The Sun.
London, England, 1844-02-19 00:00:00

THE ANTI-CORN-LAW LEAGUE

" Leaguers meet theatres," said the Home Secre-
tary, in his speech of Tuesday evening. They do, Sir
James. They rac.,t in Covent-garden last night ; and
oey will eontinv .e to meet at short intervals here and
throughout th' country, until all occasion for meeting
shall have. c'eased. The League is no ephemeral body.
It has ,Lit the elements of permanency about it. Its
duraticin will be co-existent with that of the odious
monopoly which U has been established to put down.
Both will stand or fall together. Thp League has given
mkny proofs of its vitality. It has 'proved itself to be
something more than an abstraction. There is an at-
mosphere of practicability about it, which the monopo-
lists are at length compelled to acknowledge. There
must be something tangible in a body which has spread
terror and dismay amidst the ranks of the monopolists.
That cannot be a non-entity which has forced the land-
lords and the clergy of a State Church to form them-
selves into a wide-spread confederacy, to resist what
they call the aggressions of the League. That cannot
be a mere airy nothing which has wrung from the hart
grasp of an avaricious oligarchy some 13,000/. or
20,000/. in the hope—vain hope l—of opposing the fur-
ther progress of the League, which has been truly de-
signated " a Great fact."
Let the monopolists go on as they are doing. Let
them combine and contribute to their hearts' content.
The league glories in collision. The League courts
a conflict with the champions of the landed interest.
Conflict is, with the League, but another name for con-
quest. The free-traders have challenged the monopo-
lists to the combat times without number. The challenge
has been Ilitherto declined. It is now accepted, and the
opposing powers are marshalling their respective forces
for a. decisive battle. The grand conflict is on the eve
of c',lmmencing. Of the issue there can be no doubt ;
nor Can there be a question that the engagement, though
se7ere, will be but a short one.

Never did the League appear in better spirits than
they did last night. How could it be otherwise ? The
attendance was, if: possible, greater than ever ; and cer-
tainly, intense as was the enthusiasm at former meetings,
the enthusiasm displayed last night exceeded anything
of the kind ever before witnessed. No one who was in
Covent-oarden last night can any longer entertain a
doubt, however sceptical he may have hitherto been,
that the days of the monster monopoly are numbered.
We wish that all those oligarchists, titled and untitled,
-_whu have of late been planking down their 1001., 50/.,
201., IN., 51., &c., for the purpose of perpetuating the
corn-laws, had formed a part of the vast audience.
If they had, they would have learned at least one
important lessson. They would have been taught the
utter hopelessness of averting, or even much longer de-
ferring, the destruction of the bread monopoly. And
this conviction would necessarily have been followed by
another, namely, the folly of contributing their money
to prevent a catastrophe which is inevitable. There are
none, says the proverb, so blind as those who will not
see. Some of the landlords are in this predicament.
Though everybody else clearly discerns the impending
extinction of the corn-laws, there is a section of the
monopolists who shut their eyes and refuse to be en-
lightened.
The delusion may be a pleasant one while it lasts.
And were it likely to last for fifteen or twenty years, we
Could understand the conduct of those monopolists by
whom it is so fondly cherished. Human nature
shrinks from the contemplation of distant evils. No
one likes to torment himself before the time. It is
only when evils are known to be at hand, that they
force themselves on men's attention. Those landlords
to whom we refer are unwilling to learn how near
its doom their favourite monopoly is. They
not only will not come to the light ; but they will not
let us bring the light to them. Their conduct would be
intelligible could their ignorance avert the coming cala-
mity. But it cannot—no more than the ostrich, who
thrusts its hoed into the sand when closely pursued,
thereby escapes the destruction to which it is doomed.
But if many of the monopolists are determined not to
see, they must be made to feel. If they will not now
believe that their craft is in danger—the craft by which
they have so long swindled and plundered the public—
they must be made to believe it, by bringing the threat-
ened ruin about their ears. _

