The Sun.
London, England, 1844-07-24 00:00:00

JULY 24, 1644.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT, July 23.

IN RE THOMAS EATON.

The insolvent, who was described as a "gentleman,"
was opposed by Mr. Cooke, for Mr. Hudson, a tobacco-
nist ; by Mr. Creswell, on behalf of Mr. Hunt, jeweller;
and by a creditor, named Baker, a hosier, in person.
It appeared, from a very lengthened examination of
the insolvent. who was a very young man, the opposing
creditors, and several witnesses, that he had been dis-
charged by this Court, as an insolvent, in the year 1841,
when his debts amounted to upwards of 12,0001. Soon
after his discharge, he became an articled clerk to an
attorney, but neglected his profession and lived with his
mother, who had a good property, and supplied him with
pocket money. During this time it was proved that
his expenditure had been of the most reckless and
profligate description, in fact, of such a nature
as to induce the Learned Commissioner to designate it
by the term of swindling. He went to Newcastle, mad,
while there, took a villa from Mr. Hudson, whom he put
to large expense by law costs. He also wrote to Mr.
Hunt for jewellery to the amount of 9001., but, luckily
for that gentleman, he only let him have goods to the
amount of 340/., for which he gave a worthless warrant
of attorney. The whole of his debts during the year
amounted to 9611., and those he contracted whilst he
was not worth one shilling of money or property. In
his schedule the names of eight tailors appeared, and
also those of a number of livery stable-keepers, for the
hire of horses and carriages. It likewise appeared that
he had several dealings in accommodation bills.
Mr. Commissioner LAW said, after carefully consider-
ing the evidence, he thought the only proper terms by
which he could designate the insolvent were those of a
cheat, and even a swindler. He had before taken the
benefit of the Insolvent Act, and since that time he had
pursued a career of reckless and indiscriminate profli-
gacy. The sentence of the Court in the present instance
was, that he be remanded for one year and eight months
from the date of his vesting order.

SUMMER ASSIZES.
HOME ClRCUlT—Maidstone, July 23.
The Co:nmision for the county of Kent was opened on
Monday. There •are upwards of seventy prisoners for
trial on the Civil side ; twenty. eight causes are entered,
seven of which are special jury cases.
CIVIL SlDE.—(Before Mr. Baron PARKE.)
DE BERNARDI V. GRIMSTON.

This was an action brought to recover the sum of
1651, upon a bill of exchange, accepted by the Honour-
able Captain Grimston, the defendant. The pleas put
upon the record by the defendant were to the effect that
the bill in question was a forgery, and also that it had not
been legally endorsed to the present plaintiff, and that
the property in the bill belonged to the executors of a
deceased person, named Horne.
Mr. Platt and Mr. Ogle appeared for the plaintiff ;
and Mr. Sergeant Channel, with Mr. Wordsworth, were
for the defendant.

Mr. PLATT having briefly opened the case called,
Mr. Gell, a solicitor in Regent-street, who deposed
that he was the attorney for the plaintiff, and that he
was instructed by him to bring the present action. The
bill in question was placed in his hands in February, and
he advanced the plaintiff 90/. upon it. Before it became
due, he communicated with the defendant, and informed
him that his bill would become due on the 3d May, and
in consequence of that communication, Captain Grim-
ston called upon him, and told him that he had been a
- flat in accepting the bill, but he supposed he must
pay it, and he wished him (Mr. Gell) to wait a few days,
and not to present the bill at the bankers, Messrs. Cox
and Greenwood, where it was made payable, and he pro-
mised that he would make up the money for the bill.
Proceedings were subsequently taken by witness against
the defendant, on behalf of a :person named Horne, who
died soon afterwards.

Cross-examined--Horne was a cleric to the present
plaintiff, and it was as the agent of Mr. Bernardi, that
the defendant was sued in his name. The bill became
due on the 3d May, and the writ in Horne's action was
served on the 4th. He was applied to upon the subject,
but he did not mention the name of Mr. Bernardi as
being his client. Captain Grimston did not say, when
he called upon him, that he had accepted the bill for
651. originally, and that it had been altered to 1651., and
that it was a forgery. Would swear that the name of
Mrs. Edmunds was not mentioned by the defendant.
Did not know George Cullen, who was represented to
be the drawer of the bill.

