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

CHARGE OF SHOOTING.

PRESTON, AUGUST 2.—This morning, a *tie before
11 o'clock, as the Rev. R. Moore, incumbent of Lund, a
county magistrate, was walking up Fishergate, he was
fired at by a man of the name of Richard Bennett. He
was instantly apprehended by Mr. Moore, and handed
to a policeman, by whom he was brought to the Town
hall, and examined before a full bench of county magi-
strates, including Mr. J. Cunliffe, in the chair, the
Rev. C. E. Kendal, Mr. R. Newshsm, Mr. S. Horrocks,
and Mr. G. Jackson.

The Rev. R. Moore, who sat upon the bench, was
sworn. He said :—As I was walking up Fishergate
this morning, at a little before 11 o'clock, from Messrs.
Pilkington and IValker's office, to the Town-hall, I heard
a report of fire arms when about half-way up Fishergate.
The gun or pistol, whichever it was, was discharged
close to me, and the smoke came about my head. Im-
mediately afterwards I was struck with a hard substance
upon my right breast. Looking round to see who had
thrown it, I saw that man (pointing to the prisoner).
Richard Bennett. He looked conscious of having done
something wrong, and, knowing his character pretty
well, I went up to him and seized him, when several per-
sons came about us. I called fur the police. Two men
came up, and one man brought a pistol and said, " Here's
the pistol." Ile said, "He (the prisoner) shot it- I saw
him shoot it, and then throw the pistol at you." A
policeman came up, and I told him to take him to the
Town-hall, where I was going, and the magistrates
would investigate the matter. This is all I know.
_

The Rev. Gentleman's evidence having been taken
down and signed, the prisoner was asked if he had any
questions to ask the prosecutor, but he declined asking
any.

John Harrison was next examined. He said, I am a
carder, and live in Riley-street, Preston. I was in
Fishergate this morning about five minutes to eleven
o'clock. I saw the prisoner fire a pistol at that gentle-
man (Mr. Moore), and afterwards throw the pistol at
him, which struck him upon the right breast. Saw him
take aim at Mr. Moore. The prisoner was close to Mr.
Moore when he fired. I was just behind the prisoner.
The prisoner faced Mr. Moore. I picked the pistol up
on its falling after being thrown against that gentle-
man's breast, and have since given it to police-constable
Williams.

The prisoner declined asking the witness any ques-
tions.

Adam Capstick, carder, of London-road, said—l was
in Fishergate this morning with the last witness, John
Harrison. I saw the prisoner fire a pistol at Mr. Moore;
he was close to Mr. Moore, perhaps three yards distant.
Prisoner then threw he pistol at him, and hit him on
the right breast. Tire ball from the pistol passed Mr.
Moore's coat, and went across the street.

The prisoner said he would not ask any questions.
Mr. Cunlitle—The last witness says he saw the ball
pass Mr. Moore's coat and cross the street.
l'risoner—He has very quick eyes then.
William Kirby, Christ Churchyard, reeler, being
sworn, said—l was in Fishergate this morning, and saw
Mr. Moore and the prisoner. I saw the prisoner take a
pistol out of his pocket. He fired instantly, but I can-
not swear that he aimed at Mr. Moore ; he then threw
the pistol at him, and hit him on the right breast.
Robert Sneyd Williams, police-constable, said— I re-
ceived the prisoner into custody, and charged him with
having fired at Mr. Moore ; he replied, " We will see
about that another day." I received the pistol from
John Harrison, which I now produce ; the smoke I saw
arise was apparently from fire-arms.
The prisoner said—lle (Mr. Moore) has accused me
of a crime lam not guilty of. I only want to make it
known.

The Chairman then said—You are committed to Lan-
caster Castle to take your trial at the assizes for shooting
at Mr. Moore.