The proceedings of last night were well adapted to
accelerate this event. Mr. Hume was singularly happy
in his references to the humiliating position in which the
Premier has suffered himself to be placed. Never did
Minister appear in so pitiable a plight. Last year he
proclaimed his determination not to be dictated to by
the Richmonds and Buckinghams, who head the mono-
list confederacy. Those who differed from him admired
what they considered the manliness of the declaration.
But how has he acted up to it ? Let his announcement
the other night, that he will consent to no alteration in
the corn-laws, answer the question. In that announce-
ment he stands theself-confessed minion of the oligarchy.
Hetes been cowed by the menaces of dismissal from
'6lllO, which the Duke of Richmond has held over his
head. He has been compelled to eat the leek, and by
doing so has irredeemably disgraced himself in the esti-
mation of all honourable men—even in that of the very
aristocrats whose livery he has consented to wear, and
whose obsequious lacquey he has agreed to become.
To the speeches of Mr. Christie and Mr. Fox we have
not space to advert. Both were effective—that of the
latter was particularly so. We shall probably take oc-
casion to recur to it, and direct attention to some of its
more prominent points.—Advertiser.

LORD LYNDHURST'S CHARGE TO

THE PYX JURY.

(FROM OUR OWN REPORTER*
A Committee of the Goldsmiths' Company, appointed
to try the coinage, assembled at the Privy Council
Chamber, when the Lord Chancellor addressed them
nearly as follows :
" Gentlemen,—You are assembled here to-day to try
the value of the coinage ; and, as the coal-merchant is
said to have remarked that Coals is coals,' it will be
for you to say if money is really money.
" Gentlemen, there is no pleasure in life without some
alloy, and money, which is one of the greatest of earthly
delights, has also its alloy ; but you will hare to take
care there is not too much of it. Formerly, every gold
watch weighed so many carats, from which it became
usual to call a silver watch a turnip ; but this will not,
at presents form a branch of your inquiry. Troy weight,
gentlemen, is derived from the heavy responsibility the
Trojans were under to their creditors. The Romans
were in the habit of tossing up their coins in the pre-
sence of the legions, and if a piece of money went
higher than tip of the ensign's flag, it was pronounced
to be above the standard. You, Gentlemen, will not be
required to do this. It will be sufficient if you ring the
money on the mahogany dining•table that you will find
prepared for you.
" The early Italians used cattle instead of coin, and a
person would sometimes send for change for a thousand
pound bullock, when he would receive twenty five-pound
sheep, or perhaps, if he wanted very small change,
there would be a few lambs amongst them. The incon-
venience of keeping a flock of sheep at one's banker's,
or paying in a short-horned heifer to one's private ac-
count, led to the introduction of bullion.

,
"To return, however, Gentlemen, to the duty that
will devolve upon yourselves. You will be called upon
to examine into the unhealthy custom of sweating sove-
reigns; and, with regard to this point, will do well to re-
collect that Charles I. was, perhaps, the earliest sove-
reign who was sweated to such an extent that his imme-
diate successor, Charles 11., became one of the lightest
sovereigns ever known in this country.
" With these remarks, Gentlemen, I leave you to the
discharge of your important duties. There are weights
and scales in the next room; and while British honesty
holds the beam, I am sure that British wealth can never
suffer ; for Ms the boast of our blessed nation, that the
merchant may hold his head as high as the noble----(aside)
if his washerwoman has put sufficient starch in his shirt-
collar." (The Learned Lord's speech was so much ap-
plauded when he arrived at the beautiful little figure of
the merchant and the noble, that the concluding words,
spoken aside, were not audible.)
The Foreman of the Pyx Jury, in the enthusiasm of
the moment, asked the whole of the Privy Council to a
banquet, to be given the same evening in the Hall of the
Goldsmiths' Company.

The Lord Chancellor, in the name of the Privy
Council, obsorved, that they were all indisposed, and
that their medical attendants had said, that by all means
they must all keep quiet, and therefore could not accept
the Pyx Jury's polite invitation. The Jury then amused
themselves by tossing up, weighing, breathing upon,
biting, and otherwise experimentalising with the coin of
the realm, which they declared to be honest and satis-
factory.—Punch.