Frederick Dewey deposed that he was employed by
an officer of the Sheriff of Surrey, and in that capacity
he was placed in possession at the house of Mrs. Ed-
munds, at Herne-hill. He remained there ten months
and two days.—(A laugh.) This gave him an oppor-
tunity of becoming acquainted with the members of her
establishment ; and he knew George Cullen, who was
Mrs. Edmunds' nephew. He believed the endorsement
to the bill produced to be that person's handwriting.
Cross-examined—Believed Mrs. Edmunds was a
lodging-house keeper. George Cullen acted as her
gardener ; and he had a brother named John, who was
a carpenter. Mrs. Edmunds was not very often at the
house at Herne-hill.

By Mr. PLATT—George Cullen used to cultivate Mrs.
Edmunds' garden.—(Laughter.) The bill was then put
in, and this closed the plaintiff's case.
Mr. Sergeant CHANNEL addressed the jury for the
defendant, and commenced by stating t hat the counsel
for the plaintiff had conducted the case on his behalf
very dexterously, and had contrived to keep every per-
son out of it who could have given the jury any informa-
tion relative to the real nature of the transaction. The
defence he had to set up was, that the bill was originally
accepted for 651. only, and that, in point of fact, the pre-
sent document was a forgery by the substitution of the
larger sum of 165/. for the original amount. The plain-
tiff's attorney was well aware that this was the defence
which was to be set up, and mixed up as he had been in
the transaction, he must say that he thought it was very
extraordinary he had not given the jury some further in-
formation relative to the circumstances under which the
bill came into the possession of the plaintiff. The
Learned Counsel then proceeded to comment upoa the
fact of the action being first brought in the name of
Horne, the plaintiff's clerk, and also upon the circum-
stance that Mr. Gell, who was the principal witness to
prove the plaintiff's case, did not say a word about Mr.
Bernardi until the death of Home, and then the present
action was brought in his name. When Mr. Gell was
applied to for the name of his client, in the first instance
he stated that it was Horne, and the defendant relied
upon this fact in one of his pleas, and if the jury should
believe that this person was, before his death, a bona
fide holder of the bill, and that the present plaintiff was
not his legal representative, upon that ground he should
be entitled to their verdict.

Frederick William Fisher was then called. He deposed
that he was the managing clerk to Mr. Lane, the de-
fendant's attorney, and he remembered the copy of the
writ being handed to him in the cause Horne v. Grim-
ston, and he put in an appearance to it. A day or two
afterwards witness went to Mr. Gell, the plaintiff's attor-
ney, and asked to see the bill, and also wished to have
the name and address of the plaintiff. Mr. Gell then
gave him the name of George Henry Horne, and de-
scribed his address as No. 8, Craig's-court. Mr. Gell
stated that Horne was an accountant. He frequently
saw Mr. Gell upon the subject of the proceedings, and
he never on any occasion mentioned the name of Ber-
nardi until the present action was commenced on the
16th May.
Cross-examined—Mr. Lane " discounts " a good deal.
The offices are in Argyll-place. Had repeatedly seen
Mrs. Edmunds there and also at the Bankruptcy Court
and other places. Mr. Lane had been also concerned for
him in two or three actions. Had not seen Mrs. Edmunds
for several months, and did not think she had been at
Mr. Lane's offices during the last two or three months.
Had not seen Captain Grimston at the office with Mrs.
Edmunds. Could not say whether Mrs. Edmunds had
been in the habit of lending young men money, but he
had heard so.

