The Sun.
London, England, 1845-05-08 00:00:00

COURT OF ALDERMEN.

Tuesday, a Court was held for the dispatch of public
business. As it was understood that the subject of the
late proceedings in the chapel of Newgate, when the
condemned sermon was preached, in the presence of
locker, the murderer, Connor, the person accused of
murder, the other prisoners confined in the gaol, and
several strangers of both sexes, would be brought for-
ward, the Court below the bar was densely thronged.
THE CONDEMNED SERMON.

Alderman and Sheriff SIDNEY, after having presented
the usual Sheriffs' returns of the state of the prisons,
said the Sheriffs thought it right to inform the Court
that some remarks had been made in the House of Peers
on the subject of the admission of the public to hear the
condemned sermon in the chapel of Newgate, and also
with reference to the public execution of the convict
murderer, Hocker. The Sheriffs had deferred making
any reply to these remarks, knowing as they did know
that the Secretary of State had directed an inquiry into
the facts and circumstances attending the matter, and
when the report which would be the result of the in-
quiry should be laid before the Legislature, and fur-
nished to them, the Sheriffs would to ready to enter fully
into the case, in their own defence.

Sir PETER LAURIE observed that he for one could not
but thank the House of Lords for interesting themselves
upon that which he thought was a most nefarious course
of proceeding.
Alderman and Sheriff HUNTER rose to address the
Court, but resumed his seat.
Alderman CHALLIS here interposed, and called upon
Sir Peter Laurie to retract the expression he had made
use of.

Alderman Sheriff SIDNEY observed that he should
have thought Sir Peter Laurie's sense and gentlemanly
conduct would have induced him to recal the expression
to which he had given utterance, since that the Sheriffs
had delayed and deferred a reply to the grave charges
made against their conduct, pending the inquiry set on
foot by the Secretary of State. Sir Peter Laurie had
been a magistrate sufficiently long to know that expo to
statements were not always to be relied upon.
Sir PETER 'LAURIE —I know nothing to recal. I
merely meant to say that " thank God there is a House of
Lords."

Sheriff HUNTER said he was not aware that his col-
league had the slightest intention of making any obser-
vations in reference to the proceedings in another place,
hut he was prepared to express his opinion as to the pro-
priety of the observations which had been made in the
High Court of Parliament He felt that his colleague
and he were placed in a certain position from not having
been aware of the nature of two orders which were on the
records of the Court, and which were made, the one so
far back as the year 1825, and the other, an explanation
of the former order, in 1842. It was due to the public,
as well as to themselves, that he should at once express
the reasons why the Sheriffs were not aware of the exist-
ence of any such rules or laws as these orders to which
he referred, being in force. He found,however, that in the
books of the Court there was to be seen an order which,
with the permission of the Court, he would now read.
" Court of Aldermen, March 29, 1825.
" The Court proceeded, in•the adjourned consideration
of the report of the Committee in relation to the several
gaols of this city, recommending the public to be ex-
cluded from hearing the condemned sermon at his Ma-
jesty's gaol of Newgate, and the said report, as delivered
in and read in this Court on the 18th day of January
last, was now again read in these words .
" To the Right Hon. the Lord Mayor, and Court
of Aldermen, we whose names are hereunto subscribed,
your Committee, in relation to the several gaols of the.
City, to whom, on the 30th day of November last, it was
referred to consider whether it may or may not in future
be expedient to exclude the public from the chapel in.
Newgate on the Sunday preceding the day on la hich
any convict or convicts may in future be ordered for
execution, and to report our opinion thereon to this
Court, do certify that we have taken the same into our
most serious consideration ; and, after due deliberation,
are decidedly of opinion thtt in future it will be expe-
dient to exclude strangers altogether from the chapel in
Newgate on the Sunday preceding the day on which any
convict or convicts may be ordered for execution, in the
same manner as they are excluded on other Sundays ;
and we recommend to this Honourable Court to give
the requisite directions accordingly.
" All which we submit. Dated this 18th day of
January, 1825.

