The Sun.
London, England, 1845-03-31 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, MONDAY_ MORNING, YIARCII_ 31, 1845

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.
1.3.031 TUE EVENING PAPERS OF SATURDAY.
GLOBE.—John Tawell, the wretched murderer of
the confiding woman whom he had seduced, and who
was the mother of two children by him—has suffered
the appropriate and well-merited punishment which the
law assigns to the crime of deliberate murder. Pre-
viously to Tam.ll's leaving the cell to which he had
been confinal since his conviction, he delivered to the
Rev. Me. Cux, the chaelaia of the prison, a sealed
paper, which contained an admission, full and explicit,
of his glib,. Ile poisoned his victim by the means
charged in the indictment; and had previously sought
h-r life by administering to her a different poisonous pre-
paration, as suggested on his trial, in September last. The
turpitude of this atrocious criminal's offence was greatly
heightened by the base hypocrisy of his obtrusive preten-
sions to piety, by which he sought to procure a reputation
fur sanun indulging
his of m ea's, while he was secretly
his vicious inclinations, and revolving the means of
murdering the poor creature he had previously betrayed.
So successful were Tawell's pereonations of good-
risse that—in the face of proofs of guilt that were,
perhaps, as strong and conclusive as were ever ad-
duced against any criminal on his trial—there were not
wanting persons who could not think that such a man
ceuld b the perpetrator of such a crime. These—
doubtless amiable, but certainly weak minded, persons, are
now relieved from all doubts. ifewever difficult it may
be to soire the psychological paradox which the cha-
racter of Taweli'e mind and contradictions of conduct
disp!ayel, the fact of his guilt, in the fulness of its de-
pravity, is now placed beyond question. To every one
capable ofeeason, this was placed beyond controversy by
the evidence of the different witnesses against him on his
trial. The Lne of argument adopted by his counsel—
if that can be digyetiel by the appellation of argu-
ment which was a mere string together of im-
probeble and contradictory hypotheses—removed lla
expectation of his acquittal, for it had '‘,not shaken
the direct awl conclusive testimony against him. This
mode of meeting the case, by such an advocate as Mr.
Kelly, showed to what an extremity this justly-eminent
lawyer felt himself reduced, when he could oppose
nothing but extravagant, far-fetched, and almost puerile
suppositions to such a case. The prisoner had admitted
that the woman he was accused of having murdered,
died in consequence of something she had poured into
the porter of e hich she drank. Yet, notwithstanding
this admission, Mr. Kelly actually argued that she
did not die of poison, but by suffocation from the
water which was attempted to be forced into her mouth
by her neighbour, who en'er,!.d the room when she lay
in eitremis, if not actually dead. The Learned Gentle-
man also suggested, awl argued the probability of the
hypoth-sis red lersd nugatory his former reason •
ing, and with a gravity which would imply his own
belief of what every one else saw was not merely
delusive but ahsurd—that the woman died from the
effects of prussic acid, generated in the stomach by the
process of digesion, from the pips of an apple found
partially ;fig: seed aineng the c nit tints of the stomach,
which were subjected to medical examination and che-
mical an ilysis—no apple-pips, however, being found
therein I The acute mind of the Learned Judge (Parke)
who presided od the trill, in a few words swept away
this miserable ref 4ge. We have dwelt strongly on this
branch of the evidence a ldaced on the trial, because there
ie too much reason to believe that the monstrous verdict
returned in a case of an individual who was tried at the
Central Criminal Court a shirt tune before Tawell made
the first attempt on Sarah Hart's life in September last,
sugeestel both the mole of the perpetration, and the
hope of escap-, if detected, from the diffieulty of este
Wishing commission to the saei,faction of a jury. The
conviction of Te well w:11, we true, tend to correct mis-
taken nations which are frequently entertained by some
persons, both in and out of the jury- hoe. Any extravagant
suggestion, however opplsed to reason and science, with
such persons is sufficient t) destroy the effect of the most
direct testi:Teny. If ingenuity stewed in raising a
momentary doub', it is pounced upon, as sufficient to
destroy the strong-et proo!'s eeferce.l by reason, derived
from the evidence of unquestioeable witnesses, supported
by the testimony of science, and therefore claiming
from t eaeoa stile men the calmest investigation, and the
obedi 'nee of seas )n to the conclusions to which they
lead.

STEAM BOILER EXPLOSION AT

AS!ITON-UNDEIZ-LYNE.