Re-examined—Mrs. Edmunds was very well known
in London. She was generally called " Mother Ed-
munds."—(Laughter.)
Mr. Richard Kirkman Lane deposed that he was an
attorney, and conducted the present action for the de-
fendant. On the 3d of May he wrote a letter to Mr.
Gell (produced), in which he informed him that the bill
was only accepted by Capt. Grimston for 651, and that
the amount of 1651. was forged. He at the same time
offered to pay the smaller amount. He subsequently
called upon Mr. Gell, and saw the bill, and Mr. Gell in-
formed him that Horne' the plaintiff, was a very re-
spectable man. He had some conversation with Mr.
Gell upon the subject of the bill, and told him that the
figures 65 were Mrs. Edmunds' writing, but that the 1
was written by another hand. He told him that he un-
fortunately knew Mrs. Edmunds' writing too well, and
that the appearance of the bill confirmed his client's re-
presentation that it had originally been drawn for 651.
only. Mr. Gell appeared to think that be held a genuine
acceptance, but he did not say a word about Captain
Grimston having offered to pay the amount until the
present action was brought.
Cross-examined—He took a bill for 1,0001. drawn by
Cullen with him, in order to compare the writing. He
had unfortunately another acceptance for 1,0001. in his
possession. It was witness's custom to take forty per
cent. interest upon a three months' bill. He gave 1,8001.
for the two 1,0001. acceptances, to which he had re-
ferred. Mrs. Edmunds brought him the 1,0001. bill to
discount. It bore the acceptance of Lord ~--. For a
bill of 1,0001. it was his custom to give 900/. He had
been concerned as an attorney for Mrs. Edmunds, and
had been at her residences in St. James's-street end Ar-
lington-street. 'Was not aware that she was in the
habit of lending money to yowlg men, but it was reported
so. Witness had nothing to do with her or her affairs.
He gave her the money for the 1,000/. bill in 1841. He
also advanced her 1,0001. upon a bill for 2,0001, Dirs.
Edmunds, no doubt, Wing that he was such an easy
dupe came to him the second time, Ho must also con-
fess that female influence operated upon him.—
(Laughter.) As Mrs, Edmunds was a woman he did
not suspect her.—(Renewed laughter.)
Mr. PLATT—Then you were induced to lend this
money on account of female influence ?—(A laugh.)
Witness---Yes ; and it has cost me I,Bool.—(Laughter.)
Mr. PLATT—I think you are very lucky to get off so
easily.
Mr, PLATT then replied, and said that even if the jury
should think that the defendant' had written his name
across the blank stamp, and it was afterwards filled up
for the amount now sought to be recovered, he was in
law liable for the amount. He remarked upon
the circumstance of the stamp being a five shilling
one, which would cover any amount under 2001 ; and he
submitted that there was no evidence to show that the
instrument was not r* genuine one, although the forty
per-cent. gentlemen has given evidence to the contrary.
14 wild not help expressing his opinion that the busi-
ness in discounting carried on by that gentlemen was
not a creditable one for an attorney to, I,e engaged in ;
and he thought thl,t of ark ciesconnters an attorney dis-
counter was the worst, because, if the bills in which he
was interested went to action, lie killed his own mutton
and conducted his own case, putting all the costs into

his pocket. It mig'►; be very profitable, but. he must sati•
it was not - very creditable. With regard to the plea
that the bill was the property of Horne, he said ther.•
was no evidence of the fact, and it was a very common
occurrence for plaintiffs to sue parties in the names of
other parties. The Learned Counsel then commented
upon the evidence given by Mr. Lane, and asked why
" Mother".Edmunds, his there amie, had not been called
as a witness?

Mr. Lane here rose, and complained of the attack that
was made upon him by the Learned Counsel. He was
a married man and had a family, and he thought it most
indecent for the Learned Counsel to make such an in-
sinuation against him. There was not the least *founda-
tion for it.

Mr. Baron PARKE expressed his opinion that such
observations as those made by the Learned Counsel
ought not to have been made. They did not in any way
apply to the question at issue.
Air. PLATT continued.—He thought Mrs. Edmunds
onght to have been produced as a witness ; but it was
quite clear that his Learned Friend would not have any-
thing to do with her oi- her clique. After some further
observations, the Learned Counsel concluded by stating
that the evidence for the defendant had not at all shaken
the plaintiff's case, and that he was entitled to a verdict.
Alr. Baron PARKE then summed up, and after having
explained the tenour of the different pleas upon the re-
cord, he said that the proceeding of commencing the ori-
ginal action in the name of Horne, who Mr. Gell knew
was not his client, was most irregular, and one which he
thought no respectable attorney would have lent him-
self to. The jury had heard the explanation that was
given for this course being taken, and it was for them to
judze of the facts. If they believed the evidence of Mr.
Gall; the plaintiff's case had been made out ; but if they
considered the pleas set up by the defendant had been
substantiated, it would be their duty to return a verdict
in his favour.

