The Sun.
London, England, 1829-04-10 00:00:00

DISAPPEARANCE OF A CHILD.

For the last few days an investigation has been
going on at Union-hall, relative to a male child,
about four years of age, suspected to have been
kidnapped from the neighbourhood of Greengate-
gardens, Hackney-road, the residence of its parents.
Two women, named Mary Simmonds and Sophia
Floris, are in custody, and have undergone several
examinations.

The lost child's mother, a respectable woman,
named Eliza Siddys, appeared to be almost broken-
hearted since it has been missing. She stated,
that, on Saturday last, her little boy, while at play
in the street where they lived, had ,strayed away,
between two and three o'clock on that day, and not-
withstanding every inquiry had been set on foot as
soon as the child was missing to gain intelligence
on the subject, no tidings were heard of it during
Saturday until late that evening. One of Mrs.
Siddons's neighbours, a Mrs. Pratt, having occasion
to go over into the Borough, on her return, and on
proceeding up Fish-street-hill, she was accosted by
Mary Simmonds, who introduced herself by request-
ing to be allowed to accompany her as far as she was
going in that direct on, on account of it being then
late. Mrs. Pratt perceiving that she was a young fe-
male, and that she was anxious to walk with her for
protection from insultoconsented,and they proceeded
on together. As they were walking along, Mrs. Pratt
mentioned the circumstance of one of her neigh-
bour's children having been lost that morning, upon
which, Simmonds having previously stated that she
lived in Bethnal-green, expressed her satisfaction at
meeting Mrs. Pratt, and immediately proceeded to
give an accurate description of the lost child, and
the clothes it had on at the time, adding that a
Young man, a cousin of her's, residing at Bankside,
had picked up a child in the street, such as she had
described, on Sunday afternoon ; that it said its name
was "Georgy," and complaining of hunger, her cousin
had given the little fellaw.some bread and beer to ap-
pease its appetite. The description Simmonds had
given of Mrs. Siddons' child was so perfectly cor-
rect in every particular, that Mrs. Pratt, convinced it
was the same, besought Simmonds to tell where her
cousin had taken the child after having given it re-
freshment. In reply to the request Simmonds pro-
mised punctually to see Mrs. Siddons the next morn-
ing. The next day Mr. Siddons and his wife waited at
home, anxiously expecting the arrival of Simmonds
according to her promise, but she did not make her
appearance, and on subsequent application at the
workhouses above-named, no tidings were heard of
the child. On the Monday following, the parents
of the child, accompanied by Mrs. Pratt, proceeded
in quest of Simmonds to Bethnal-green, and after
considerable difficulty discovered her abode, which
was at a low brothel. When they got into the
street, Simmonds was in conversation with two
men, near her door, and the moment Mrs. Pratt
saw her, she went up and rebuked her for not call.
iag at Mrs. Siddons's according to her appointment,
about the child. During the conversation, the two
men turned on their heels and walked away, and
then Simmonds said—" Yes, it's all right ; but I
did not like to speak about the child before the two
men." The parents of the child then insisted upon
being taken to the person whom Simmonds repre-
sented had picked up their child on the day it had
strayed from home. Simmonds acquiesced with
their desire, saying, that her cousin lived at Bank-
side, whither she led them, but after a fruitless
search in that place, no such person was known,
although Simmonds pointed out a house, and de-
clared that he resided there. From the extraordi-
nary circumstance of Simmonds having described
the person and dress of the lost child so accurately,
without any individual having given.her intimation on
the subject, site was strongly suspected of having
been concerned in stealing the child, and under all
the circumstances, was conveyed before the Ma-
gistrates of Union-hall, (Messrs. Chambers and El-
yard ), who have spared no pains in sifting the affair
to the bottom. On the way to the Office, the other
prisoner, Sophia Floris joined Simmonds, and her sub-
sequent conduct relative to the affair, justified her de-
tention, us having been concerned in the charge.
This woman, on being placed in confinement before
the examination, was overheard to advise her fel-
low-prisoner to be cautious what she said when in
the presence of the Magistrate. " Mind," said she,
" and say that I was with you the whole of Satur-
day, and that will clear you." During the investi-
gation, Simmonds prevaricated so much that there
was no believing a word she uttered. Both the pri-
soners have been remanded ; and although every
means have been adopted to discover what has be-
come of the child, no clue as yet has been disco-
vered of its fate. The following is a description of
the child alluded to in the above account :—His
name is George Siddons, he has two marks upon
his back, near the loins, is of a pale complexion,
with light hair and blue eyes; he was dressed in a
blue cloth frock and cloth legs to his trousers of the
same colour, and had neither hat or pinafore on
when he went from home.