Thursday nawning, about six o'clock, just as the en-
gineer of Messrs. Mason and Sons' mill was preparing
to start the engine, one of the heelers exploded with
such fearful vioknee as to shake the whole building
to its very centre. Fortunately, however, the boiler
house is situate some distance from the mill. It
appears that one end of the boiler was completely
blown away, carrying with it the wails of the build-
ing for upwards of two hundred yards. The boiler
was driven from its seat, and the engineer and fireman
both blown into the canal, which adjoins the mill,
neither of whom sustained any m aerial injury, if we
except a few bruises and a ducking in the canal.
The roof and other parts of the building were
carried across the canal and the river Tame to a dis-
tance of seventy or eighty yards, and, coming in contact
with a machine shop, smashed nearly the whole of the
windows, and materially damaged the walls of the
building. Several of the m 'chanics sustained bruises in
endeavouring to make their escap?, believing that their
lives were in danger. The mill hands, as might be ex-
pected, flow in all directions, and in the confusion many
of them were s.'rioasly injured. The scene of this acci-
dent presents a very singular appearance, on account of the
scores of win low-frames and wood-work which have been
shattered to pieces by the shock. The most extraordinary
.c.r2uziastance in connexion with the explo•ion is the escape
of the engineer and fireman, both of whom were blown
a distance of several yards, and absolutely dashed against
the bot:om of the canal. The mill is the property of
Messrs. S wires and Lees, but at present in the occupa-
tion of Thomas Mason and Sons. The damage to pro-
perty is very coe.iderable, and upwards of four hundred
hands have been thrown out of employment in con-
sequence, It is stated that, had the other end of the
boiler given way, it must have carried with it a portion
of the mill, and that not fewer than from 100 to 150
p'rsons must have perished.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
SECONDARIES' COURT, March 28.
(i3etbre !qr. Secondary JAMES.)
BETTELEY 77. LINDSAY.
The plaintiff to the action is Mr. Betteley, a retired
tradesmen, living at Waltham-cross, and the defendant,,,
Mr. Lindsay, is a currier, residing at Islington. 'he
aetion was iasiituted to recover damages, for injury done
to a house and foundry situated in Angel-alley, Skin-
ner-street; the property was held by the plaintiff under
lease. Tile aercutnstanees which led to the present
proceedings, as detailed in the evidence, are to the fol-
leaving Gffect :—The premises were let in February,
1313, to an iroa-founder, named Hugh Morris, under an
agre. men% Morri held the premises till the following
November, wlien the attention of the plaintiff was called
to a tpaetity of materials that were in the course of
being removkel from the property. An investiga-
tion took place, when it was discovered that
a great quan,ity of paving flags, oak beams
and sieeier-, iron pillars, and other materials had
been removed, at the instance of two parties, Messrs.
Lewis and Lindsay, who seemed to be actin; under the
connivance of the tenant Morris. Legal process was
imme-liately gone into, and an iajuactioa was obtained
apinst Morris, his agents aol servaets, to deter them
moat farther damaging the property. Morris, at this
juncture, get out of the why, and Mossrs. Lewis and
proeeeled with the work of dilapidatien without
paying any heed to the injunction. Proceedings were
piext taken uut weraiust these parties for a breach of the
injunction, and Lewis was committed to the Court of
green's Bench for ten days. No further injury was
do:le .tty the premises. The materials which had been
reala,4@'ayere sold by private c mtra,ct to Mr. Lewis
England, a builder, they having been first advertised
fir sale by pahlic auetien, which sale was stopped
-by the plaintiit 4 solicitors. The question that
new arose vea:, who should make goof the damage
eloiallit:k. Morris was out of the way, Lewis was a
man of straw, rather noted for exploits of this kind ;
the only party, therefore, left was Mr. Lindsay, who is a
min of iioine property. The present action was insti-
tile,l to renewer the damages, which were laid at
31S1 133. 9.1 defendant had all awed julginent to
go by defteit, and the point the jury had now to decide
was the amount the damages should be assessed at.
-qr. CLARKSDN, whe appeared fur the plaintiff, called
a nttenlcer of witnesses in support of the facts here set
forth.

Toe defendant, who conducted his own case in per-
ton, entered into a statement that be had bought the pro-
perty fcom Sr Edward Bate, under the impression that
it had b-_•Linge.l to a lunatic, and that the gentle-
man named had full power to dispose of it.
The defendant further said that he had advanced a sum
if money under that impression ; that the transaction
swat a -,bot=a ti he one ; and that the reason why the
maYerials had ben removed was in order to make some
iinorovern:slits in the premises. lie was about to call
witnesses in support of this statement, when the Learned
'econilary d:cided it hail nothing to do with the real
tiaestion. as-the defon hint, by allowing judgment to go
by defau!t, lih i ad.nitted the right of Oaa plaintiff to
Lriag the action.
then examined, on behalf of the
AV,Texisn;, to show that the damages bad been over-
estimated.