The jury, after a short deliberation, returned a verdict
for the plaintiff for the full amount of bill.
Mr. Baron GURNEY -*at in--the Crown Court, and in
-his charge to the grand.: jury, said he regretted to sOe
that there were several charges of arson in the calendar,
but he advised them not to return a true bill in any of the
cases, except the evidence was so clear and conclusive es
would convince them, -if they were in the situation of
petty jurors, to return a verdict of guilty. He added
that he was convinced great mischief was occasioned
when persons charged with offences of this description
were acquitted.
John Thiskell, 30, was convicted of uttering a forged
cheque, with intent to defraud the London and West-
minster Bank.

The prisoner was stated to be the son of a farmer,
and to hare hitherto borne a good character. The jury
recommended him to mercy, and
Mr. Baron GURNEY respired the judgment.

OXFORD ClRCUlT.—Worcester, July 22.
The commission was opened for the county and city of
Worcester, about six o'clock on Saturday evening, by Lord
Chief Justice Tindal, and business commenced this morning
at ten o'clock before Mr. Sergeant Atcherley, in the Nisi
Prins Court, while the Lord Chief Justice charged the
grand jury on the Crown side of the Hall.
The civil business is rather above than under the usual
average. There are 21 causes for trial, 19 for the county,
and 2 for the city, among which two are marked for special
juries. One of these, an action of ejectment, is expected to
occupy at least two days. There is also a case among the
nisi prius records which excites some interest in this and the
adjoining county of Gloucester—an indictment for perjury
against Mr. Augustus Newton, barrister-at-law. This case
stands fixed to come on the first thing to-morrow morning.
The calendar is heavy, considered with reference both to
the number of prisoners who are to %)(1 tried, and the nature
of the offences imputed to them. There are fifty-nine pri-
soners, and forty-two cases, and among them are two cases
of abusing children under ten years of age, two of unna-
tural offences-, two of shooting with intent to murder or
maim, one otconcealment of the birth of a child by burning
the body, two of manslaughter, five of burglary, four of
breaking and entering the dwelling-house in the day-time,
and three of robbery with violence. There is also a charge
against a person named Bowen, described in the calendar
as a labourer, for having feloniously destroyed and injured
part of a leaf of a register-book of births, burials, and mar-
riages, of the parish of Croome D'Abitot.
NISI PRlUS.—(Before Mr. Sergeant ATCHERLEY.)
BATE AND ANOTHER V. BLURTON AND ANOTHER.
This was an action on a promissory note for 500/., brought
against the executors of one Patience Clarke, deceased, to
which the defendants pleaded that the said Patience Clarke
did not make the note in question.
The plaintiffs, Messrs. Bate and Robins, carry on business
in partnership as bankers at Stourbridge, where the deceased,
Mrs. Patience Clarke, who died in December, 1842, also re-
sided before death. She, it appeared, formerly kept a public
house, and being a woman well acquainted with business,
managed to accumulate some little property, amounting to
about 3,0001. Her family consisted of two sons and a daugh-
ter, and in 1836 her daughter, whose maiden name was also
Patience Clarke, was married to a person named Morris, then
established in business as a grocer at Stourbridge. At the
time of the marriage Mrs. Clarke had a deposit account of
1,000/. with the plaintiffs, and she told her daughter that she
had desired the people at the bank not to let her husband
stand still for want of money, but to let him have anything
in reason. The business of Morris, backed by his mother-
in-law's capital, went on pretty well for some time, but in
1842 he fell into difficulties, and in the month of July in that
year his account with the plaintiffs was overdrawn to the
extent of 450/. In the interval which elapsed between July,
1842, and the time when her daughter married Morris, Mrs.
Clarke had withdrawn her 1,0001. placed with the plaintiffs
on a deposit account, and had advanced 5001. to each of
her two sons, Richard and Joseph ; the bank, there-
fore, required security for the payment of the balance
overdrawn by Morris, and Mrs. Morris, as she repre-
sented, went to her mother with a joint and several pro-
missory note for 500 L, already signed by her husband,
in her pocket. She told her mother that the bank required
security, upon which the old lady told Mrs. Morris to sign
it for her, which the daughter accordingly did, signing
" Patience Clarke," in a free and flowing hand. The note
thus signed was taken to the bank, but there it was ob-
jected that the signature was not made by Mrs. Clarke
herself, and Mrs. Morris was desired to take it back, and get
it signed by her mother. Mrs. Morris accordingly did take
it back, and her account of the matter was, that when she
explained to her mother what had occurred at the bank,
Mrs. Clarke desired her to sign again for her, saying it would
do just as well. Mrs. Morris, therefore, affixed a second sig-
nature to the note, but this time she wrote "P. Clarke," in
a cramped and laboured hand, in order, as she herself ad-
mitted, to induce the plaintiffs to believe that the note was
really signed by her mother. As has been already stated,
Mrs. Clarke died in December, 1842, and in March, 1843,
the embarrassments into which Morris had fallen had become
so formidable, that his professional advisers judged it most
expedient that he should make an assignment of all his
effects for the benefit of his creditors. Mr. Robins, as a ov-
ditor who was supposed to be very largely involved, was in-
formed of the arrangement which was about to take place,
upon which he came to Morris's house, and remarked to
Richard Clarke, the brother of Mrs. Morris, that he presumed
he was aware that he held n note of Mrs. Clarke's tbr 300/.
At this announcement Clarke professed great astonishment,
and, according to the statement which Clarke himself, and
an attorney named Talbot, who was present at the time,
made, Mr. Robins then inquired of Mrs. Morris why she had
not told her brother of the 500/. note, her brother having
assisted her husband in his difficulties. To this Mrs. Morris
replied that she did not think Mr. Robins had wished him
to know it, upon which Mr. Robins said she was a wicked
woman, and left the house. When he was gone, Mrs. Morris
turned to her brother and said, " That the note was good
for nothing, and that Robins should not have a farthing ;
that she signed the name of her mother at full length,
Patience Clarke,' without her authority, and that when the
note was refused, she took It home, and had it signed by an
old charwoman."

