have lately been so devoid of interest are about
to be renewed. For our part, we have not been in-
clined from the mere pleasure of battling with the
Opposition to fill our columns with eternal repetitions
upon Mogadore and Otaheite. Everything must
come to an end, even polemics; for when a question
is exhausted, and is not revived by any new incident,
the best thing that journalists can do is, in our opinion,
to be silent. Why should not politics have a vaca-
tion ? All matters in difference will come into
discussion in the Chambers. We are ready for the
debate, and dread it not upon any one point. The
thundering aspect assumed by the Opposition does
not frighten us in the least degree. There is, how-
ever, one previous question upon which we wish to
say a word, although it has not yet been broached;
because, perhaps, in the present state of things it can
scarcely bear the character of a party question.
We niP.an the question of the Presidency. Who
for this year is to be President of the Chamber of
Deputies ? Last year we were desirous that M.
DUPIN should be chosen, and we should this year
have great pleasure in seeing him placed in the chair.
Our motives for this preference are very simple.
The Chamber has need of a good President, and we
know not where it can find a better than in M.
Durisi—one more firm, more capable of enlightening
a debate while directing it. When the Chit-wive is
tranquil, M. SAUZET fills the PresideLcy
any man can. lie is mild and
suffering the debate to go . polite as well as
towards all .
He can never be ace- on without interference'.
calling the Charol-
-.used of abusing the power of
,er
to order. It
at w to the question, or its members
when the Chamber is agitated, these
same
t;:ca('n;:aoltitbiees
Braeinddetor hcirmeatuenefiint
btarro cao3nstinroelntt3h,e
bstuotrihne.
knows not how to foresee and prevent them; and
when the tempest bursts, no one can be more sur-
prised and confounded than he is. This could not
P.ll the world during the
fail to be remarked by
last session. In our (-1,4 it appears that the presi-
dency of M. SAUZET has had its day ; and, perhaps,
it may be thought, that by keeping the same man too
long in the arrd.chair he may become liable to fall
asleep. SAUZET was put in the place of M.
DUPIN.
iiho, during nine years filled with difficul-

c.:.:oties; presided over the Chamber with honour.
Why, therefore, should not M. Dorm replace M.
SAuzzil We may be asked—Do you then regard
M. DurlN as a Ministerial candidate ? We answer,

no! because we know that in all times, and under

whatever Ministry, M. Durex would reject this
title with indignation. It is a prejudice which, ac-
cording to our view of it, bas been fixed in the illus-
trious orator by his long and glorious career under
the Restoration. We can much less believe it pos-

sible for M. Durex to become the candidate of any

Opposition. We see in hicu only a candidate for the

Chamber, if the Chamber wishes for a good Presi-
dent—nothing more."
The following gossip about the Court and the
French press appears in the Globe, another Ministerial
paper :

" The ignorance of people not only in Spain, but even
in France, as to the nature of the relations of Conserva-
tive journals with the Conservative Cabinets, or with the
Crown, is very singular. We believe that there is not in
Europe a King who pays less attention to journals, whe-
ther they attack or defend him, than his Majesty Louis
Philippe. The King does not ascribe to the press so
great an influence as that which is generally ascribed to
it. In our opinion, it is proper not only to govern men,
but, above all, to govern ideas, and journalism is the most
active means of propagating ideas, good or bad. We
think, therefore, that the Government should govern
the press like all other things. The King of the
French, however, if he has always ascribed immense
importance to the two other powers of the state, has
only ascribed a very slight one to the fourth power,
namely, the press. • It is a fact, known by all who ap-
proach the King's person, that he does not read the
journals—the Debats and the Globe, no more than the
Reforme and the National. As to the Princes, there is
more than one of them who reads the National in pre-
ference to the Debate, and the Reforme in preference to
the Globe, and in this they show good sense, for it is
better to have one's eye on one's adversaries than one's
supporters. In short, we may affirm that what the
Radical journals call the Court is entirely a stranger to
the impulses and political direction of the Conservative
press. It is the Debate that is particularly accused of
being a dependent on royalty. This accusation is wholly
unmerited. There is nothing more independent, or
more disinterested, than the devotedness of the Debats
to the monarchy of July."
The National justly attacks the Journal des Debats
for the article on the pardon of Maio:aro and his
friends, and for describing this as a proof of the
courage and strength of the NARVAZZ Ministry. It
says : •

"Clemency appeared when the Supreme Tribunal was
about to quash the sentence. But see how this clemency
was exercised when demanded with suppliant voice by
an afflicted mother and by a whole provincial deputa-
tion. See how it is exercised by this pro-Consul, who,
after having had twelve Arragonese shot, has had eight
others put to death without the slightest appearance of
trial I See how it is used towards the Generals who
have grown old in the service of their country, who are
escorted even to their prison by armed soldiers ! See
also how mild it is towards all who are proscribed in the
whole extent of the territory See if this clemency has
a word to say in order to deliver those suspected per-
sons of Tarragona, who have been imprisoned because
they would not consenetokive 200,000 reels, to avoid the
exile that was to be inflicted on them I The clemency
of Narvaez I the amenity of the tiger Truly, that
would be a curious spectacle. The Debate has seized on
the first opportunity to obtain an amnesty for some
severe expressions against the savage brutality of these
lawless and faithless tyrants. But, if it reads the Minis-
terial press of Madrid, it will perceive that it has much
more to do before beipg pardoned."
THE BOVESV—TuzsDAy, Dzc. 17.
First Highest Lowest Last
Prim Price. Price. Price.
French Five per Cents.; .. 120 8.5 .. 120' 85 .• 120 25 .. 120 25
Three per Cents..... 85 05 • • 85 10 .. 85 .. 85
New Loan •••••••. 86 65 .• 86 bb .. 86 40 .. 86 40
Bank of France 3255 ..3255 —3255 ..3255
Laitltte Bank, I,ooof. Shareslll2 50 ..1112 50 ..1112 10 ..1112 18
Belgian Bank ........ .. 626 .. 640 .. 626 .. 640
Belgian Fives, 1840 • • lO4 • • 104 • • 104 • • 104
1842 1061 .. 1061 .. lost •• 1061.
Dutch Two and-a-Half 64 .• . 64 •64
Spanish Threes •••• • • • 37} •• 371 • • 371 ••
i
Portuguese Five per Cents 57 •• 57 •• 67 •• 57
Neapolitan•••••••••• •• • 98_60
.98.60 ..
_9B 60

