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

THEE, sijN, LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING, DECEMBRR 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 cn 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 oat ; 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 of " every ship under the burden of 80
tons, employed as last aforesaid, shall, before
employing any seaman or other person in the serviee
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
have 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 MAJESTY, intending to serve on board
aay 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-
fr,s always nart or other of th..
districts in question, to issue them, on applicant/Li,
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 to be
inferred that it must have been slave-grown. The
expiration of our seventeen years' treaty with that
Power, having left our hands free to deal with it as
we may see fit, we are urged to punish the sin it has
committed in the toleration of slavery, but which sin
we have, all that time, ourselves condoned and com-
promised by tolerating it, in virtue of that very
treaty. For sugar was not the less raised by slave
labour, 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
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 has already
paid so enormous a sum. But to what extent we
have achieved that vast object, beyond the shores and
limits of our own colonies, is, unhappily, 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 defea

Ithan to advance the beneficial end, to the complete
accomplishment of which we have ungrudgingly
made such costly sacrifices.
But what hare we gained—what shall we acquire—
in the shape of advantage to our own sugar consumers
at home (who have some right to be considered in
such a matter), by straining the law of our own

country, touching slavery and the slave trade, against
the commerce of foreign States, willing to enter into
trading relations with us of mutual benefit, on con-
dition of our receiving sugars, the fact of which
having been raised by free labour, cannot be certified
in the manner prescribed by the New Sugar Duties
Bill, to qualify for admission the sugars of Manilla
and other foreign possessions ? Simply this—the
vindication and unity of a great principle; namely,
the principle of utterly discouraging the employment
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 manipulation
of the German refiners settled in London or at Liver-
pool—purify the product on which they work from
the guilt of the slave labour employed in raising that
raw commodity ? Will the atrocity of 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 sugar, under whatever circumstanses—
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 SOVEREIGN 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 hare 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 11 th 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 BOURSE, DECEMBER 11.—There were

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

Though the opening of the French Chambers will
take place within a week, we find not one note of pre-
paration in the Opposition journals for an attack on
thq t‘ Alan of Ghent " or the discussion of any great
political measure, whicn may endi...a—
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
Louis PIIILIPPB 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, but
the responsibility of France for the wretched 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 slightest interest is the election of Pre-
sident of the Lower Chamber, and even that is of the
most trifling description. Last year the Opposition
preferred M. DUPIN 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. Sauzex to preserve order. The Journal des
Debats admits the fact, and would, therefore, mow
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
fur preserving order in a popular assembly. The
contrast between these two members is thus drawn
by the Journal des Debates :—" 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 mean 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.
Durex—one more firm, more capable of enlightening
a debate while directing it. When the Chamber is
tranquil, AL. SAUZET fills the Presidency as well as
any man can. lie is mild and polite towards all ;
suffering the debate to go on 'without interference.
Ile can never be accused of abusing the power of
calling the Chamber to the question, or its members
to order. But when the Chamber is agitated, these
same qualities render him unfit to control the storm.
lie cannot be said to create embarrassments, but he
knows not how to foreseo and prevent them; and
when the tempest bursts, no one can be more sur-
prised and confounded than he is. This could not
fail to he remarked by all the world during the
last session. In our eyes it appears that the presi-
dency of M. SALIZET has had its day ; and, perhaps,
it may be thought that by keeping the same man too
long in the arm-chair he may become liable to fal,

asleep. M. SAITZET was put in the place of M.
Durex, who, during nine years filled with difficul-

...
culties, presided over the .Chamber with honour.