His LORDSHIP summed up the evidence with greatminute,
ness, leaving it to the jury to say to which of the witnesses
they would give credit.
The jury found for the plaintiffs, with 5141. 10s. damages.
The cases tried in the Crown Court to-day were devoid of
general interest.

NORFOLK CIRCUIT.—Cambridge, July 22.
(Before Mr. Justice WILLIAMS.)
John Garland, aged 65, was indicted for feloniously killing
Mary, the wife of John Dent.
Mr. Prendergast conducted the prosecution, Mr. O'Malley
the defence,
The deceased was the wife of a man living at Littleport, in
the Isle of Ely, and the prisoner has for upwards of 30 years
practised as a surgeon in that town. On the 22d of May last
the decased had, by imprudently lifting or dragging a heavy
sack of flour, brought on symptoms of miscarriage, and the
prisoner was sent for to attend her. He arrived as soon as
possible, and proceeded to administer the treatment he
thought necessary, in the course of which he removed a por-
tion of the intestines of his patient, which had probably been
displaced by the exertion which had brought on the illness
which rendered it necessary to send for him. She was in
great pain, and another medical man was sent for, on whose
arrival it was found necessary wholly to remove the displaced
portion of the intestines. Sho continued to get worse, and,
notwithstanding the judicious treatment of two or three emi-
nent surgeons who were called in, she died at the end of
seventeen days. The surgeons who attended the post mortem
examination of the body were of opinion that she died
from the effects of the prisoner's treatment, and that he had
shown gross ignorance in that treatment.
Mr. Justice WILLIAMS, in summing up the evidence, stated
that the law as applicable to this case was very clear; and
applying that law to the circumstances as they had been
proved, the jury would say whether or not the prisoner was
guilty of the crime of manslaughter. Every person, whether
he be a regularly licensed medical man or not, who professes
to deal with the life or health of his fellow-creatures, is bound
to bring to the case with which he deals a competent degree
of skill; and he is also bound to treat his patient with
and attention. If ho shows gross igne:ance, culpn.bls, rash-
ness, or criminal Inattention in tie treatment of Ins patient,
and death ensues in conseaence, he is guilty of the crime of
manslaughter. He ;nay
deed bring t have no evil intention, he may in-
',fie case the most earnest desire to effect the
cure
patient ; but still, if he is guilty of criminal mis-
conduct arising either from gross negligence, or ignorance, or
Unjustifiable inattention, he is criminally responsible. One
or other of these it was necessary for the prosecutor to make
out, in order to constitute that criminal misconduct which
renders a man responsible if death occurs. The learned Judge
read the evidence verbatim to the jury, and desired them to
consider whether in the treatment of his patient, as proved
by Mrs. Banyard, the prisoner had shown a gross and cul-
pable want of knowledge, care, or attention, and that her
death was caused thereby. If they were of opinion that he
had, he was guilty of the crime with which he was charged ;
if otherwise, he was entitled to an acquittal.
The jury, after some deliberation, found the prisoner Guilty.
The Learned JUDGE, in sentencing the prisoner, who was
deeply affected at his position, observed, that he should be
sorry if the proceedings in this case should tend to place
medical men in any danger, or induce them to abstain from
the fair application of their talents in the exercise of the
arduous and anxious duties of their profession. They were
not to expect a favourable result in every case ; medical
science could never attain that. The consequences of this
trial would seriously affect the prisoner's interests through
life ; and looking to that circumstance, the absence of every-
thing like towards his patient, and his advanced age,
when a long imprisonment must be attended by the most
prejudicial effects, the Court was induced to pass on him the
mitigated sentence, that he be imprisoned for one calendar
month.
Fanny Rutherford was indicted for feloniously setting fire
to an outhouSe%
Tie poisoner Is a child of the age of 14 years, and the out-
house which was burnt (together with the cottages of five
poor persons) adjoined the house of her father. The case
was made out by very satisfactory evidence, but no motive
could he assigned for the commission of the crime.
She was found Guilty, and sentenced to be transported for
15 years.
No civil cause was tried to-day, and the other eases in the