DEFEAT OF TIIE MONOPOLISTS AT AN OPEN COUNTY
MOLTING AT BRIDGWATER FEn. 16.—(From a Correspon-
dent.)—The Squires are dead beaten to-day. We carried it
,hollow at the county meeting. We carried a petition for
complete free trade, and a vote of gratitude to the League.
Never was a more complete triumph, and never did 1 see
men more chopfallen. I have just time to say thus much
before post closes. I should suppose between 5,000 and
6,000 may have been present, 5,000 being, perhaps, nearest
the mark; but this is guess-work.
When Mr. Wilberforce was a candidate for Hull,
his sister, an amiable and witty young lady, offered the corn-
. pliment of a new gown to each of the wives of the freemen
who voted for her brother; on which she was saluted with
the cry of " Miss Wilberforce fur ever," when she pleasantly
Pbserved, " I thank you, gentlemen ; but I cannot agree with
yen, for really I do not wish to be Miss Wilberforce for ever."
EXTRAORDINARY MARRIAGE NOVELTY. Since
Monday last, the neighbourhood of St. John's Chapel, St.
John's-square, Clerkenwell, has been the scene of great in-
.
terest and curiosity, in consequence of a ceremony of a most
• •novetand extraordinary aracter having taken place. The
.. Rev. Mr.. Hugh Hughes, c
ministercourse of his visitations to relieve tof St. John's Chapel, in the
the poor in the lower walks
of life, and afford them religious ai,ldiscovered a great num-
.. her of PersonS, of both sexes, living together in a state of pro-
, lligacy. Through the medium of his exhortations they were
brought to a sense of the impropriety of
costermon-
ch a mode of life,
, and 86 men and women, consisting of t
various trades and
Ors, tailors, shoemakers, and ethers of
us
' callings, consented, at the suggestion of they
Rev.
to appear at St. John's Chapel, on Monday
lastjentleman,
go through the matrimonial ceremony, gratis. Every, arrangthere to
-
- went was made for the occasion, and at an early -ue-
h r
male
and galleries were filled with highly respectable persons,
and female, in order to witness the ceremony, and the body
of the edifice was crowded, while the greatest interest was
manifested outside by numerous spectators. The police and
Bncklaw, the beadle, were in attendance to keep order, and
prevent any inconvenience. At eight o'clock in the morning
the " happy couples" began to arrive, and they were ushered
• through one door into pews. The Rev. Gentleman at length
tock his station at the altar, and commenced his labour,
• when he continued to go through the solemn ceremony amid
the greatest silence, until he successively solemnised 23 mar-
riages, some young, some middle-aged, and others old re-
pentants. On Thursday the chapel was again crowded, and
the same ceremony was performed with 23 more couple, but
the remaining 40 did not appear at the appointed time.
There is no doubt, however, that they will come forward, as
the doors of the chapel are gratuitously open to them.

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.