•• 98 60
Roman ••••• •• •.
RAILWAY SHARES.
St. Germain •••• •• .• •.1015 •• 1015 —um „lois
Versailles, R. 8... • • .... 495 • • 510 • • 405 ..
L.B.•••••• •••• •• 402 50 .• 402 50 .. 398 .. 395
Ronan ........ •• ••••• . 1042.55 . 1042 50 ..1049 50

Rouen to Havre... •••• • .. 802 50 • • SOS
Orleans •• • • ..... ••• • -• ••1125 ..1130

Strasburg to Bale .......... 310
Avignon to Marseilles—. •• 935

.. SOO
..1110

..1042 50
•• 805

_ -
.. 316 25 • 310 ••1310 25
.. 935 •• 927 50 .. 927 50

RAILWAYS FOR THE ACCOUNT, J.4.1c 3.
St. Germain •• • • 102 S ..1025 ..1020 ••1020
Versailles, R. 8... 498 .. 515 .. 495 • • 500
L. 8......• ...... 395 .. 405 .. 392 50 .. 393 75
Rouen . .....•• •.1050 .•1050 ••1036 25 ••1837 50
Rouen to:Havre BO5 .. 805 .. 800 .. 800
Orleans . .1127 50 ..1132 58 ..1105 ..1110
Strasburg to Bale-- •• •• 308 75 .. 318 75 .• 312 50 .. 312 50
Avignon to Marseilles...—. 932 50 .• 932 50 . 920 920

THIS DAY'S NEWS

COMMON PLEAS.—(THIS DAY.)
;Sittings in London, before the LORD CHIEF JUSTICE
and a Special Jury.)
PARISH OF WALBROOK.

GIBBS AND ANOTHER V. FLIGHT AND ANOTHER.
This case, which has been looked to with great inte-
rest in the City, and has been kept back from day to
day since the commencement of the special jury sittings,
from various interruptions, came on at length this morn-
ing, at half-past nine o'clock.
Sir Thomas Wilde and Mr. Sergeant Channell (with
whom were Mr. Cowan), 'conducted the case of the
plaintiffs ; Mr. Sergeant Talfourd and Mr. Adolphus ap-
peared for the defendants.
of Mr.
,Ce
ro w
toxrsto
000pveenre dp
otshs
oe s ps
iloenadoifnion
gcsertTa ihni ab
owoakss ,ant haeept
fpehoedna'
ns ,t
sWhaal bd r ou ookl
a,
winfoltlyheseCizietyd ofan dLoottnrdroitiezi-wawbiacyh.
ro-
The defendants pleaded that the plaintiff
perty of the plaintiffs, as churchwardens of the parish
othfeSdt
wore not the
churchwardens of St. Stephen's, ""
had not possessed the bo,'
~;; • al rc9
wardens; and tt.: b k ; that they
church-
general i .ses question as such
the defendants pleaded on the
'P. ...sue that they were not guilty.
:sin pleadings having been read,
Sir T. WILDE addressed the jury for the plaintiffs.
They had been informed by his Learned Friend that
this action was brought by the Lord Mayor and another
gentleman against the defendants, to obtain possession of
certain books which they unlawfully withheld. The
plaintiffs claimed the custody of these books as church-
wardens of the pariah of St. Stephen's, Walbrook, and
the defendants denied that thesplamtiffs were entitled in
the character of churchwardens, which they set up. The
question now brought before this Court was whether, in
common law, the parish of St. Stephen's was properly
governed by a select vestry, or by an open vestry of the
parishioners at large. It;would be:shown, on the part of
the plaintiffs, that, from time immemorial, the parishihad
never been governed by the parishioners at large. Docu-
ments, as far back as the year 1642, would be laid before
the Court to prove that, beyond all question, the parish
was at that time governed by a select vestry. But the
defendants thought the parishioners at large
were entitled to take part in the vestry,
and this cause was raised to try that question. The
plaintiffs had been subjected to much animadversion on
account of the course which they had thought it their
duty to take in this matter; but he should be able to
show the jury on what alight foundations a great deal of
obloquytephe n
's, might
W heapedvvaspossessed
up. The parish of St.
of certain estates,
which were rested in trustees, and, as these died off,
salbro boek
others were appointed, and the estates were conveyed to
them. Of course, there were besides the ordinary
officers of the parish ; and thus the affairs of the parish
and the estates were managed until September in the last
year. In the preceding .month of August, some gentle-
men called upon Mr. Alderman Gibbs—now the Lord
Mayor of London—and asked to see the parish
accounts. The Lord Mayor answered them in
the most courteous matinee, and told them that
he would call a vestry, and consult that body as
to whether he should comply with the demand or not,
The vestry was called, but, instead of Waiting:for the
result, the defendants thought proper to raise quite
another question. A number of gentlemen rushed into
the Vestry-room, and took possession of the books; de-
claring that ft was an °'n vestry. Tlitise who tamed
the select vestry thtltight it was their duty to maintain
the rights or the parish. For as it had been since the
year 1200 the custom of the parish to be governed by a
select vestry, that had become a right of the parish, and
it was their duty to maintain it, This first interruption
took place in August. In September another attempt to
hold a select vestry) foP the purpose of passing the ac-
coutitsy Wits nude, and with a like result. The church-
wardens then found it necessary to eall in the aid of the
civil force to prevent this irruption ; and at the first
legal meeting of the vestry the Lord Mayor produced
his accounts, and they were passed item by item.
The whole of the accounts, from beginning to end, were
printed and distributed at the expense of the Lord
Mayor, who had been described as so obstinate that he
refused to Make any such statement. A thousand copies
were also printed, in consequence of the noise made in
the Common Council on the subject, and were generally
distributed. Since that time a bill in Chancery had
been filed against the select vestry, under the mistaken
supposition that they were trustees of the estates ; and
the Lord Mayor's accounts, not only as trustee, but also
as churchwarden, were now under examination. He
should make no allusion to anything that had occurred
in the course of that investigation. In consequence of
the attempt to break in upon the select vestry in the
manner that he had stated it was thought that, instead
of the one side continuing to insist on their right to
attend, and the other resisting that right, it would
be better that the question should be sub-
mitted to legal decision. The present plaintiffs
were the churchwardens appointed by the select vestry,
and the defendants had been appointed to the same
office by the parishioners at large. The question now
was, in fact, who wore the legal churchwardens? The
parish books were admitted to have been taken, and the
action was brought merely to try the question whether
the plaintiffs or the defendants were entitled to their
possession. He did not know what were the grounds
upon which his Learned Friend meant to resist the
claims of the select vestry. He would state, however,
very shortly what had been the course pursued in the
parish from the earliest period. The parish books begun
in the year 1648, and ho should divide the interval from
that year down to the present time, into certain periods,
stopping where there was any difference or alteration.
In 1648 a certain number -of persons would be found
acting as the vestry. It would not be in the power of
the parties to show by evidence of antecedent facts how
those persons were appointed, but it would satisfac-
torily appear what was the subsequent course of ap-
pointment. The first series would be from 1648 to 1672.
During that time they could find the same persons
always attending, with the exception that every person
who, subsequently to that served the office of church-
warden, or paid the fine, became a vestryman, and acted
in that character. It would seem, in fact, that the ancient
vestry was composed of the by-gone parish officers,
who had either served the office of churchwarden, or
been fined. In 1672 a document came forth which
could, he supposed, be made the subject of ob-
servation by his Learned Friend. In that year a
faculty was issued by the authority of the Bishop,