The jury, however, returned a verdict fur the full
amount-313/. 16s. 9i.

COU RT OF BANK I? U PTCY, March 29.
Mr. Commissioner Fano, a d Mr. Commissioner
Gintiburn sat in their respective Courts this morning.
'There ..very no eases of any inte-est brought before them
(Before Mr. (;ommi•ssioner FANE.)
IN RE VANDEAIT AND CO.

*hi; cave- vie h.lnkrupts, wholesald tluwer inanti-
f,:ta.-er,t, is ',Vu:A-street, had come up on their ad-
i,,,Arne:i examination. Several debts, amounting in all
",0 above 4901., were provcd against then,.

For;sn.—On Friday the body of a female
tnifftl ffo.-qing on too r Titainea, near the
Doi:i-of Messrs. Ditehinifiro and Mare's, Orchard-hous:,,
Etacikwall, by a [nail named Cat-La, employed by that
firm. It al:pared:lv l'en in the water but a few
dint; s, and had evidently not been attended by a rro-
tdwal mad
Tui REQUISITION ,AND 14101te'r. 90—We have
nantit gratification in informing our readers that the re-
quisition and declaration, addressed to the Vice-Chan-
cellor, in candemnatioa of the principle of subscription
ivlvocated in the 9t)th Tract, Iris received nearly sevtnn
Intridr.?.d signatures, and is to lie prelentel early in the
ensuing term, with such additional names a 3 may be
sent into th. 3 Margaret Professor of Divinity before the
end of the ensuing week. Tile reqdsition is signed by
several Pe—yrs an.' Members of Parliament, and other
itUstitignisll,d persons of all shades in politics.—Church
and Stile Go7etie.

THE REV. MR. MONCKTON.4

DIOCESAN COURT OF INQUIRY-FRIDAY.

Mr. Warren commenced his address on beliall of Mr.
Monckton, whom he stated to b.) one of the most perse
cuted man ever brought before a court of justice and the
public. The Commissioners had observed the demeanour
of Mr. Monckton during this painful inquiry, and they
must be sensible that nothing could have sustained him
but a conviction of his entire innocence. Everything
was at stake—his character as a clergyman and a gen-
tleman, and, above all, the interests of that church of
which he was a humble, but not an unworthy, member.
He (Mr. Warren) could not only vindicate the character
of Mr. Monckton, but demonstrate that every one of the
charges against him was the result of one of the most
cruel and wicked conspiracies ever brought before an
ecclesiastical or a criminal court of justice. He should
show how that his failings (if the Commissioners thought
him guilty of any), all which " leaned to virtue's side,"
had been maliciously distorted. Mr. Monckton was the
third surviving son of the late Lori Viscount Galway.
He had several brothers and sisters living. His
father died in 1831 ; a few years ago his surviving
parent, the Dowager Lady Galway, sustained the loss of
two seas, one assassinated abroad and another drowned,
and she was condemned to witness what her husband
had been spared,—a wicked attempt to degrade this son,
from the effects of which his character might never en -
tirely recover. Mr. Monckton, knowing himself inno-
cent, had met the charges with fortitude and dignity.
From the moment he (Mr. Warren) had been concerned
in his defence, he never heard from his advisers, or from
Mr. Monckton, ono single wavering expression; from
the first he hal consistently and indignantly denied
the monstrous charges made against him. The charges
were, that he had been guilty of the foul crime of forni-
cation, of taking improper liberties with his domestic
servants, and of intoxication, and that he had " other-
wise misconducted himself." It had been represented in
one of the papers that there had been some remissness
on the part of the Bishop of London with reference to
this matter; but there was no ground for this observa-
tion. As soon as the Bishop had any definite or tangi-
ble charge to deal with, he immediately gave notice to
Mr. Monckton of this proceeding, and required him to
appear before a Commission. The letter of the Bishop,
which was exceedingly kind and courteous, was as

" Fulham, Jan. 22, 1845.
" Dear Sir,—A statement of charges against you, of
which I send you herewith a copy, has now been made
to me, which, I am sorry to say, impose upon me the
painful duty of instituting a formal inquiry into their
truth. I must proceed under the provisions of the Dis-
cipline Act to appoint Commissioners, and you will be
at liberty to name one to act on your behalf. I need
not say how much I am concerned at being obliged to
adopt this proceeding.
" I am, dear Sir, your faithful servant,
" C. J. LONDON.