An Italian Messenger was sent off from the
Colonial office yesterday evening, with despatches for Sir
FREDERICK ADAM, the Lord high Commissioner of the
lonian Islands. The Messenger also took despatches from
the Earl of ABERDEEN and from the Admiralty for Sir
puuretrinv MALcoLsr, the Commander of the British
naval force in the Mediterranean.

Baron BuLow, the Prussian Minister, and
Count LUDOMF, the Neapolitan Minister, had interviews
with the Earl of ABERDEEN, at the office of the Secretary
of State for Foreign Affairs.

Sir H. Swint, the Member for Colchester,
has, we hear, expressed, like Lord WitictinsEa, his
intention of quitting Parliament. Sir Wit.Ltax• YouNn,
the new East India Director, is a candidate to succeed him.

Mademoiselle SONTAG is expected to arrive
in this country by the first of next month.

Yesterday was the anniversary ofthe death of the
great Lord BACON, 1626 ; and of Lord LOVAT being be-
headed on Tower-hill, 1741.

SOCIETY OF BRITISH ARTISTS.—The
sixth Anniversary Dinner of this Society was held on
Wednesday at the Freemasons' Tavern, Mr. D. Knists.tisn
in the chair, supported by Lords Do It HAM and QLSWORCHY,
Mr. LUMLEY.S.,vILLF, Captain PARRY, and several other
patrons of the Fine Arts. the festivities of the evening
were kept up with spirit till a late hour.

On Tuesday Sir HARCOURT LEES, of Dub-
lin, had a private audience of his Royal Highness the
Duke of CUMBERLAND, at his Royal Highness's apart-
ments at St. James's Palace, on the Bills now pending
for thl admission of Catholics into Parliament,. &e., at
which audience Lord ELnoN was present ; also on the
folloWing day Sir HARCOURT had another audience of the
Royal Duke.
Now that ROWLAND STEPHENSON'S retreat
has been ascertained, it is to be presumed that no time will
be lost in bringing him to justice.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS.-(LAST NIGHT.)

The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat at Five
o'clock.

Mr. DENNIS and others brought up a private Bill.
Mr. C. PALLMER and others brought up another
private Bill.
Colonel ARBUTHNOT and others brought up a pri-
vate Bill, and also the River Tee Bridge Bill.
Sir W. HEATIICOTE and /Abets brought up the
Tunbridge Road Bill, and three other private Bills.
Several Bills went through various stages.
Lord CLANCARTY gate notice that he should
move to-morrow for certain papers respecting the
imprisonment of Mr. /Eneas M'Donnell in Ireland.
Lord HARROWBY objected to the interference
in the progress of the most important measure that
had ever come before the House. If it were neces-
sary that this person's case should come before Par-
liament, it was quite evident that this was the worst
time that could be chosen.

Lord CLANCARTY should not press it, if it
interfered with any thing at present before the
House.