which ordered that the select vestry should con-
sist of certain persons, embracing the old 'select ves-
try and other individuals. It would be found that some
of those persons afterwards attended, and that a consi-
derable proportion of them were elected to the office of
churchwarden, and thus became select vestrymen by
virtue of their nomination. From 1672 to 1699 the
same course was uniformly adopted ; that is to say,
those who had served or had been fined, were constantly
added to the existing body. From 1699 to 1734 the
same course was still pursued ; the mode of initiation
into the office of vestryman continued to be what he had
stated ; and the same remark would apply to the period
between 1735 and 1834. In 1834, an Act of Par-
liament was passed which constituted church-
wardens and overseers a sort of corporation for the pur-
pose of their taking the property of the parish by suc-
cession. Formerly, where property belonged to the
parish, it was necessary to convey it from one set of
persons to another, who represented the parish, but
under this Act the property went to the successors of
the existing vestry without any new instruments or deeds
of conveyance. The overseers then became trustees of
the parish, and that was the only addition which had
been made. Now this was the history of the vestry up
to the present time. With the exception caused by the
faculty, there had been one uniform system from first to
last. What were the deviations which his Learned
Friends would attempt to show ; or what the grounds
upon which the legality of this vestry would be attacked,
it was impossible far him to conjecture. It could hardly
be contended that ei select vestry was an unconsti-
tutional body, or that it could not exist. It seldom
happened in this country that large bodies of
men having a common interest regulated their affairs in
their own persons. Such matters were usually entrusted
to governors, directors, masters, or other parties, who
acted on behalf of the rest. It was not remarkable,
therefore, that in olden times certain parishes came to a
resolution that certain parties should be chosen as a se-
lect vestry to manage the parochial concerns. The jury
would find no instance of an open vestry in that parish.
During the time to which he had referred, the vestry
was always composed of a certain number of individuals,
who were appointed in a particular manner to fill the
office. His Learned Friend might possibly contend that
the faculty had made some alteration ; but he need not
remind his Lordship that a case had been decided in
which that point had been ineffectually raised. He (Sir
T. Wilde) thought the whole dispute would resolve it-
self into a question of law ; and if so, all that could be
done on that eccasion was to insure the trial of that
question in the most effectual manner.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE—The better course would
be to turn it into a special case, or a special verdict.
Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD did not apprehend that on
the facts of the case there would ultimately be any dis-
pute. It would, he thought, be desirable for his Learned
Friend and himself to agree as to the effect of certain
portions of the evidence as the foundation of a case. He
believed he was perfectly correct in stating that in 1648
certain persons would be found acting as the vestry of
St. Stephen's, and that they continued so to act down to
the time of the great fire in 1666.
Henry Phillips was then called and examined for the
plaintiff as to certain entries in the first parish book,
commmencing in '1648.
The Learned Counsel were consulting as to certain
portions of the evidence, when
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said if there was any nice
matter of account to be decided, it would be better that
it should be referred to some barrister.
The witness then went over a great deal of documen-
tary evidence for the purpose of showing how the church-
wardens of St. Stephen, Walbrook, bad been chosen
since the time of Henry 111., from which it appeared,
that it had been the habit of re-electing persons as
churchwardens of the parish.
At this point of the argument,
Mr. Sergeant CHANNELL stated that it was his inten-
tion to argue that the churchwardens of the parish were
elected every year.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE—WeII, I suppose from
the evidence that has been given that it may be taken
that there is no re-election during the intervening years
as churchwarden
The examination of the witness was then resumed, and
concluded in favour of the plaintiff.
Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD cross-examined Mr. Phillips
as to the attendance of several individuals who formed
the committee and churchwardens of the parish of St.
Stephen, Walbrook, and for the purpose of endeavour-
ing to prove that the vestry, instead of being perpetual,
was elected annually. From 1699 to 1734 the documents
showed that there were never less than eight vestrymen
at any vestry meeting. In the majority of instances the
churchwardens' accounts were audited annually, but
there were some exceptions. From 1700 to 1734, new
churchwardens were elected for the parish of St.
Stephen Walbrook, every year ; and from 1775 to 1843,
at the different vestry meetings that took place in the
parish there was seldom more than five present, in
many instances only three ; and yet at these meetings
rates were made for repairs of the church, a rate in-
flicted for the relief of the poor, and churchwardens
chosen. On the 2d of May, 1833, a vestry met, con-
sisting of only five, among whom was Mr. Alderman
Gibbs, at which a vote of thanks was voted to him, and
a resolution come to that the streets should be peram-
bulated on Ascension Day.
In his re-examination by Mr. Sergeant CHANNELL—In
April, 1813, it appeared that in consequence of the
refusal of Mr. Motteux to undertake the office of
churchwarden, Mr. Michael Gibbs was requested
to suffer himself to be re-elected, to which he (as
churchwarden) acceded, and Mr. Motteux was
fined 20/. for refusing to serve. From 1813 to 1824 a
new person was elected churchwarden every year.
From 1826 to 1840 Mr. Gibbs and Mr. Atkins were
re-elected each year. In 1841, 1842, and 1843, Alderman
Gibbs and Mr. W. E. Eddison were elected churchwardens.
At each election of Mr. Alderman Gibbs as churchwar-
den, there was a vote of thanks to him, and request that
he would continue to serve. On the 2d March, 1814, there
was a vote of thanks to him, and that vote was directed
to be published in the newspapers. There were on these
occasions generally five persons present, exclusive of the
Alderman himself. Overseers were first appointed by
the vestry, on the Ist of April, 1818. The practice of
appointing auditors of the churchwardens' accounts ap-
peared to have existed down to 1824. There bad been
no appointment of auditors since 1825, when Mr. Gibbs
and three others had been appointed auditors for that year.
In April, 1885, two gentlemen attended as vestrymen,
and voted, who had not served the office of church-
warden, but had served the office of overseer. One of
these gentlemen was Mr. Whittaker, one of the present
plaintiffs. ,He was chosen churchwarden in 1844.
Abraham Brown, one of the Lord Mayor's servants,
proved the distribution of copies of the accounts to every
house in the parish in January last, and the posting we
the church-door, on last Easter Sunday, of a notice for a
select vestry for the election of churchwarden.
Mr Phillipps, the vestry-clerk appointed by
the select vestry, proved the election of Mr.
Alderman Gibbs and Mr. Whittaker as church-
wardens, by the select vestry, bn the 12th of
April, 1844. Seven persons attended that meeting.
Two of the persons then present had 'never been church-
wardens, but they were the overseers for the
year, and attended in that capacity. On endea-
vouring to make their way into the vestry-room
on that occasion, they found the room full
and Dr. Croly in the chair. . The parties occupying the
vestry-room were requested to leave the room, which
they did not do, whereupon a member of the :elect vestry
moved an adjournment to Alderman Gibbs's house,
where the election took place.
On his cross-examination, witness said he had known
Mr. Gibbs as a resident in the parish for thirty years,
without carrying on any business. The Alderman was
the chairman at the meeting at Alderman Gibbs's
house. The question of adjournment was put by Mr.
Atkins.
On his re-examination, he stated that it was usual for
the churchwarden to take the chair at the meetings of
the select vestry when the rector was 'absent. There
were, at the present moment, eight select vestrymen,
who had served or fined for the office of churchwarden.
He was present when the plaintiffs were sworn in, and
also when defendants were sworn in. It was all done at
the same meeting.
This concluded the case for the plaintiff.
Lord Chief Justice TINDAL suggested the propriety of
the whole being turned into a special case for the opinion
of the Court above.

Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD said, undoubtedly the greater
number of the points at issue must ultimately come be-
fore the Court above for their decision ; but there were

certain points on which he wished to take the opinion of
the jury.
Sir THOMAS WILDE would certainly have argued the
question in a very different way, if he had thought it
bad been intended to take the opinion of the jury on
any of the points. Ho had understoood that it had been
arranged that it should be turned into a special case.
Lord Chief Justice TINDAL had also so understood it.
Mr. Sergeant TALPOURD then commenced his ad-
, dress to the jury, and admitted that the custom
of the parish of St. Stephen's Walbrook, by
means of a select vestry, had been proved, but
he wished to have the opinion of the jury as
to whether that custom was not subject to two condi-
tions, because, if it were not, he should contend that the
custom was so absurd and mischievous in itself, as to be
bad in law. As a proof of the mischief of the custom
without those conditions, he would allude to the very
case of Alderman Gibbs himself. He did not mean to
throw any imputation on the character of that gentle-
man, he hoped, nay, ho believed, that he had acted ho-
nestly and honourably, and should so believe until it
were proved otherwise; but could they be surprised when
they found him re-electing himself for twenty suc-
cessive years, never having his accounts audited
during the whole of that time—could they wonder
if reports derogatory to his character got into cir-
culation? The mischiefs arising from such a custom
were very great, and no one had been, he believed, a
greater sufferer by those mischiefs than Mr. Gibbs
himself. He wished, therefore, to ask the jury
whether the custom was not subject to these
two conditions—first, that the number of select

vestrymen should never be lower than eight ; and
secondly, that each year fresh blood, as it were,
should be infused into the select vestry by the election
of some one as churchwarden from the body of the
parishioners.