FROM THE EVENING PAPERS OP SATURDAY.
GLOBE.—We regard it as a piece of great weak-
ness to keep harping upon the Catholic oath ; and we
are surprised that Lord Stanley should have wound
up an able speech with a topic ineffective, when not
offensive. From whom, after all, proceed most
of the attacks on the Irish establishment ? From
the Roman Catholic Members ? By no means ?
Why, one of the most outspoken recent sallies
on the subject of that Church, as exclusively
es ablished in Ireland, proceeded from the Gal-
lant and most Protestant Member for Westminster,
Captain Rous. We have before us a pamphlet, pub-
lished by Mr. D. Perceval, containing his father's
speeches on the Catholic question, in an appendix to
which we find bitter and just complaints of having
been taken in to vote for Captain Rous, as a Pro-
testant Conservative. Now, if that is all the depend-
ence Protestant Churchmen can place on their own
members, what possible use is there in twitting
Roman Catholics with hostile conduct towards the Pro -
testan t Church ? Are the Roman Catholics the only Dis-
senters in Parliament who must express no opinion
on that subject? If they may express opinions, are
they to express their own opinions, or some others ?
To have made this oath good fur anything as a
defence of the outward Protestant Establishment,
it ought to have been an oath, or engagement,
neither to speak nor vote on any subject affect-
ing that Establishment. All general pledges are per-
fectly useless, the object of which is to withhold one
section of the Legislature from doing what all the
rest may do. If the Catholic oath had succeeded in
imposing this exclusive restriction on Catholics, it
would have produced a second Catholic question. If
there were no Protestants who attacked Protestant
ascendancy, the supposed Catholic pledge to abstain
from doing so might be pleaded more colourably.
But to say Roman Catholics must hold their
tongues, and withhold their votes, on public ques-
tions, on which all other Members may speak
and vote in what sense they please, is to talk idly.
And what would be the consequence, if Roman
Catholics acquiesced in this doctrine? The conse-
quence could be no other than this, that they must all
turn Repealers in a body—all at least, of those who
regard it as their duty to act upon their Church feel-
ings in Parliament as elsewhere. Every one of them
must throw their weight into the scale of separate
Roman Catholic legislature, if the Perceval, and, it
would seem, Stanley construction of their oath could
be brought home totheirconviction. Lord Shrewsbury
said, very justly, last year, that " until both Houses of
Parliament combined to give a different interpretation
(from Lord Camoys) of the oath, Roman Catholics
would be justified in giving their opinion in the Legis-
lature even on subjects that might trench on the esta-
blished religion of the country. On any other terms
he would not condescend to sit in Parliament."
Would the party in power think the British con-
nexion with Ireland greatly strengthened, if every
Roman Catholic, who thinks himself bound to act in
favour of his church on all occasions, could be convinced
that he was not at liberty to do so within the walls
of Parliament ? Why then, let them pass a declaratory
Act of the stringent sense in which the oath taken by
Roman Catholics is understood by Parliament. If they
could make their majority relax corn duties, surely
they can make them tighten Catholic tests. That they
won't do so—that it would annoy them amazingly if the
Roman Catholics took them at their word—considered
themselves, as they affect to consider them, debarred all
free expression on Church subjects—and thereupon
succeeded en masse, and took service, as loyal Repeal
auxiliaries, under Mr. O'Connell—proves, as we
began by stating, the weakness of talking everlast-
ingly about an alleged engagement they shrink from
enforcing. It would seem our opponents have got
such a habit of talking about this oath, that it always
comes uppermost when they find they have nothing
else left to say. But whatever colour there might be
for throwing it in the teeth of a Whig majority, there
is no shred of pretence now for a single word more
about it.

"You say the oath's evaded—why then, take it—
I'm all submission—what you'd have it MAKE Ir."
All this whining is utterly ludicrous with a large
majority in both Houses. It is your fault if Roman
Catholic consciences are ensnared an hour longer by
general terms. Make them so stringent, that no zeal-
ous Roman Catholic can speak or vote henceforward on
any Church question. Every straightforward Tory
(as Sir C. Wetherell) derided your oath, as securing
establishments. Every straightforward Tory (as Mr.
Perceval) demands, if you make anything of it, to
make it stringent and penal. And Mr. O'Connell
will be much obliged to you. What need we say
more ?

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR
IRELAND.

The Right Hon. Gentleman is in the unexampled po-
sition, that he holds one of the highest offices in the
State through commisseration and sufferance. His Par-
liamentary friends defend him not. They offer merely
the apology that he anticipated that a set would be
mate upon him, and though he was resolved to be
governable he broke out at length into lawlessness.
The more he anticipated the less he is excusable, on the
grounds of rashness. No body but himself observed
that there was a particular call upon his valour, but
when the call was made, he could not pretend that it
was unexpected, and he was the less excusable for any
extravagance ia the course he thought proper to adopt.
The storm having come on, it passed away with an in-
noxiousness to him almost miraculous. If Fitzgibbon
played his cards as some persons say he should have
done, the grand State prosecutions could have been de-
stroyed at his stage of the proceedings. One can well
imagine the effect of taking the infuriated Attorney •
General at his word, and repairing to a distant spot to
give the "satisfaction" demanded. From this peril he
has escaped, and he has had to deal with a most indul-
gent Bench, though in the progress of this trial a gentle-
man had been brought under the animadversion of the
Court merely for a want of due courtesy to the High
Sheriff. One comfort the Right Hon. Gentleman has,
and it is no small one in these bad times, that the Pre-
mier has proclaimed in Parliament that the Government
has not contemplated, and does not contemplate his dis-
missal. There is, in this respect, also the comfort to the
people, that while the Right Hon. Gentleman remains in
office he must be a damaging adjunct to the Tory Go-
vernment.