Why, therefore, should not M. Durex replace M.
SAUZET ? We may be asked—Do you then regard
31..DUPIN as a Ministerial candidate ? We answer,

no! because we know that in all times, and under
whatever Ministry, M. Dims would reject this
title with indignation. It is a prejudice which, ac-
cording to our view of it, has been fixed in the illus-
trious orator by hits long and glorious career under
the Restoration. We can much less believe it pos-
sible for M. Dupe S' to become the candidate of any
Opposition. We see in him 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 peoplt not only in Spain, but even
in France, as to the natureof 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 leis 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 s fact, known by all who ap-
proach the King's person, that he does not road the
journals—the Debuts and :he Globe, no more than the
Refortne and the National. As to the Princes, there is
more than one of them who reads the National in pre-
ference to the Debuts, and the Reform 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 Debuts 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 Debuts
to the monarchy of July."
The National justly attacks the Journal des Debats
for the article on the pardon of ItEuGiro and his
friends, and for describing this as a proof of the
courage and strength of the NARVAEZ 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-
tios. 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 ! 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 reals, to avoid the
exile that was to be inflicted on them ! The clemency
of Narvaez ! the amenity of the tiger ! Truly, that
would be a curious spectacle. The Debats 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 being pardoned."

THE BOURSE-TUESDAY, DEC. 17.

First Highest Lowest Last
_ . • .

Price. Price. Price. Price.
French Five per Cents•.•... 120 65 .. 120 85 .. 120 25 .. 120 25
Three per Cents.•••. 85 05 85 10 85 85
New Loan •• • • 86 55 •• 86 bb .. 86 40 .. 86 40
Bank of France • • .•. .....3255 .. 3255 .•3255 —3255
Laftltte Bank, I,ooof. Sharealll2 50 ..1112 50 ..1112 10 —lll2 18
Belgian Bank..•.
Belgian Fivea,lB4o ........ 104 .. 104. .. 101 • • 104

1R42 1061- 106.1 .. io{;. 1061
Dutch Two and-a-1ia1f.•... 64 .. 64 .• 64 . 64
Spanish Threes • 371 • • 37i •• 371 .•
Portuguese Five per Cents•. 57 •• 57 •• 57 • • 57
Neap01itan.........• •• • .• 98 60 .. 98 GO .. 98 60 .. 98 Go
Ronan ....•.

RAILWAY SHARES.
St. Germain ..............1013 ..1015 —lOl5 —lOl5
Versailles, R. 8... •• • • • • 495 .. 510 .. 495 . • 500
L.R.. ..... 402 50 .. 402 50 .. 395 .. 395
Ronan .......... •• •• •••...1042 55 . 1042 50 ..1042 50 ..1042 50
Rouen to Havre .. 802 50 805 .. 800 .. 805
Orleans ........••• •• •• —1125 ..1130 .•1110 ..1110
Strasburg to 8a1e.......... 310 316 25 . 310 .. 311 25
Avignon to Marseilles.— 935 .. 935 .• 927 50 .. 927 50