" M. WOOD.
" J. J. SMITH.
" A. BROWN.
" Which report was well liked and approved of by
this Court, and ordered to be observed accordingly."
The next order was to the following effect
" Court of Aldermen, June 24th, 1842,

" Resolved and ordered, that the practice of ex-
cluding strangers from the chapel in the gaol of New-
gate, during the performance of Divine worship, on
Sunday, be henceforth adhered to on every Sunday
previously
exeotiexecution
otfo a tnhye
edoay nr toht aotr may
convicts,
lae
a appointed s
well
as
on
r the
other
t her
Sundays, conformably to the spirit of a resolution of
this Court, passed on the 29th day of March, 1825,
after consideration of a report from the Committee, in
relation to the several gaols of this City.
" Ordered that Mr. Town-Clerk do deliver a copy of
the foregoing resolution to each of the future Sheriffs
of this City, immediately on their being sworn into
office. " MERE WETHER."
Their esteemed friend, the Town-Clerk, since this
affair, had addressed to him (Sheriff Hunter) a letter,
stating that he was not aware of the necessity imposed
upon him, of sending copies of these orders to the
Sheriffs, and consequently they had not been furnished
either to Sheriff Sidney or to himself.—(Hear, hear.)
lie assured Sir Peter Laurie that he did not at all flinch
from, but rather approved of the expressions to which
he had given utterance.

Several Voices.--You did not hear them.
Sheriff HUNTER resumed—They might not have been
' quite delicate or proper, but he hardly knew what it was
the worthy Alderman had said. Of this, however, he
might rest assured, that the Sheriffs were gratified with
the reference ordered by the Secretary of State for in-
quiry into the whole matter. At present, however, he
only wished that the Sheriffs might stand right with the
Court and the public when they were ignorant of the
existence of any such orders as those which he had felt
it his duty to read. If they had been in possession of
such documents, then he should have been disposed en-
tirely to agree with Sir Peter Laurie. He repeated that
he was not sorry the matter had been made the subject
of reference for inquiry—into that inquiry he would not
at present enter. For the present, be was content to
mention the fact that the Sheriffs were not aware of the
existence of these, or any other orders, regulating the
manner in which they were to proceed on thse affecting
—to him, deeply affecting—occasions. He deeply re-
gretted that any circumstance should have arisen to call
for any observations, either in that Court or in any
other, upon the conduct of the Sheriffs.
The TOWN-CLERK hoped the Court would be kind
enough to indulge him with an opportunity of saying a
few words on this subject, which, in substance, he had
already stated to the Prison Inspectors, and to the Gaol
Committee of that Court. The order of 1842 was made
on the very day that he was sworn into office, and upon
it he had acted within three or four days afterwards, by
sending copies to Sir William Magnay and Mr. Rogers,
the then sheriffs. In his office there was kept a book in
which were entered all matters which were to be done
annually or periodically; but, unfortunately, these orders
had been omitted to be entered, and undoubtedly the
fact was, that copies were not sent either to Aldermen
Musgrove and Moon, the preceding sheriffs, or to Alder-
men Hunter and Sidney, the present sheriffs. The
neglect or oversight undoubtedly rested on his (the
Town-Clerk's) office, and for it he was afraid he must
take all the liability which attached to it. He was bound
to say that the Sheriffs had no knowledge of the order
of 1842, as they ought to have had furnished to them.
With respect to the order of 1825, it was not necessar3
by its terms, that it should be communicated to the "
Sheriffs ; and on searching the books, he could find
memorandum to the effect that it had ever been com-
municated to the Sheriffs or to the keeper of the ao
Sir I'. LAURIE said that the Statement lust madgewl-ent
Indeed, very much to exculpate the Sheriffs.
he might
add that there existed such a morbid curiosity in the
public, even of the higher class, that he believed it was
scarcely possible for the Sheriffs to
withstand the appli-
cations made to them for admission Some idea of the
extent to which this diseased feeling of curiosity ran
might be formed by a circumstance he would mention.
There Was at present in Bethlem hospital a man who
had been tried and acquitted on the
(Sir Peter Laurie was here supposed ground of
to allude tolntlstaenciat)s.e.
of Oxford, who fired at her Majesty in the Park.) lle
would not mention the man's name, but he ph dged his
honour to the fact that ft lady of title was anxious to
procure that individual's autograph, and upon being
refused the favour she actually employed a solicitor, who
was well known, to obtain it for her. He would say
such was a morbid curiosity, the exhibition of which
was very disgraceful to the party. He had been maw
twenty years connected with the Corporation, and he
had heard but one condemned sermon, and he never had
been and be never would be, a party to torturing a con-
_ .