Lord Chief Justice TINDAL—Those are purely ques-
tions of law, which the jury must take from me ;
and I would much rather not be called upon to give an
opinion at once upon such nice and delicate questions—l
tell you candidly I do not like to give an opinion, until
I have had more time to consider the subject. Really
you had better take a special verdict ; for suppose you
do take the opinion of the jury, you will gain nothing by
it. It will come on again as a motion for a new trial.
Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD, after a long consultation
with his clients, expressed his regret at being obliged to
proceed. For himself he should strongly advise them
to accede to the suggestion of the Court, but
they were desirous of taking the opinion of the
_

jury as to the condition of the election of a new church
warden every year.
Lord Chief Justice TINDAI—Why, that is a mere
matter of law, and it might be a point for consideration
whether the proper method of trying that question is
not by applying for a mandamus to the select vestry, to
compel them to proceed to suck election. You should
decide for yourself, Brother Talfourd, in such
a case. There is not a point in dispute.
Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD would take upon himself the
responsibility of acceding to: the suggestion of the Court,
at whatever risk of blame.

Lord Chief Justice TINDAL—NO one can blame you.
Ever since Westminster Hall has been in existence, such
a case would have been made a special one.
Sir T. WILDE suggested the propriety of their agree-
ing to name some gentlemai as referee, in case any dis-
pute should arise as to the terms in which the verdict
should be drawn up, although he did not apprehend any
such difference.

Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD, although entertaining no
apprehension on the subject, IN ould accede to the pro-
position. The case, although it had excited great
feeling out of doors, had not been conducted
with any degree of hostility in the Court. He
had cautiously abstained from saying anything
that could hurt the feelings of Mr. Alderman
Gibbs. No hostility was entertained towards him,
and the parishioners would be inclined to address him in
the words of Othello to Michael Cassio :—" Michael, I
love thee well ; but nevermore be officer of mine."—
(A laugh.).

LordCbiefJustice TINDAL—The books shall be open
to both parties, and if there is any book or document
which has not been given in evidence, which can tend
to elucidate the case, either party may put it in.
The jury, under the direction of the Judge, then found
a verdict nominally for the plaintiff, subject to a special
case, and to be turned into a special verdict, if it should
be deemed requisite.

CRIMINAL COURT.-(THIS DAY.)
OLD COURT.