The Judges of the Queen's Bench are greatly blamed
in London on account of this affair of the Attorney-
General. The chief responsibility in the matter lay with
the head of the Court, and if the needful had not been
done he was of course principally in fault. It was ob-
served that the member of the Court who-was most for-
ward in urging on an assertion of its authority was
Justice Perrin. There was, however, on the whole such
a failure as to provoke amongst our neighbours even the
humiliating sentiment of derision. The Times has ob-
served, with characteristic insolence, that the Court did
its best to facilitate an accommodation for the " jentle-
men." One thing should be remembered, when all
others are forgotten, relative to this unique business,
that the principal official parties obnoxious to blame are
persons pushed into their station by Tory appointment.
Mr. Smith is Sir Robert Peel's Attorney-General, and
Mr. Pennefather, who was so sympathising, or (more
correctly speaking) who was bewildered a manager
for the " jontlemen," was his Chief Justice.—Dublin
Pilot.

In the course of the Irish State trial, Mr. Whiteside
quoted an extraordinary figure once used by an advocate—
" I smell a rat—l see it brewing in the storm—and I will
crush it in the bud."

EXTRAORDINARY REVELATION OF A MURDER COM-
MITTED IN IRELAND ELEVEN YEARS AGO.—NORTIIAMI,
TON, FEB. 15.—A curious revelation has been made by one
of the soldiers of the 83(1 Regiment, at present stationed at
our barracks, by which the perpetrators of one of those cruel
and dastardly murders which we are constantly reading of in
the Irish papers, are likely to be discovered and brought to
punishment. The man's deposition was taken before J. Mar-
shall, Esq., one of our borough Magistrates, yesterday, but
as the parties are still at large, the examination was strictly
a private one, From what I can gather, the murder in ques-
tion was committed in the year 1832. The witness was then
a boy about 12 years of age, and was with others in the field
gathering blackberries, when he observed four men, whom
he knew, and whose names, I understand, he mentions, run
across the fields towards the high road. They were armed.
Shortly after the witness heard a cry of " Murder" proceed-
ing from the road, and.then two strangers passed him and
his companions, as if coming from the direction of the
cry. lie asked them what the cry was about? but the only
reply they made was to tell him to go about his business.
When the witness got upon the road, he saw the four men
he had first seen in the fields standing over another man
whom they had on the ground, and were beating. Soon
afterwards the murdered man was brought home by the
police. The witness told the circumstance to his father at
the time, who desired him to hold his tongue about it, and
beat him. It appears that the unfortunate victim had made
himself unpopular by taking a quantity of land which had
previously been let in small holdings, and he was therefore
waylaid on his return from market, and murdered. The
party who saw the murder committed, mentioned the parti-
culars shortly afterwards to a Roman Catholic priest residing
in the neighbourhood, but, thanks to that gentleman's con•
scienciousness, the subject has remained a mystery up to the
present time. I understand that copies of the depositions
have been forwarded to the Secretary of State, and to the
magistrates of the district in which the man states the murder
to have been committed.