" The Hon. and Rev. F. S. Monckton."
It had been said that Mr. Monckton had heard the grave
charges against him, and made no answer. The follow-
ing was the answer of Mr. Monckton to the Bishop's
courteous and candid letter :

" My Lord,—l sin perfectly sensible of the painful
position in which I stand, through the slanderous male-
volence of others, though I entertain no apprehension of
their proving me guilty. I defy thera to establish their
calumnious charges, from every one of which my con-
science acquits me. I shall, therefore, do my Lest to
establish my innocence before the Commissioners ; but
I decline availing myself of your kind offer to choose a
Commissioner on my own behalf, since I have the most
entire confi(lm,le in your Lordship's discretion and jus-
tice. Out of regard to my own peace of mind, reputa-
tion, and sacred public character, I trust that your Lord-
ship will not permit the least unnecessary delay to oc2ur
in fixing the period of inquiry.

" Pa.isona;.-na Jan. -
Was this the letter of a man who knew there were grave
grounds for the charges against him? It was clear that
Mr. Monckton had been c insistent throughout ; or why
was he here? Before he (\lr. Warren) sat down, he
undertook to demonstrate his innocence beyond the
pessibiity of a doubt, an-I that he was the victim of an
atrocious conspiracy. The first thing which struck him
(Mr. Warren) with surprise and disgust was—that Mr.
Monckton had actually been hunted down by his per-
secutors, who had set upon him an old Bow-street officer,
B Ward, who, according to the testimony of their own
witness (Mrs. Pearson) had sought to bribe her to give
evidence against Mr. Monckton. Mrs. Pearson said that
Btllard offered her 501., and said that money was no
objct to them. Where was this money to come from?
What the object was he might be able to show in a
future stage of the inquiry. This threw so deep a
shadow over the whole case as to discredit all the
witnesses upon whose testimony it rested. In such a
matter as this, the claaraater of the witnesses was most
important ; there should be an entire absence of all
hostility or sinister motives on their part. Was that
the case here ? Why, the most gross charges, with
respect to the women rested upon the evidence
of Mr. and Mrs. Williams, who were the
focus of the case; Fanny Fronde, a discarded servant;
and the girl who had been examined yesterday. The
case had, in fact, broken down, and Mr. Monckton had
been exonerated by the very witnesses brought against
him. The Learned Counsel then examined at much
length the evidence which had been adduced in support
of the charges, pointing out its improbabilities and in-
consistencies. With respect to Mrs. Williams, he ob-
served, he-wished that the public, which had jumped so
quickly to a conclusion as to the guilt of Mr. Monckton,
could have been present to see the manner in which she
had given her evidence,—he did not think that Dr.
Lushington, in all his judicial experience, had ever seen
such an exhibition before ; her bitter and furious animus
against Mr. Monckton ; the audacity of her demeanour
under cross-examination, and the smiles she interchanged
with him (Mr. Warren), on one occasion indulging in a
joke. The grossest instances of misconduct imputed to
Mr. Monckton by this witness came out in her cross-
examination, under circumstances utterly improbable in
themselves, and which exposed her to contradiction from
other witnesses on the same side. Mr. Warren then re-
ferred to the acknowledgment made by Mrs. Wil-
liams that, notwithstanding the scenes she witnessed,
she never remonstrated with Mr. Monckton. The
Learned Counsel then detailed the circumstances
of the anonymous letter sent to Mrs. Davis,
which that lady, in a letter dated the 24th
of October, 1843, inclosed to Mr. Monckt-m, inquiring
whether it had come from his house. Mr. Monckton,
in reply, required the name of the person who had sug-
gested that the letter came from his house ; and Mrs.
Davis replied, that Mr. and Mrs. Williams were the
persons who had mentioned the prob ibility of his ser-
vants being the authors of the letter. Now, this anony •
coons letter was of an indecent kind, and Mr. Williams
had been concerned in a kindred transaction, for he had
admitted that he had been dismissed from the Orphan
Asylum for sending an indecent message to the matron.
The whole conspiracy seemed to have grown out of a
quarrel between Mr. and Mrs. Williams and Mr. Monek-
toe's servants. Sarah Huggins had heard some rumours
which had been propagated in that low and slanderous
neighbourhood against her, and Mrs. Williams con-
ceived a spite against the servants, and, in the sequel,
against Mr. Monckton himself. There never was (the
Learned Counsel observed) a more disgusting exhibition
than had been made by Williams, who was an aban-
doned miscreant on his own showing. He had per-