(Before Mr. Baron ROLFE.)
SHOPLIFTING.—Leah Mary Roper, spinster, aged 32 ,
was placed at the bar, charged with stealing on the 2d
of December, from Mr. Hardwick, of Holborn-hill, 48
yards of satinet, value six guineas.
It appeared from the evidence of the shopman, that on
the day in question the prisoner came to Mr. Hardwick's
shop, and bought some articles to the amount of about
Gs. When she had purchased the articles she said she
wanted to go out for some time, and did so, leaving
half-a-sovereign in the hands of the shopman. She re-
mained out for a short time, and returned to take away
the articles she bought. While she was out a piece of
satinet was found to be missirg, and the prisoner was
arrested. The satinet was found to have been pawned
by the prisoner while she was out for 4/. The evidence
left no doubt of the prisoner's guilt.
The jury found her Guilty, and the Court sentenced
her to one year's imprisonment, with hard labour.
THE LATE BANK FORGERY.—TRIAL OF
BURGESS.
William Burgess, aged 23, lately a clerk in the Bank
of England, was then placed at the bar, charged with frau-
dulently aiding and assisting a person unknown to per-
sonate an owner of a certain share of, and in a public
stock, value 8,2004 with intent to defraud William
Oxenford thereof.
Mr. J. S. WORTLEY (with whom were Mr. Adolphus
and Mr. Clarkson), stated the case for the prosecution.
He began by saying that the jury, as commercial inpn,
would give that consideration to the case which its im-
portance required. He would beg of them not to be
swayed by anything which they might have heard here-
tofore with respect to this case. The prisoner had been
a clerk in the Bank of England for about four years,
and that situation gave him facilities for committing the
fraud for which he was now being tried. The Learned
Gentleman then detailed the manner in which transfers
of stock took place, and said the prisoner had made use
of most ingenious means to defraud Mr. Oxenford of
8,2001. The Learned Gentleman then went over the
facts of the case as detailed in the following evidence:—
Wm. Smee was the first witness called.—l am the chief
accountant at the Bank. I produce a copy of the ac-
count of William Oxenford. I took it from the ledger.
On being cross-examined by Mr. BODKIN (who, with
Mr. Charnoek, conducted the defence,) the witness said
the copy was accurate in every respect.
Re-examined—The prisoner had access to all the
books in .the Transfer-office. He was employed for
some time in the Bank. He obtained leave of absence
from the dd of September to the sth. The prisoner did
not return on the sth.
William Oxenford was then examined—l live in
John-street, Bedford-row. I was formerly in the Cus-
tom-house. I had 8,2001, in the Bank on the 3d of eicp-
tetnber last. I never transferred or consented to transfer
any part of that money. I never signed any document
for that purpose. I don't know the prisoner at the bar,
or a person named Joseph Elder. I never wrote this
name—it is a forgery.
Cross-examined by Mr. BODKIN—I always received
my dividends personally.
Richard Bloro examined by Mr. CLARKSON—I am
one of the clerks in the Consol-office. I know Mr.
Sutton, a clerk in the office. I got from Mr. Sutton two
tickets, which I produce. I cannot say whether Ire
ceived them from Sutton or took them out of the box.
The prisoner was there. He told me to transfer two
tickets in the name of Oxenford. I said I had transferred
them. He asked me to enter them immediately as Mr.
Oxenford was waiting. I proceeded to do so in the
transfer-hook. While the prisoner was waiting I asked
hitn if he knew Mr. Oxenford. He said he was an old
friend of his. I said he must be getting an old man now.
He said he was. When I completed I asked where Mr.
Oxenford was. He said he was outside minding his
horse. That' he had himself got an " early-
off" that day, and they were going down to Gravesend.
together. He then went out and returned with a gen-
tleman. He then asked who would witness the transac-
tion, for that is usual at the Bank. The prisoner took
the book to Mr. Ingall, another clerk in the same office.
I then heard him say to the person whom he brought
with him, " Come along, William, it is all right." I did
not witness the act of the transfer of the stock. I after-
wards accompanied the officer, John Forrester, to the
United States, on the 18th of September. We went to
Boston. I found Elder in Federal-street, in that city.
That was at the end of October. He went there under
the name of Ellis. I recognised him as the person who
came in with the prisoner, and represented Oxenford.
Forrester asked him his name, and said, taking him by
the coat, " Your name is Joseph Elder, you are a native
of London." He was then taken into custody.
James Sutton examined.—l am a clerk in the Consol-
office. I compared the two tickets with the account of
William Oxenford, in order to enter them.
Thomas Ingall—l am a clerk in the Consol-office. I
was there on the 3d of September. I remember seeing
the prisoner then ; he was a few feet from me. There
was another person with him. I did not know who he
was. The prisoner said to me " Perhaps, Mr. Ingall,
you will see these." He had the transfer receipts in his
hands. The book was on the counter. I took the re-
ceipts from him. The person whom he brought then
signed the transfers. lie signed the name William
Oxenford. The prisoner read the amount from the book
while I had the tickets amid the names. The prisoner
signed his name, to witness the identity of "John Oxen-
ford." The book was turned round to me, and I found
that the names were all properly signed. I then signed
my name, and gave away the receipts.
Cross-examined by Mr. BODKIN—I do not recollect
seeing the receipt signed by any one. I witness receipts
of the kind without seeing the parties sign ; that is fre-
quently the case. Ido not see them actually sign, but
they present it as their receipt. I assumed this receipt
was right, and I put my name to it. Mr. Bord was six or
seven fret from me. There was nothing in this transac-
tion to call my particular attention to it.
Thomas Tokely—l am a stockjobber. I know the
prisoner personally. He called on me in August, and
stated that he had a friend who had 8,200/. stock which
he wished to transfer. On the 3d of September he
brought me a ticket filled up in the regular way,
for the sale of 8,200 L I passed the ticket to Clement
Smith, a stock-jobber. We agreed as to the amount of
the purchase ; 98i was the price of the day, that is in
money 8,107/. 15s. I afterwards received from Mr. Smith
the receipt. It was not signed when I received it from
Smith. I saw him afterwards, and got the two receipts
from him. They were properly signed, and witnessed
by the clerk. There was a person with him. I gave the
receipts to Smith to get the money. The prisoner said
he would wait for the money at the Auction Mart Cof-
fee-room. I got the cheque handed to me from Henry
Smith, the son of Clement Smith, and a 100/. note, a 5/.
note, and 2/. odd in cash. I took the money to the Auc-
tion Mart Coffee-room. Burgess took the money, and
the person who was with him took the cheque.
Cross-examined—lt appeared to me to be a fair and
regular transaction.
Clement Smith—l am a stockbroker and jobber. The
last witness applied to me, on the 3d of September, to
purchase 8,200/. I was to pay 8,107/. 15s. for it. I
know the prisoner. I went to inquire about him. I
found he was not there, and was not likely to be there.
Charles Cheetam Laurence—l am cashier in the bank
of Lubbock and Co. About twenty minutes before two
o'clock on the 3d of September a cheque was brought to
me for 8,000/. The prisoner was one of the persons who
brought it. :He was accompanied by an elder person, who
had a carpet bag. It is usual to ask the name of the per-
son presenting such cheque. I did so on this occasion.
The prisoner said Oxenford. I asked how they. would
have it. The prisoner's companion said All or part in gold.
I said they had then better hare large notes, which they
could get changed at the Bank of England. I then gave
them eight notes of 1,000/. each. I gave them to the
prisoner's companion.
Hickman, a clerk in the Bank of England, proved
that those eight notes were presented to him on Tuesday.
The person presenting them said his name was Oxen-
ford. He gave,the order for giving gold for the notes. He
saw the person who presented the notes emptying the
gold from the 1,060/. bags into two larger canvass bags,
which he had with him. He had a carpet-bag ; it was
like the bag now before the Court. The person was about
forty-five years old, of a ruddy complexion. He had
two porters who helped him to take out the bags. This
was about two o'clock in the day.
Thomas Agar—l am a teller in the issue department
of the Bank. I got an order to get gold to the amount
of 10,000/. I got it in ten bags of 1,000/. each. I was
desired to pay 8,0001 of it.
(The trial was proceeding when we went to press.)