..., ....... _ _ _
NUMBER .OF ENGLISH IN FRANCE IN 1844.—The
following is an official return made by the municipal authori-
ties to the Minister of the Interior and Prefet de Police, in
Paris, of the number of English residents (domicilies) through-
out France on the Ist of January, 1844 :—Paris, 25,000; St.
Cloud, Versailles, and St. Germain-en-Laye, 6,000; Rouen,
Havre-de-Grace, and Dieppe, 5,000; Harfleur, Honfleur,
and Caen, 2,300; Fontainebleau, Orleans, and Tours, 3,500;
Bordeaux, Toulouse, PO, Barreges, Montpellier, Nismes, and
Marseilles, 3,500 ; Aix, Avignon, and Lyons, 600 ; St. Quin-
tin and Lille, 1,500; Amiens, Beauvais, Arras, Abbeville,
and Montreuil-sur-Mer, 2,800 ; Boulogne-sur-Mer and vici-
nity, 7,000 ; St. Omer, 2,700 ; Cassel, Warrnhout, and Armen-
t4f.66ooo Pierre,
En
r?? 300 ; Bergues and Dunkirk, 2,000; Guines, Marquise,
English
Calais,
residents 4,800
in ;Fmr a ankcien. g aAlim totalitt
Admitting
upwardstha t
each,
of
,
on an average, expends five francs a day, the annual sum spent
by the English will be above 4,820,000/. sterling. This re-
turn does not include the
number ber of English who pass
through France on their route Ito Switzerland, Germany,
Italy, the Mediterranean, and India, which, on an average,
Dover The facility
Railway,
Calais,
..by the London,
ndafrffoesrmtdeaemdpakets
Southamptonto pas-
Fexolckesetdosns°e, '"and.
pas-
sengers for Boulogne and
Havre, and Brighton to Dieppe, has greatly increased theo
number of visitors, which this summer will, in 11 b
a pro a-
bility, be from 60,000 to 80,000.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, Feb. 17.
THE WILL OF THE LATE JAMES WOOD, GLOU-

CESTER.

THE CORPORATION OF GLOUCESTER V. WOOD.-JUDGMENT.
This cause, which has been so frequentlybefore the public,
still creates the greatest excitement, and the knowledge that
it was set down for judgment this morning, caused the
Court to be densely crowded long before the Lord Chancellor
took his seat.