The prisoner heard the decision of the Court with the
utmost indifference. During the whole of the proceed-
ings he appeared to take little interest in them.
During the examination of the prisoner the Town-
hall was very much crowded.
The prisoner is the same person who was charged with
having, at four o'clock in the morning of Tuesday, the
19th of April, 1836, blown up with gunpowder the house
of Mr. Thomas Parkinson, of Kirkham. Bo is the son
of Mr. Bennett, shoemaker, of Kirkham, and was in-
structed in the business of his father. He is about 34
years of age. Mr. Parkinson's house was blown up the
day following the marriage of one of his daughters, with
whom Bennett was ii► love, but to whom he had not de•
dared his passion. This circumstance, added to the
previous indifferent character he had borne, led to his
apprehension on the charge, but,'by a singular anomaly
in the law, the offsnce could notibe brought within any
existing statute, and, of course, no indictment could be
preferred against him.

ASYLUM FOR FEMALE ORPHANS, WESTMINSTER-
ROAD._ermons were preached on Sunday in the chapel of this
•S
Institution in behalf of its funds; that in the morning by the
Rev. C. E. Wyle, 13. A., morning preacher, and that in the
evening by the Rev. W. Curling, 8.A., joint lecturer of St.
Saviour's, Southwark, when six young women, brought up in
the asylum, returned thanks for the benefits received in the
Institution. After the morning service the children at present
in the asylum were assembled in the large room, when testi-
monials of good conduct, of the most flattering description,
were read from the mistresses with whom the young women
had been placed after leaving the school, and various sums
awarded to them as a mark of the esteem in which they are held
by the friends and patrons of the Institution.

" Mountjoy-sqaare, August 1, 1845.
"My dear Mr. O'Connell,—l avail myself of the Graft
possible monynt after my return to Dublin to correct a.
mistake into which you have been unconsciously led by
the report (apparently a veryinaccurate one) of a speech
attributed to Sir James Graham.

" The I'7 eeman's Journal, of the 22d ult., states, that
at a public meeting on the preceding day, you spoke as
follows