The Duke of WELLINGTON said the Noble
Lord had intimated his intention to him, and he had
said he would give every opportunity to the Noble
Lord to make his motion. The Noble Lord then
stated to him he was quite sure it would not take up
much time. It was his (the Duke of Wellington's)
intention to give what he considered satisfactoty
reasons for the refusal of these papers.
Lord CLANCARTY would make the motion
immediately if such grounds existed. He under-
stood there was a certificate of a physician, stating
that this person's life would be i n danger if he were
kept longer in prison.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE thought it im-
possible, after what the Noble Lord had said, to hesi-
tate going into a discussion on this, if it were moved
to-morrow; and the Noble Marquis (Auglesea), now
absent, would probably be inclined to state what he
had to say on the subject. Under these circum-
stances he (Lord Lansdowne) thought it advisable.
The Duke of RICHMOND most decidedly ob-
jected to the production of these papers. The
Noble Marquis (Anglesea) was prevented attend-
ing at the House to-day from illness. He (the Duke
of Richmond) knew nothing of the Noble Mar-
quis's conduct in Ireland, but certainly it was
one of the great prerogatives which he then
enjoyed, as representing the Crown, to grata mercy
as he pleased, without giving his reasons for so doing
to any body.
Lord CLANCARTY considered that he ought
to make the motion now, and have it disposed of.
The Duke of RICHMOND complained of this.
He thought it unjust to the Noble Marquis, who was
absent. If the Noble Lord made his motion now,
he (the Duke) should move that it stand over till
Monday, on the ground of fair play.
Lord FARNHAM considered it perfectly in the
power of the Noble Earl who spoke last to give
what notice, or make what motion he pleased, at any
time he thought proper.

Lord G ODE ItICH considered it would be better
to defer it until Monday.

Lord CLANCARTY had been informed that he
should be breaking in on the proceedings of the
House by moving this motion to-morrow. It was
only on the ground of economising their Lordships'
time that he proposed making it now. If the
Noble Marquis were ill, he was the last person in
the world who would riot show every possible cour-
tesy. The Noble Lord then gave notice that he
should make the motion on Monday next.

Lord FALMOUTH observed that the name of a
Noble Earl (Eldon) had been put upon the list to
day for the purpose of presenting a petition from
Liverpool. He had received a note from that Noble
and Learned Lord to say that he should not be here
in time to present it, but begged, through the
mediur of him (Lord F.) to ask permission of the
House to present it to-morrow, observing at the same
time, that he should occupy but a few minutes of
their Lordships' time.—(Hear, from the Duke of
Wellington.)

The `Duke of RICHMOND presented a peti-
tion from a borough in Westmoreland, against further
conces9ion.

Lord GODERICH had a petition to present
from the same place (Liverpool) that his Noble and
Learned I•riend had given notice that he should pre-
sent one to-day. That Noble Lord having been pre-
vented from presenting his petition to-day, he thought
he should a►ct with more fairness to him if he
were to abstain presenting the counter-petition from
the same place. But lest it should delay the House
going immediately to the discussion of the third
reading of time Relief Bill, he should retain this pe-
tition in his hands until the Noble and Learned Lord
was in the House. _ _ _

Lord LIMERICK presented petitions from the
Catholics of Carlow and other places in Ireland,
praying for the removal of Catholic disabilities.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE presented a pe-
tition from Bridport, praying their Lordships to
carry through the Bill for the removal of Cat helic

Lord MANSFIELD presented two petitions
against the Catholics.
Lord WINCHILSEA presented petitions from
Protestant Dissenters of different parts, praying
their Lordships not to grant further concession.
One of the petitions presented mas from a Mr.
Stockdale, praying that officers might be appointed
to present petitions; from some informality it was
withdrawn.

...The Duke of WELLINGTON presented a pe-
tition from the colleges of Ossory and Dublin against
certain clauses in the Relief Bill.

Lord KING presented a petition against the Dis-
franchising Bill.

The Duke of SUSSEX presented a petition
from .the_ Rev. George Armstrong, Cross-John,
County Down, in favour of the passing of the pro-
posed measure for the relief of the Catholics. The
terms of the petition entirely accorded with the sen-
timents of the Royal Duke, and therefore it had his
hearty support.
Lord BEXLEY presented a petition from a place
near to Renfrew, Scotland, signed by one
thousand of the most respectable individuals,
against the proposed measure. Whatever
might he done with respect to other parts of the
united Empire, the petitioners prayed that their
Lordships would protect Scotland against the
admission of Roman Catholics to legislate upon
motions affecting Scotland, which they contended
would be in direct violation of the Act of Union.
Lord CLIFDEN presented a petition from Wa-
terford against the clauses affecting the monastic in-
stitutions.

Lord TEYNHANI presented two petitions
against the Disfranchising Bill.
Lord KENYON presented four petitions from
parishes in Carmarthenshire against further con-
cessions.