Precisely at ten o'clock his Lordship entered the Court,
and immediately proceeded to deliver judgment, from which
it appeared that the suit had originally been a bill
filed by plaintiffs against the executors of the late James
Wood, Esq., of Gloucester, with a view to establish the
validity of the two codicils, bequeathing no less a sum than
140,000/. to the Corporation of Gloucester. The matter was
fully argued before Vice Chancellor Wigram, who
decided that the codicils were incomplete, not expressing
their precise meaning as to the appropriation of the amount
so bequeathed, and accordingly dismissed the plaintiff's bill,
who had appealed to the Lord Chancellor, and the matter
having been re-argued, his Lordship, after due deliberation,
affirmed the judgment of the Court below, the question as to
costs to be re-argued on Saturday next.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Feb. 17.
(Before Lord DENMAN and a Special Jury.)
PHILLIPS V. MORRIS.
This was an action for defamation of character, in which
Mr. Thesiger and Mr. Lee appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr.
Whately for the defendant. The libel was contained in a
letter said to have been written by the defendant, conveying
an imputation on the plaintiff's character. There was a plea
of justification placed on the record, that on the night of the
day on which Prince Albert laid the foundation stone of the
Royal Exchange, the plaintiff had slept with a person of the
name of Waller, at the Sun Tavern, near Temple-bar.
Mr. THESIGER said the plaintiff in this case was a young
lady who kept a respectable bearding-house, at No. 5, Foley-
place, and, as the jury must be aware, it was of the first
consequence for a lady so situated that her character should
remain above all reproach. The defendant, who was a widow
lady, living upon her private income, boarded with the plain-
tiff for some time. She, however, left that establishment, and
soon afterwards, in the early part of 1843, a letter was ad-
dressed to one of the inmates, containing the most abominable
insinuations upon the proprietress of it. This letter
signed " M.," he was instruced, he should be able to
prove was in the handwriting of the defendant. The
annexed is a copy of that letter
" My dear Chap—Who do you think I meet yesterday but
Mr. Wollow, and told him that I had got the credit of a
Captain Dolton of sending anonymous letter respecting his
intended Briad, Miss Phillips; his answer was tell him to
take her to the Sun Tavern, one door from Temple Bar, the
woman, he said, know her well; she sleep with him on the
night that Prince Albert laid the forst stone at Exeter-
change ; she, accused the woman in the morning of stealing
her boa, and the consequences was that the woman would not
give them a breakfast, and he had to take her back to the
City to his lodging to get one for her; she had left her boa at
his lodging; this was, she said, before she got her house in
Foley-place. She was lodgin at that time at a little china
shop in Paddington-street, and should wish you to show
this to Dolton, for Wollow is now in town, and he can
take his lady with him—he is very angurey with her for
sending him a Bill which he returned ; he did not owe her a
shilling his wife got the letters he said that she sent to him
and unknown to him she Poor woman sent 35 Pounds to a
friend of hers to go and pay her, so she may thank Wollow
wife for that. I think Wollow will write to Dolton himself
and told him so to do, but what surprised me most was what
he told nie respecting Mrs. Kibly.
"Yours truly,
The following witnesses were then called :
John Chafey said he resided at No. 5, Foley-place. In the
month of May, 1842, he lived as a boarder in the establish-
ment of Miss Phillips. There were about half-a-dozen alto-
gether. A Mrs. Morris resided there ; she was about sixty
years old, and Miss Phillips probably about eight-and-
twenty. In this month he received a letter which he well
remembered ; it was in the handwriting of Mrs. Morris.
Witness handed that letter to Captain Dalton, who was then
under engagement to be married to Miss Phillips. Some time
after this witness met Mrs. Morris, and told her there had
been many anonymous letters going about, of which she was
suspected to be the author. Mrs. Morris denied the
truth of the imputation. She afterwards wrote a note to
witness, begging him to send back this particular
letter, as she did not intend him to keep it. She
often spoke to him of Miss Phillips' establishment,
telling bins he would be much better away from it. His
answer to these observations always was, that he was
comfortable. Last spring witness saw the defendant at
the Portugal Hotel, who introduced him to a Mr. Waller.
That gentleman repeated in part what had been previously
said in the letter alluded to. Mr. Waller said he had been
down to a certain house in the City, where he remained.
The defendant spoke much in dispraise of Miss Phillips'
establishment. On cross-examination, witness said the de-
fendant told him she thought the anonymous letter was writ-
ten by Mr. Waller. Witness is an independent gentleman,
living on his own means. He still resides at Miss Phillips's.
Mrs. Elizabeth Lamb deposed that her husband holds the
office of auditor in the Insolvent Debtors' Court. She and
her husband resided for about ten months in the plaintiff's
establishment. Witness knew the defendant, who called
upon her shortly after she went to reside in the plaintiff's
house. She told witness she was surprised at her staying
there, as Miss Phillips did not bear a respectable character.
Defendant told her that Miss Phillips did not like her going