t Crown Court Were of the most trivial character. The grand
jury threw out one bill for arson, in which five persons wera
accused, and two others were acquitted on an uninteresting
point of law.

MIDLAND ClRCUlT.—Lincoln, July 22.
The Judges arrived in this city on Saturday, at half-past
five, and proceeded to open the commission for both city and
county. In the former there was neither cause nor prisoner.
In the county there are but nine causes and thirty-one pri-
soners, but though the number of the latter is not great, yet
the crimes with which they are charged are of a deep dye,
there being four for murder, one charged with intent to mur-
der, one for rape, several for burglary, three for highway rob-
bery, &c.
CRIMINAL COURT.—(Before Mr. Justice CotzsrAN.).
Eliza Joyce, aged 31, was placed at the bar charged with
having, in the October of 1841, at Boston, feloniously admi-
nistered a certain poison called laudanum to one Emma Joyce,
with intent to kill . and murder her ; a second indictment
charged her with the commission of a like offence in the
January of 1842,nn the body of Ann Joyce.
The prisoner was tried at the last spring assizes holden for
this county, for having murdered one of the children of her
husband, by his first wife, when, owing to some defect in the
proof, she was liberated. Her husband, however, felt per-
suaded of her guilt, and refused to live with her. Provision
was made for her in the Boston union, and it was during the
continuance of a violent fit of illness with which she was
attacked that she made the confession upon which she was
arraigned, namely, that she had murdered the two children
mentioned in the indictment by means of laudanum, the
eldest, which was three years old, being the daughter of her
husband by a former wife; the other a child eighteen months
old being her own. The appearance of the prisoner, in deep
mourning, as she stepped into the dock, created a thrill of
horror in the Court. She was evidently ill both in body and
mind, and when called upon to plead, said " Guilty," in a low,
plaintive tone.
Mr. Justice Coursust, in passing the last sentence of the
law upon this wretched woman, was much affected. The
Learned Judge said the present case was one of the most
distressing it had been his lot to witness since he had sat on
the judicial bench.- 'By ate prisoner's own confessicin she had
destroyed the life of one of her husband's -ehildren by a
former and she had not hesitated to destrOy the off-
spring of her own womb. He could hold out no hope of
mercy being extended to her in this life. She must prepare
to meet that doom the laws of the country inade.litiv pro-
nounce, and that was—that she be taken to the place:from
whence she came, thence to the place of execution, there to be
hung by the neck till she was dead; and he hoped the Lord
would have mercy on her wretched soul.
Three cases of highway robbery were tried during the day,
and in the Civil Court Lord Denman disposed of seven com-
mon juries, none of which were of any interest except to the
parties.