NETT' COURT
Before the RECORDER a❑d Alderman HUGEIES )

John Goatly, a respectably-dressed young man, was
charged with having stolen, in conjunction with others,
not in custody, a tub of butter, value 31., the property of
H. Musselwhite.
The prisoner's participation in the robbery, which was
executed with much adroitness, was proved to the satis-
faction of the jury, and they returned a verdict of Guilty.
The prisoner, it appeared had been convicted at the

Surrey sessions, for stealing lead, and was sentenced 1°
six months' imprisonment and hard labour.
on the
The RECORDER said he had been convicted
clearest evidence. The Court had the power of sending
him out of the country for life ; he however did not in-
tend to transport him fur that period, but for the term
of ten years.l
Mary Banks, an unfortunate girl, was charged witll
old
having stolen four half-crowns, five sixpences, and sg°,',
ring from the person of James I3arratt, a private in t"'f
Royal Marines, stationed at Woolwich, on the sth °
December last.
It appeared that the prosecutor and the prisoner had
been drinking together on the evening in question, and
that, after drinking a quantity of malt liquor,
a portion
of which he thought was drugged, he became uric°.
scions, and accompanied the prisoner to her lodgin?e
;
Ile bad produced a purse containing the property in P
presence. Some of the money was found on her. tni.
The prisoner, in her defence, said that the pro
able
gave her the purse to take care of, as he was incapsio' -
taking care of it himself.
The RECORDER said the jury would have to consider
whether whether he gave her the money to take care of, or line;
ther she took it from his person with the intention
stealing it.
The jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty. •