to her house. She also said Miss Phillips would have a
letter.
Mary Telford deposed that in the year 1842 she lived as
housemaid with Mrs. Barton, who resided at 51, Weymouth-
street, Portland-place. Miss Phillips boarded there. No
one could sleep out of the house without witness knowing
it. Miss Phillips never slept out of the house. Witness
warmed her bed every night, and took away her candle. On
the 17th of January, 1842, the day when the foundation-
stone of the Royal Exchange was laid by Prince Albert, wit-
ness could swear that Miss Phillips was confined to her bed by
illness.
Jane Hughes deposed that she was a laundress, and used
to do the washing for Mrs. Barton's establishment. On the
day when Prince Albert laid the foundation-stone of the
Royal Exchange, witness went to Mrs. Barton's for the
washing, and saw Miss Phillips in bed, who told her she was
too ill to get up and sort her linen, and she must call again
the next day for it.
Sarah Lewis said she lived in Mrs. Barton's establishment,
whilst Miss Phillips resided there, and would swear that lady
never once slept out of the house. s
This was the case for the plaintiffi
Mr. WHATELY, after a brief speech for the defendant,
called three witnesses, but only one answered.
Sarah Shoobridge sworn—Lives in Doctors' Commons. Is
a widow, and has resided there 19 years. Has been a
widow five years. Witness knows a person of the
name of Matthew Waller ; he lodged with her three
different times. The last time was in the year 1842.
Witness knows Miss Phillips, who visited Mr. Waller three or
four times whilst he lodged in witness's house. The last time
of her visit was about a week before he left ; each time
he went to fetch her. The time he left witness's house
was about the end of January. On the first occasion when
she came, nothing particular occurred but taking tea ; nor on
the second ;en the third tea and wine. Saw them after this
when they were both quite tipsy. Miss Phillips was
sick in consequence- of being drunk. She went on
that occasion into Mr. Waller's room. The servant
had told her the door was locked, on which witness
went up, knocked at the door, and said it was quite
time for Miss Phillips to come out. Heard the door un-
locked, and saw Miss Phillips come out of the bed-room.
She and Mr. Waller afterwards stayed two hours together in
the parlour. He went away with her about nine o'clock. It was
on the day Prince Albert laid the first stone of the Exchange.
The next morning Mr. Waller returned about twelve, and
Miss Phillips about a quarter of an hour afterwards. Mr.
Waller ordered breakfast, but I refused to let him
have any. At length I allowed my servant to get
breakfast, tea and beef-steaks. Afterwards Miss
Phillips complained of illness, and went to Mr.
Waller's bed, where she stayed until four o'clock. Whilst
in bed there Mr. Waller went to her twice. He has not
lived with witness since, nor does she know where he is.
Miss Phillips left her house in the evening. In cross-
examination, witness said she understood, when in 1835
Mr. Waller first came to reside with her, that he
was a married man, living separate from his wife. His
two sons then lived with him. She understood him to be
out of business, but that he had previously kept an hotel in
Dublin. At the second time he came to live with witness
she believed he dealt in cigars. When he came the last
time he came from Blackfriars-road, where he had been, she
believed, in some sort of business. Witness had had two
husbands—her first husband's name was Shoobridge—her
second Spiess, but for the whole nineteen years she kept
her house in . the name of Shoobridge. Her first husband
died in India in the year 1815. She married her second hus-
band at her own house. He was a Scotchman. There were
two Scotchmen present when she was married. There was a
minister from Paisley, of the name of Anderson, who married
them. Her husband found him out. Witness knew
nothing about him, save that once her husband
brought bins home to drink tea. Spiers told her
he was a minister. Knew a man named Charles
Gould. Never had a Scotch nor an English marriage with
him. Knows a person of the name of Linton, a doctor, of
Durham. He lodged in witness's house when he was walking
the hospitals. Had never been in his bed-room at night or
any other time, except when he was ill ; for three weeks at
one period he was confined to his bed. From the time the
tea-things were taken away, about seven o'clock, until
witness had heard them both go out together, wit-
ness did not "go into the room, or see either of them ; the
wine was put on the table when the tea was removed ; that
was about seven o'clock. Knew Mrs. Douglas, but only so
from her visiting Mr. Waller. Knew it was Miss Phillips
who came to her house, from going to Miss Phillips' house
to say she (witness) had been subpoenaed. Saw Miss Phil-
lips at that time in her own house, and will swear that she is
the Same female that was with Mr. Waller in his bed-room
at witness's house.
Mr. THESIGER replied.
Lord DENMAN summed up at some length, and, in the
course of his address, expressed his opinion of the innocence
of the plaintiff of all the charges brought against her; and
denounced, in strong and indignant languag, the attempts
too frequently made to throw slurs upon flee character of
females struggling to obtain a virtuous and honourable
maintenance.
The jury consulted for a few seconds, and the foreman said,
" We find for the plaintiff—damages 400/. ; and we are unani-
mously of opinion, that not the slightest imputation rests
upon the character of the plaintiff." This was the last cause
during the present sittings.

Ai."