RAILWAYS FOR THE ACCOU:N.T. T, JAN. 3.
St. Germain •••••••• • • • • —1025 —1025 ..1020 —lO2O
Term:Linea, R. 13...
L.B 395 .. 405 .. 392 50 .. 393 75
Rouen • • lO5O ..1050 ..1036 25 ..1037 50
Rouen t0i11avre•......... 805 .. 805 .. 800 • • 800
Orleans 1127 5O ..1132 50 ..1105 ..1110
Strasburg to Bale..
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. SergeanttzTalfourd and Mr. Adolphus ur.-
"V.djWilthi folgietaihe p?-:.dugs. This was an action
of trover to recover possession of certain books, the pro-
perty of the plaintiffs, os „:hurchwardens of the parist
of Stephen's, Walbro tlLi,
the defendants had unlawfully seized and carried away.
The defendants pleaded that the plaintiffs were not the
churchwardens of St. Stephen's, Walbrook ; that they
had not possessed the books in question as such church-
wardens; and thirdly, the defendants pleaded on the
general issue that they were not guilty.
The 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 parish of St. Stephen's, Walbrook, and
the defendants denied that the plaintiffs 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 parishlhad
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
; but he should be able to
n thisb be heaped
whatm att er
slight foundations a great deal of
up. The parish of St.
S°sdi6teumit°p)7l-huteChne'tsaj,mkuirgyaihnli)rook,. was possessed of certain estates,
which were -rested in trustees, and, as these died off,
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. Ths' Lord Mayor answered them in
the most courteous manner, and told them that
howould
,tr3,bt,
, and consult that body as
to whetherst al
I s a
aull vldeeds comply with the demand or not.
The e
instead of waiting for the
vry c
was he hco
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 it ire :s an open vestry. Those who formed
the select vestry thought it was their duty to maintain
the rights of the parish. For as it had been since the
year 1200 the cu„ tom of the parish to be governed by a
select vestry, than t had become a right of the parish, and
it was their duty to maintain it. This first interruption
took place in Ategust. In September another attempt to
hold a select ves'cry, for the purpose of passing the ac-
counts, was mad, !, and with a like result. The church-
wardens then found it necessary to call in the aid of the
civil force to pr event 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 ate accounts, from beginning to end, were
printed and dist ributed at the expense of the Lord
Mayor, who hadi 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. Si two 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 churchwardon, were now under examination. He
should make no &Minion to anything that had occurred.
in the course of that investigation. In consequence of
the attempt to bra ak in upon the select vestry in the
manner that he 'nod stated it was thought that, instead
of the one side c untinuing to insist on their right to
attend, and the :c ther resisting that right, it would
be better that: the question should be sub-
initted to legal. decision. The present plaintiffs
were the churchv rardens appointed by the select vestry,
and the defends.) its had been appointed to the same
office by the pari.shi oners at large. The question now
was, in fact, who were 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 sel, yet vestry. Ile 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 1,645, amd he 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 certl dn. number of persons would be found
acting as the yet itt7y. It would not be in the power of
the parties to st• oolv by evidence of antecedent facts how.
those persons is 'ere appointed, but it would satisfac-
torily appear wh at was the subsequent course of ap-
pointment. The firsit series would be from 1648 to 1672.
During that tim a 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 t. as fine, became a vestryman, and acted
in that character. I t would seem, in fact, that the ancient
vestry was com pet red of the by-gone parish officers,
who had either seri -ed the office of churchwarden, or
been fined. In 30 2 a document came forth which
could, he supposed, be made the subject of ob-
servation by his Le arned Friend. In that year a
faculty was issued bj the authority of the Bishop,

which orthe ed that the select vestry should con-
sist of certain persons, embracing tha 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 hod
stated ; and the same remark would apply to the period
between 1735 and 1834. In 1834, au 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 fer him to conjecture. It could hardly
be contended that a 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 thtt
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 occasion 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, had 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 Taneourty cross-examined Mr. Phillips
as to the attendance of several individuals who formed
the committee and churchwardens of the parishsof 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 1.775 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 wee.-- that . see
nftiw
trchwarden, Mr. Mfersi;r tsr
*t(rrbr':ivawr requested
to suffer himself to be re-elected, to which he (as
ehurclivrarden) acceded, Mr. Motteux was.
fined 201. 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 electedchurchwardens. ,
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, 1314, 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 had been
no appointment of auditors since 1825, when Mr. Gibbs
and three others had been appointed auditors for that year.
In April, 1835, 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 on
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, on 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
he churchwarden to take the chair at the meetings of
he 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 TALYOURD 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
had been intended to take the opinion of the jury on
any of the points. He 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 TALROURD 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, he 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 bean, 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 blo6d, 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 ho 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 TINDAL—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 such election. You should
decide for yourself, Brother Talfourd, in such
a case. There is not a point in dispute.
Mr. Sergeant TALFOUBD would take upon himself the
responsibility of acceding Co: 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 gentleman as referee, in case any dis-
pute should arise as to the terms in which the verdict
should be drawn up, although he did net apprehend any
such difference.

Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD, although entertaining no
apprehension on the subject, would 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.). _ _

Lord Chief Justice TINDAL—The books shall be open
to both parties, and if there is any book or document
which has not keen 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.)
SIIOPLIFTING.—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 41. 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. WOItTLEY (with whom were Mr. Adolphus
and Mr. Clarkson), stated the case for the prosecution.
He began by saying that the jury, as commercial men,
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. Charnock, 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 3d 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 'Sep-
tember last: riiesTer tiiiiisferred 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 Blom 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 I re-
ceived them from Sutton or took them out of the box.
The i -moner was Ll,:re. lie told me to transfer two
VIVEDIMPb 1- 1. -•_•3 t
them. He asked me to ...utter them immediately as Mr.
Oxenford was waiting. I proceeded to do so in the
transfer-book. While the prisoner was waiting I asked
him 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 and 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 feet from me. There was nothing in this transac-
tion to call my particular attention to it.
Thomas Tokely—l am a stock-jobber. I know the
prisoner personally. He called on me in August, and
stated that he bad a friend who had 8,2004 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 8,2001. 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 8,1071. 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 banded to me from Henry
Smith, the son of Clement Smith, and a 100/. note, a 51.
note, and 21. 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--It 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 8,1071. 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 have large notes, which they
could get changed at the Bank of England. I then gave
them eight notes of 1,0001. 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 1,000/. 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 10,0001. I got it in ten bags of 1,000/. each. I was
desired to pay 8,000/. of it.
(The trial was proceeding when we went to press.)

NEW COURT
'Before the RECORDER and Alderman limit Es.)