FASHIONS, NOVELTIES, THE

ARTS, &c.

What a grand and marvellous creation is this monster
City of London ! How vaste-how populeus--laow
thoroughly beautiful—how inconceivably wealthy !
He who has not dwelt in it can form but a meagre
idea of its magnitude—he who has not seen it,
in verity, knows nothing. Look at its squares, its
places, its parks, its gardens—regard the residences of
its nobility—imposing, lofty, dignified, and countless.
Is it not almost incredible that each of these. stately
mansions is inhabited by some mighty lord or rich com-
moner, who there maintains an establishment and up-
holds a state equal in splendour to the princes of other
lands ? Examine its public buildings, its churches, its
monuments, its commercial sad benevolent institutions.
Is not their number astounding—and, though occa-
sionally irregular, plain, or bizarre in their con-
struction; are they not, as a whole, massive and
magnificent But walk through its leading thorough-
fares—the streets devoted to its traffic—its manufactures
—its varied, and indeed universal trade. There you
see the real London. There you see that industrious,
rich, and-powerful community which -Napoleon sarcasti-
cally but yet truly designated " the nation of shop-
keepers." What would he call them now, when the
luxury and extent of their establishments have increased
since his .time a hundred-fold ? Yes, teese are
London shopkeepers ; but such shopkeepers.!_ Shop-
keepers, whose magazines are palaces—whose de-
pendents are numerous as those of many princes,
whose expenditures are greater than those of many
Royal exchequers. -Turn to the right and to the-left of
each broad and beautiful street, and note those almost
interminable lines of splendid warehouses glittering with
gold and plate glass, and filled with all the cosily
products of the world. Does not such a combination of
profusion, order, decoration, and taste, devoted to the
purposes of commerce, almost surpass credence ?
But let us go a little into details, and take a few of
those princely magazines as illustrations. We are
in Oxford-street. We stand before that fashionable
and surprisingly rich emporium kept by Messrs:
Williams and Sowerby. How handsome is the exte-
rior! What an infinite variety of silks, of velvets, of
shawls, of laces are here displayed. See those coroneted
carriages that throng the entrance. In one may be re-
cognised a leader of haut ton, coming to select something
unique in which to " witch the world" at the next Al-
mack's, or at one of the Duchess of Buccleush's charming
fetes cliampetre. In another reclines a blooming debutante
of the season, endeavouring to decide whether a cerulean
blue or a bright oceanic green sets off to greater advantage
her unrivalled complexion. But the proprietor of the esta-
blishment politely invites us to enter. Il ere is a host of at..
tendants—here is an assortment of superb and extiu',site
fabrics—here is a choice of style, of expense, of eiegant
design, and supreme fashion. No wonder that it is
crowded by the votaries of taste. But let, us pass on to
the rear, and inspect le salon peer 28 tissue de verre.
Marble columns, wide-spreading seethes, fine arabesques,
a painted dome—what a receptacle for merchandise !
Yet the merchandise is well worthy of the place. The
loom in its magic power never before produced such a
fabric as that to which this saloon is dedicated. Th a
tissue de verre, this damask of woven glass, is wonder-
ful as it is gorgeous, is gorgeous as it is wonderful.
No tissue of ancient or modern times approaches
it in brilliancy and beauty. Those who have seen it in
the throne-room at St. James's Palace, and in bet
Majesty's closet, know how magnificent it is ia
purposes,
s'.,ra-
o
periee ; they only who visit the saloon
can kmaine
how admirably it is suited for a variety
ef. purpg
But we must take leave of this superb releeository of rare
rse rc
and elegant fabrics. Turning fro the Circus into
Regent-street, that beau idea of a fashionable' mart,
what chaste, and sober, and imposing magazine is this,
which at once attracts the eye, wandering amidst
so many attractions? it is the extensive warehouse
founded by Messrs, Jay, and Co., upon the model of
the celebrated r,taisons de deuil of Paris. Nothing can be
conceived more tasteful, charming, and touching, than
this assemblage of solemn blacks and mournful grays
reposing in the midst of all the flaunting finery of.
busy and bustling life. Enter and review its contents. -
you will be astonished at the pleasing variety in wheel;
every shade and kind of sorrow may here befittiaey
clothe itself. Unforced to go from shop to shop, the