•
"6 I find in the Times of Friday last the followingdia-
love between Lord Arundel and Sir James Graham: the
Earl of Arundel and Surrey salted whether it was the in-
tention of herMajesty'sG overnment to propose any armee&
anent in the Charitable Bequests Bill? Sir James Graham
replied that the Lord Lieutenant had received represen-
tations from the Roman Catholic Commissioners of the
lkiard of IR quests, stating that the duty had devolved
upon them of determining who the ecclesiastics were,
who, in certain districts, were entitled to the benefit of
the bequests loft to the clergy of the Church of Rome,
and stating also that it was at variance with the canons
of their church, whicir required that all matters of doc-
trine and discipline of this tiature should be settled by
iht ir diocesans alone.'
" You nee then said to have conflruiedthus :-
4 '.oh I feel my heart at ease and my mind tranquil.
I was accused and assailed and abused for offering my
humble opinion that that Bill was uncanonical and in-
conaisteot with the canons of the Catholic church.
They laug'bed at me for giving that opinion, poor theo-
logian as I am ; but humble as my opinion is, here it. is
confirmed by those venerable characters themselves, the
Most Reverend and always esteemed Dr. Murray, the
Most Reverend Dr. Crony, and the Right Reverend Dr.
Denvir. 1 have their authority that the Bill gave un-
canonical power to the Catholic prelates.' -
" Believe me, my dear sir, that it gives me inexpres-
sible pain to be obliged to contradict, before the public,
any assertion that you would think it right to make,
and that it would be delightful to me, and to the other
prelates in question, to be the medium of communi-
cating, were it in our power, that ease and tranquillity
of which you speak, to a heart so fervently glowing as
yours is with the love of religion. But as, on this
occasion, you have been pleased to put my name
prominently forward, the painful duty devolves on me
of declaring that you have allowed yourself, in this
instance, to be led, unintentionally of course, into an
error, the publication of which is but too well calculated
to cast a grievous censure upon characters which you
would be most unwilling to defame. Permit me, then,
most respectfully to assure you, that you have not
the authority of the prelates in question to sus-
tain your assertion. They have never said, or hinted,
or thought, that the Bequests Act gave to them an
uncanonical power. The speech, therefore, on which
you relied must have been most • inaccurately re-
ported; and the Minister must have alluded to objec-
tions which have been urged by the opponents of the
Aet—objections which,-in the opinion of those prelates,
had no solid foundation to rest on, but which they thought
it right to bring under the notice of Government, in the
hope that every pretext, how groundless soever. for the
repetition of them, would be met by a suitable
remedy, and Wen away. It would be strange, indeed,
if those prelates would denounce as uncanonical a power
which was granted to them for the sole and express
purpose of enabling them to preserve inviolate the
discipline and usages of our Church in the very case
to which the objections allude. In the progress
of this Act through Parliament, when there was
question of ascertaining who, in a case of doubt,
would be the persons entitled, according to the discipline
and usages of the Catholic Church, to the benefit of
a bequest left to a particular parish, an implied pledge
was, it is understood, given at the request of some
Catholic Member of the House, that Catholic bishops,
as the authorised expounders of that disCipline, shouU
be placed on the Board for the purpose of declaring in
what manner this portion of the Act should be carried
into effect, so as to be in-perfect conformity with the dis-
cipline and usages of our Church. This has been done,
and the object for which it was proposed has been
attained. The very first act of those prelates,: on
entering the Board, was to place on record a decla-
ration of what, in such cases, the discipline of our
Church is, that it may serve as a guide to regulate
the decisions of all future Catholic Commissioners—
namely, that in every such case the testimony of a
bishop is to be received as conclusive evidence as to who
is the rightful pastor of any parish in his diocese. Not
only did this declaration, so laid down as a rule for
the guidance of the Catholic Commissioners, receive,
at once, the sanction of the entire board, but a
miler rule was adopted by those members of the board
who belong to other religious persuasions for their gui-
dance also, with regard to the pastors of their respective
communion% ; so that the Protestant Bishop is thereby
recognised to be the judge of who is the authorised rector
of a parish ; the Presbyterian authorities who
is the authorised minister of a congregation ; and
the Catholic bishop who is his authorised parish priest.
"By this rule the inviolability of our discipline, as far
as regards the present question, is fully recognise d. To
the strict observance of this rule, all the members of
the Board are solemnly pledged, not only by their own
recorded declarations, but also by the duty which they
owe to their respective religions—a rule rendered thereby
as binding upon men who have a character to sustain, as
it could be rendered by any sanction of law.
" Still, there are some, surprising as it must appear,
whose over-sensitive scruples even this ample security
has not been sufficient to satisfy. Those scruples,
groundless as they are, we have felt it our duty to re-
spect • and we have never, therefore, concealed our
wish that such a legislative explanation should be given
as would wholly remove them.

" But why bas not this been done during the present
session ? The reason is obvious. It would be clearly
inexpedient to introduce into Parliament without urgent
necessity (and no such necessity exists), a new subject
for angry debate about Catholic doctrines and discipline,
while the deafening ow cry against Maynooth and its doc-
trines was still ringing in the public ear, and spreading
the most inflammatory excitement throughout the land.
" With respect to the hope expressed in the subse-
quent part of your speech, ' that the Catholic pre-
lates will see what course they should now take, and that
they will not permit themselves to be committed any
longer to the exercise of an uncanonical poser.' I have
or ly to repeat that they have not committed them-
selves to the exercise of any such power ; and I beg
further to assure you that it is their fixed determina-
tion to persevere, with the blessing of God, so long as
the multiplied duties of their station will permit, in that
charitable course, on which, at a great sacrifice of time
and personal convenience, they have, as members of th©
Charitable Bequests Board, deliberately entered, with
the sole view of serving the poor, and of protecting, if
necessary, the interests of our church.
" I have the honour to remain, with respectful estcem,
my dear Mr. O'Connell, very sincerely yours,
" y D. MURRAY."