John Goody, 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 prison Cr'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 to
six months' imprisonment and hard labour.
The RECORDER said he had been convicted on the
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 for that period, but for the ten
of ten years.:
With
Mary Banks, an unfortunate girl, was charged
having stolen four half-crowns, five sixpences, and a gola
ring from the person of James Barrett, a private in OSf
Royal Marines, stationed at Woolwich, on the 511( °f
December last.
It appeared that the prosecutor and the prisoner bsad
been drinking together on the evening in question, end
that, after drinking a quantity of malt liquor,
of which he thought was drugged, he became undbif.'
scions, and accompanied the prisoner to her lodgings;,
1.1. e had produced a purse eontaining the property in ne
presence. Some of the money was found on her.
The prisoner, in her defence, said that the prosecutor
gave her the purse to take care of, as he was incapable °i
taking care of it himself. a putts
The RECORDER said the jury would have to consider
whether he gave her the money to take care of, or *be;
titer 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.) .d,
Mr. Wakley, M.P., Coroner for the county of *L.
diesex, and a jury composed of the most respects;
householders in the neighbourhood, held an inquest,_„_
half-past ten this morning at the Green Man Tavel::
.e', New-road, on the remains of Miss Clara Webster'
aged 21, who, it need scarcely be said, died upon Tues.!Y:,
last, from the injuries which she had received, her nrPoi
having taken fire while performing on the stage
Drury-lane theatre on Saturday evening.
The jury having gone to No. 54, Norton-street,
view the body of deceased, returned, and the first wits"'
called was
Anne Taylor, landlady of the house, 54, Norton4t;
where the deceased died, on Tuesday morning, shw"....
after three o'clock, in presence of Dr. Liston and othel-e,
Witness was present when deceased was brought 101.12%
on Saturday night, the 14th of December, suffe;.,
from injuries by burning. She was • perfectly seueace
The first application used was spirits of wine, and "her
and wadding. Witness continued to attend upon '.l.
till her death. She was free from pain throughr-
She seemed to be recovering till the Monday even:
when, at seven o'clock, a difficulty of breathing 10%0.
served. She got worse, and was insensible and
rious for some time before her death. She gratin.
sunk, and never described how the accident had ""
pened, and did not once blame any one. ked
Mrs. Webster, mother of the deceased lady, was 56tbe
if she herself blamed any one ? and she answered in
negative.
Dr. Robert Liston, of Clifford-street, was next eats
mined. I first attended the deceased on Saturday
110,
last. I found her much burnt in the upper extra° 01.
about the arms and neck. I applied spirits of wine, web
ding, and flour repeatedly. She appeared to be in °j
pain.LThis treatment was not changed that nigh bee
saw her again on Sunday, but she did not apPesr.rite
to be in much pain, though suffering from low ei.
I did not again see her till three o'clock on Tuesday 1130
rot
ing, when I was sent for. She expired just as I ent,fol
the room. She gave no account of the accident, 00r
she blame any one in my presence.
•to
Mr. WAKLEY—Were stimulants of any kind given
ed
her ? Witness—Yes ; wine from time to time,
other fluids.
Mr. WAKLEY—You did not see her on Monday 01 0
ing ? Witness—Oh, yes I did. She was not tbea
well, and breathed with difficulty. dotb
Mr. WARLET—You have no doubt, I suppose, we'
was occasioned from the injuries she received ? the
ness—Oh, none. She died from the effects of
burning.
Mr. \VARLET—From ''appearances there could hs
been no hope from the first of her recovery.
arliej
Mr. Taylor, the husband of the first witness, rig!. tbe;
that Dr. Liston had represented, on Saturday nighty
the injuries were not so serious as a scald. re ill
Mr. WAKLEY—No doubt. Medical gentlemen LI OS
the habit of saying such things to inspire hope "'
relatives and friends of sufferers.
asel4
Daniel Coyle, 29, Crown-street, St. Giles, stonelsro
was in Drury-lane Theatre on the night of Sat°,
cloth
Saw the deceased about eleven o'clock, and her oi°
were then on fire. mot
Mr. WAKLEY—Is there no one who saw her oste
take fire ? The Beadle—No one could say they
her clothes take fire.
clod„
The witness—l saw her about the time her co!
took fire. She was then supposed to be in " the tea
Mr. Wkiceee—Oh, that must hare been ingee
after her clothes ignited. oper
In o
Witness—Yes, I was standing in one of the at
ings on the stage ; the deceased was about fotirbfotto.
from me, and I saw her clothes on fire at the doe
part. She came up some steps out of the bath info
to the stage. She came towards me, and then ran ref
the stage, and I ran after her and caught her, 'bother
myself on my back, and rolled over her. An the
man threw his jacket over her, and so extingaish!ros
flames. Some of the other ladies' dresses. glad
Plunkett's, I believe, was set on fire. There e:00.
thing unusual in the disposition of the lamps tbst:
• met,. 6e:ruse the otner'doein
or eight glasses in each. The performers
about three feet, and the gla--cs are show. two .e"
inches below the boards, and partly below the stage'
Mr. WAKLEY—If there was a wirework to eor.„Te,,:
glass, could this have happened ? Witness---1-`""
think not.
setes
Mr. WAEL _„t EY—lt's a pity, then, there is to
sort of wirework protection. There ought eerl7o„. erre