INQUEST ON MISS CLARA
WEBSTER.—(THIS DAY.) afal
Mr. Wakley, M.P., Coroner for the county of .1,10
dlesex, and a jury composed of the most respects 0
householders in the neighbourhood, held an ing,„"gtre,
half-past ten this morning at the Green Man
New-road, on the remains of Miss Clara Weebgao
aged 21, who, it need scarcely be said, died upon Tueldres,
last, from the injuries which she had received, her of
having taken tire while performing on the OW
Drury-lane theatre on Saturday evening.
The jury having gone to No. 54, Norton-street
view the body of deceased, returned, and the first
called was
Anne Taylor, landlady of the house, 54, Nortonsatretei
where the deceased died, on Tuesday morning, sh°rrii,
after three o'clock, in presence of Dr. Liston and °their.,
Witness was present when deceased was brought gh°4
on Saturday night, the 14th of December, eiweiiise.
from injuries by burning. She was -perfectly sell'ilost
The first application used was spirits of wine, and bet
and wadding. Witness continued to attend upon
till her death. She was free from pain through fig,
She seemed to be recovering till the Monday ereulorr
when, at seven o'clock, a difficulty of breathing ivisgdelS
served. She got worse, and was insensible as°, ssi
rious for some time before her death. She gnil'usos,
sunk, and never described how the accident bed
pened, and did not once blame any one. sslc4
Mrs. Webster, mother of the deceased lady, tbe
if she herself blamed any one ? and she answered 01
negative.
Dr. Robert Liston, of Clifford-street, was next ..ht
mined. I first attended the deceased on Saturday
last. I found her much burnt in the upper extrer°loe
about the arms and neck. I applied spirits of wine,.„,gruell
ding, and flour repeatedly. She appeared to be inrt. 1
pain. This treatment was not changed that nigutbes
saw her again on Sunday, but she did not apPOrirss
to be in much pain, though suffering from low °Porte
I did sot again see her till three o'clock on Tuesday 13;red
ing, when I was sent for. She expired just as I ssrdid
the room. She gave no account of the accident, no
she blame any one in my presence. f 0
Mr. %VARLET—Were stimulants of any kind give 03
her ? Witness—Yes ; wine from time to time'
other fluids.
tnort''
Mr. WAKLRY—You did not see. her on MondaY-,
ing ? Witness—Oh, yes, I did. She was not O-
wen, and breathed with difficulty. death
Mr. WAKLEY—You hare no doubt, I suppose ,Wif
was occasioned from the injuries she received ? ftbt
ness—Oh, none. She died from the effects of
b Mr. WAKLaY—From fappearances there could
been no hope from the first of her recovery.
Mr. Taylor, the husband of the first witness, reillsrokesi
that Dr. Liston had represented, on Saturday night'
the injuries were not so serious as a scald. 0
iv
Mr. WAKLEY—No doubt. Medical gentlemen $
r tbs
the habit of saying such things to inspire he —,.,
relatives
and friend of sufferers.
Coyle, 29,s Crown-street, St. Giles, stonenirlrp
was in Drury-lane Theatre on the night of Setl tset
Saw the deceased about eleven o'clock, and her 0°
were then on fire. letbes
Mr. WAKLEY—Is there no one who saw bars cs eSS
take fire ? The Beadle—No one could say We/ •
her clothes take fire.th
The witness—l saw her about the time her r'its
took fire. She was then supposed to be in " the lite!!
Mr. WAKLEY—Oh, that must have been irate
after her clothes ignited. erg'
Witness—Yes, I was standing in one of the side ~rao
ings on the stage ; the deceased was about four4teo
from me, and 1 saw her clothes on fire at the ";(100
part. She came up some steps out of the bath teroo
to the stage. She came towards me, and then mu be
the stage, and I ran after her and caught her, 'opt
myself on my back, and rolled over her. Mid°
man threw his jacket over her, and so eitinguish!Ajoe
flames. Some of the other ladies' dresses, 31nps'
Plunkett's, I believe, was set on fire. There Ile
thing unusual in the disposition of the lamps the 01
ing. There are two baths, one before the other,do,se
six or eight glasses in each. The performers g° t cif
about three feet, and the glasses are about two fee
inches below the boards, and partly below the 0045; the
Mr. WARLEY—If there was a wirework to c 0 0;
glass, could this have happened ? Witness"'
think not.
of ores
Mr. WAKLEY—It's a pity, then, there is 11inly
sort of wirework protection. There ought cer'sieerl'
be something of this sort for the protection ofperfoeto e
Mrs. Mary Webster was the next witness. Shin 00
widow, and resides near Euston-square. War
theatre, but not near the stage. 1 heard screw the
She ran down stairs, and her daughter was thee;olsis
green-roora, and quite sensible. She did nottevi;sol
any circumstance connected with the accident. 'd caiSs
said to her, once, " Clara, Clara, if some one ba
byfov
to your assistance sooner—oh,l if I had been_.°efr-
I could have saved you." She said, " Yes, moil"—
could." Olfs
Mr. WARLEY (to Coyle) —ls there bs
kept near the stage in case of accident ? stage,
—There was water near, but not on the
as no accident was apprehended. er‘ll
By the CORONER—She might have ran about 181
while her clothes were on fire. 00Pr
Mr. WAKLEY made some observations on the those
tunate want of presence of mind exhibited bih.or
whose clothes are set on fire. It they would P.,i,he°'
the burning clothes they would at once be extisPo
and the second best mode was for the individual
ated to lie down at length.
This being the whole of the evidence, An
OCR
Mr. WAJKLEY then addressed the jury. siai prr,
rence like this might easily be averted if simple and
per precautions were taken. In most of the CS" isoo
similar natare that came before him, he generallYcliosti
that fatal results might have been prevented if erAjtil
precaution had been taken •immediately after the -et
had taken fire. It had long been known that gereseo'
every description could be so prepared as to Prsliirlg
their being inflammable. It was done by stgsoioSci
them in a particular way; and he trusted his ray,f, Old
ing the circumstance would be productive of glof
perhaps serve to prevent the recurrence of an° feel'',
these dreadfnl occurrences. Cases of fire were der,
dreadfully frequent; within the last ten deYss the
had been no less than twenty cases e'
character within his district ; and be, fro°
sure he spoke within bounds, when he said th,fl".orlf
130 to 140 cases of burning and scalding occurre?lroveri
in the division of the county in which he was `1041,,,,°
lie held inquests yesterday on two children r r
them were scalded to death from want of pro Pee pQs;
cautions being taken. The first was at the Yr,leossie°
pital in Gray's Inn-lane. A child while us'„brit
herself before the fire accidentally fell, and the
no high fender, she knocked down a kettle and ;0111• 1'
her head so severely that she died soon after 01;
Now accidents of this nature could never occur 10fr
dren, if their parents would take the precautioo:„fe• lsij
wire fenders before their fires. In this case, tfg f
danger had not been apprehended, for the case
11%
observe, that even Mrs. Webster had not foreseet 11• 3,
such until the calamity had actually occurred- OP, a
means of avoiding the danger were 'serf tstioeo
for if a lattice of wire had been ecti
over the lamps the dresses of the actresseshi, cs';
not possibly have caught fire, and accidents of t, • IL'
ratter would never happen. The precaution ifs:oo7;
simple one, and where the results would be en;raenc,,
tory, it would be well at once to put it in rbe eri,
Where the dresses of performers were likely °verge
posed to flame, the gauzes, as he had already' °
o r .111:
might be so prepared by a solution of alumina' is fsc
toot;
t
as to be quite uninflammablc. Impressed with $
he had yesterday written a note to Mr.Gardieer'ortlelis,
excellent chemist in the neighbourhood (Gres:Ai/00'io
street), asking him if he knew any person in otitis
who was in the habit of washing rnuslins'
Tb
or dresses in the solution alluded tn'fiserfigis
gentleman returned this answer.—(The stter, 0,
Coroner then read Mr. Gardiner's l''000016;
which it was stated that muriate of gi eits,
or a similar solution of alumina, would have that the
yteL
of preventing ignition.) It was also stated tvo to t':o.
Hodson, of 406, Strand, had given much attenti°,,
matter. How far that gentleman had succeedeuot lisjl
closed pattern of gauze ti mild show; it would
erld ni
at the flame of a candle Mr. Hodson proli°s It'lncbs
a starch, to be used instead of common stare tioe
would answer every purpose, and at the same „e isosro
perfectly safe in cases like the presents It thee'oo
undertake, for a trifling consideration, to keep afire, ho
" property" or dresses from any daisger sob
(the Coroner) did not know that there had r,q.e, s le
gentleman in existence as Mr. Hodson, but we's jou',
this case, the mention of his name would serveerliSfit
purpose, that of benefiting the public, and, g, it I'l
doing good to himself, he (the Ceroner) thoUg
t°
com The mon to give gaussh was then testim
ed puatbliacicandle, ty.
and
r,f°l;
co(
The
all that was said of it, and Mrs. Webste it obic
amination, could not find ansmell or other fou sge.)
the 5t wive
would make it inapplicable for dresses Ur „f Piths
Mr. WAKLEY—Certairly no young chile, seed
would be without an outer dress so prepare.ted to in.
attention of families would, he hoped, be dire(' re b,I-
er'3 The witoe..s, Daniel Coyle, whose hancdsorwoen
daged, intimuted, at the conclusion of the , of tP4
dress, that it had been erroneously stated i,,ll,•_s,u..""was
newspapers that he was quite recovered. '-ibel7inie,
the case, nor was he likely to be well for som.
9, had dr,
Mr. WAKLEY told him the intrepidity
.b
played on the occasion of the accident was
highest praise. Ile was confident if he© :rret t:Y° t,°:lokue
notbeiiebfiet
wantingatsom e
in place
theirof entertainment,end eav endeavours to
stulippoprutb.,:bloicoo;
Coyle thanked the Coroner for his Bugg
es"