sad widow or the dolorous orphan here finds all that is
necessary to outwardly denote her inward woe. Dresses,
bonnets, caps, cloaks, gloves—in short, everyening neces-
sary for her gloomy condition—will she obtain in this
warehouse, without going a step beevond, or without
having to mix with the noisy end distracting crowd:
That beautiful texture, knows: as the sole de corbeett,
which has the novel que.:iity of retaining its colour
even against sea wateee, is one of the invaluable, articles
to be had in th;.s most extensive and accommodating.
" general mourning warehouse," which is • patro-
nised by the Queen Dowager and the haute
noblesse, Promenading down this delightful Regent-
street, on the opposite side, near the Quadrant, what
handsome shop is this round which crowds are gathered,
admiring the elegant habits and becoming riding-coats
set out in the windows ? This is the temple dedi-
cated to fashion, of which Messrs. Nicoll are the
high priests. Who that has seen: those graceful
Amazons cantering through Hyde-park, and along
Rotten-row, can fail to-discover the secret of the exqui-
site shapes and beautiful proportions ? The equestrians
habits invented bee them have become ' European in
reputation, their artistic excellence is undenied, and the
patronage bestowed on them has even descended fru=
Royalty. But yet greater triumphs are in store for
these artists. A new and surpassing riding-habit is in.
preparation, made of velvet and fur, for the approaching-
winter. It has been whispered that the peerless Princess
Radzivil— that fascinating Russian lady, who has caused_
our English belles so much envy and jealousy—has come
mended one in secret, in which she intends to bear away
the palm from all competitors. But we must not
betray confidence. Apropos of the Princess Radaieen
it is said that the grand secret of her success is, that she
obtains her fashions from La Maison Herbault, Masse, Rue,
Menard a Paris. That may or may not he the case; but it
is certain that this is the house to which the dances du fesei
ton 46f Paris give the preference—and to which
,those
strangers who visit the continental cepital run as to the
centre in which all that is di.sneigue and elegant is to bee>
found concentrated. In jut'ace to the inventive talents
of Lesn Nieces, it may be remarked
tlla t
be more wonderful than the daily no-
veltiescreated, lay them, and of which the taste
nothing
gmes can iiereault,
o
formed by the celebrated founder of their maga-.
eine 'knows no limits of rich variety, of adorable
Penny, except the limits of genuine fastidiousness..
We must repose for the present. But a chat upole
fashion would not be complete without something
relative to that indispensable ornament of the females
head—the chapeau. We remember seeing at the last este
position in Paris some exquisite specimens of lately-line
vented chapeaux de paille, sent in by M. Fleschelle, of
Paris, all of which excited universal admiration..
Since then there is scarcely any other species of bonnets
to be seen in either the French or English capital..
True, the varieties of the species are boundless%
as the fancy. There are chapeaux de paille plAin
chapeaux de paille fanciful, chapeaux de paid;
de Eles enpaille de ris brodes, patent chapeaux guipure et
paille, in different colours and of different designs, besides
many others. All these are " the rage" here at present.
Ladies of the first style will have no other than those ins.
ported from the house of Fleschelle, 95, Rue Richelleae
I Paris, than which none in the world is more fertile in,
invention, or more justly celebrated for pure taste. len-
other day we shall resume our conversation on the gay
world, its fashions, novelties, and articles of refinement.

DoHLER AND DUELER.—A ludicrous mistake oc..
curred at DOhler's last concert. A party of ladies and
gentlemen (from the country evidently) presented
themselves at the doors of the Hanover-square R00zn...4.
and asked to be shown into the best boxes ; it vizi
explained that there was no box except the royal
box, which was occupied ; but they could go into this
reserved seats. A lady anxiously inquired whether
they were good places to see the tricks ? " What
tricks ?" asked the doorkeeper in amazement " 014
the sleight-of-hands ones, and the conjuring," rejoinml
the lady. "Really." said the official, ".I know of no
conjuring but M. Miller's rapid fingering." The lady
having demanded whether the bouquets would be dis»
tributed to the stalls, an explanation, after some furthest
amusing equivoque, took place, and it appeared that tha
party had mistaken 'Herr Daler' the pranist, flu. Here
1)obler, the magician, late of the St. James's Tbeatre.--.
Maestro.