be something of this sort for the protection ofPeribge ie e
Mrs. Mary Webster was the next witness..? in the
widow, and resides near Euston-square. taming'
theatre, but not near the stage. I heard ,S°', ill the
She ran down stairs, and her daughter was then 15113
green-room, and quite sensible. She did potions°
any circumstance connected with the accident. Aof
said to her, once, " Clara, Clara, if some one haul. 00
to your assistance sooner—oh ,t if I had been 105 los
I could have saved you." She said, " Yes, mamma''
c.iuld."
waif
Mr. WARLEY (to Coyle) —ls there nn ceps
kept near the stage in ease of accident ? sue
—There was water near, but not on the step
as no accident was apprehended.
thrtig By the CORONER—She might have ran about 18 i
while her clothes were on fire. Of"
Mr. WAKLEY made some observations on the
tole
tunate want of presence of mind exhibited by
whose clothes are set on fire. It they would Pled;
the burning clothes they would at once be extinguissiee
and the second best mode was for the individual s°
ated to lie down at length.
This being the whole of the evidence,
Mr. WAKLEY then addressed the jury. An d pre
rence like this might easily be averted if simple 10 go";
per precautions were taken. In most of the easeioes7
similar nature that came before him, he generally
that fatal results might have been prevented if 070000,
precaution had been taken immediately after the cos 01
had taken fire. It had long been known that gas feet
every description could be so prepared as t°2l,ceiag
their being inflammable. It was done by
;PO;
them in a particular way; and he trusted his 011
ing the circumstance would be productive of g°"tbse of
perhaps serve to prevent the recurrence of ao°
these dreadfnl occurrences. Cases of fire were sore
dreadfully frequent; within the last ten der this
had been no less than twenty cases °'
MrSe
character within his district ; and he, eseel
sure he spoke within bounds, when he said thjii.,eseli
130 to 140 cases of burning and scalding occur /roarth ,•
in the division of the county in which he was v,,,,c)
He held inquests yesterday on two children : Drr
them were scalded to death from want of prePe' Aor
cautions being taken. The first was at the Free 04
pital in Gray's Inn-lane. A child while uncti-004
herself before the fire accidentally fell, and there
no high fender, she knocked down a kettle and
.word*
her head so severely that she died soon after,'
chil-
Now accidents of this nature could never occur t° hove
dren, if their parents would take the precaution Wooer:
wire fenders before their fires. In this case, Oweelo
danger had not been apprehended, for the jorY, 01
observe, that even Mrs. Webster had not foresleg ti3°
such until the calamity had actually occurred
_
means of avoiding the danger were very as°
for if a lattice of wire had been el Auld
over the lamps the dresses of the actresses„,
not possibly have caught fire, and accidents of °ma eel
meter would never happen. The precaution wasatiseso•
simple one, and where the results would be so gractiffr
tory, it would be well at once to put it in P
be er
Where the dresses of performers were likely to,
..rfee,
posed to flame, the gauzes, as he had already <Nisbet:,
might be so prepared by a solution of alumina' oris feet
as to be quite uninflammable. Impressed with Im oat
o
he had yesterday written a note to Mr. Gardiner'
rood-
excellent chemist in the neighbourhood (Grestr,9.oo,
street), asking him if he knew any person in '',101,00
who was in the habit of washing muslin* I'ThSt
or dresses in the solution alluded t.e•amiene'
gentleman returned this answer.—(The •'".,in
Coroner then read Mr. Gardiner's tettetlono,
which it was stated that muriate of soniDffecl
e
or a similar solution of alumina, would have the gr.
of preventing ignition.) It was also stated that tog
Hodson, of 406, Strand, had given much attention;
matter. How far that gentleman had succeeded,ligbG
closed pattern of gauze would show; it would not gent
at the flame of a candle Mr. Hodson proposed ti hick
a starch, to be used instead of common staroh,ti:e be
would answer every purpose, and at the see; WOUlti
perfectly safe in cases like the present. theatre
undertake, for a trifling consideration, to keepl Ile
" property" or dresses from any danger by fi
oleh
(the Coroner) did not know that there had het, 0 is
gentleman in existence as Mr. Hodson, but wheer " ioubiet
this case, the mention of his name would serve
erhiir-"
purpose, that of benefiting the public, and, Et it VA
doing good to himself; he (the Coroner) thong
common justice to give him publicity.
and fond fD
(The gause was then tested at a candle,
„.0
verify all that was said of it, and Mrs. WebsterLywhieh
amination, could not find any smell or other
.fault_v„,)
would make it inapplicable for dresses upon
child
03; b-103
Mr. WARLEY—Certairly no young ehu°,, and the
would be without an outer dress so prepared'
el toisit...
attention of families would, he hoped,
The witness, Daniel Coyle, whose hand* wr° A•
Coroner daged, intimated at the conclusion of the o°r°_ne oft he
dress, that it had been erroneously stated some Dot
be direc
newspapers that he was quite recovered. This was
..
the case, nor was he likely to be well for someatiztvd
Mr. WAKLEY told him the intrepidity h
worthy °f th e
played on the occasion of the accident was 0 take s
highest praise. He was confident if he were t°
benefit at some place of entertainment, the p 13115
not be wanting in their endeavours to suppor_!iiilol7, anct
Coyle thanked the Coroner for his sugguo
O.