mitted his wife for IS months free intercourse with a
person who, according to him, had attempted to corrupt
her. lie had allowed her to go 20 times after that, and
to go alone ; he had borrowed money of Mr. Manclea
ton arter he had endeavoured, as he said, to de-
bauch his wife, who was yet suffered to go day after
day to listen to conversation of a ribald and ob-
scene tendency, and to obscene jests. Fanny Frou le,
another of the pillars of this case, almitted that
she was discarded by Mr. Monckton (amongst other
reasons) for her want of veracity. Upon several points
she had contradicted herself. For example: Ou her ex-,
arnination in chief she sail she had seen Mr. M nekton
sitting in Sarah's bed-roam smoking and reading the
newspaper, whilst she (Sarah) was in bed—" only onca."
On her cross examination, when excited, she sai I she
had seen it three or four times. The scene in which she
swore that Mr. Monckton had attempted to undress her
would be proved to be a gross falsehood, the girl being
at the time drunk. The other statements of this
.witness
would be either utterly disproved or satisfactorily ex
pla4ne,l. Another witness had been called yesterday, .
Sarah Levett. She was not summoned originally, but
had been brought up during the unfortunate intermis-
sion of the sitting of the Corn nission. She had men •
tioned a scene in the room where she was in bed with
Sarah Huggins which had tak-n him (Mr. Warren) by
surprise, and he should have been unable to comprehend
one part of her evidence but from a document before
him, which explained the abominable insinuation
intended. One of the charges against Mr. Monck-
ton which had been sent to the Bishop was, that
Mr. Monckton had had a certain disease, and had com-
municated it to his servants.
1)r. LustszsiceroN observed that the Commissioners had
no cognisance, as Commissioners, of anything communi-
cated to the Bishop till the commission took place, and
they knew nothing of those matters.
Mr. Warren said he had, in the handwriting of Mr.
Lake, the soliciair for the other side, a charge against
Mr. Monckton, to the effect that he had communicated
to Sarah Huggins and others, if they had it, a loathsome
disease. Mr. Monckton had dared them to the proof.
The Learned Counsel, after some further remarks, said
one of the peculiar disadvantages under which Mr.
Monckton laboured was, that this inquiry might be re-
newed before another tribunal, where all the deficiencies
of the case might be patched up, and secured. in inac-
cessible perjury. Mr. Monckton and his friends had
courted, this inquiry. Mr. Lake had pestered Mr.
Monckton with letters, all of a very bullying character,
persuading him not to stand an inquiry. This he had
constantly, steadily refused. An expression in one of
Mr. Monckton's letters to Mr. Lake, that "indis-
cretion, not guilt, is the term applicable to my con-
duct in this southern region," was thus explained:—
His family was a Yorkshire fatuity, and after
leaving Christ Church, Oxford, and taking
holy orders, he became a curate for two or three years
in Northumberland, and there it was notoriously the
custom for persons to give merry meetings to their ser-
vants at Christmas and on New Year's-day. Mr.
Monckton had followed that custom, and to promote
good feeling and dispel timidity, he sat and carved for
them. After his return, upon one of these occasions, he
did sing the song
of the " Old English Gentleman," and
a, very excell ,nt song it was, simple in its words as well
as air; but his intoxication would be denied on oath,
He did sit in his kitchen after working in his garden,
and when his shoes were dirty; but as to taking his
meals with his servants it was a most wicked falsehood.
After detailing the evidence which he proposed to
adduce, which would utterly overthrow the case on the
other side, the Learned Gentleman concluded by ex-
pressing his conviction that the Commissioners would
say, that there was no foundation for even a prima facie
case, and would not semi it through another agonising

investigation by another trial, which would have to deal
with another mass of perjury.
Mr. Monckton, who sat with his brother, Lord Galway,
beside Mr. Warren, was much affected during .a part of
this speech.
The following v..itnesses were then called for the de-
f,:ncc

Lnrd Viscount Galway, examined by Mr. Warren—
I am the brother of Mr. Monckton, and am in habits of
personal intercourse with him. I have never heard,
since his being in the Church, any tendency to profanity
in his conversation ; I never heard him guilty of obscene
conversation. He may be occasionally familiar with
ttiose about him ; he is as gnarled as men usually are.
I have never seen, since he has been in the Church, any-
thing in him inconsistent with his character as a clergy-
man. I have never heard of any impropriety between my
brother and my mother's servant. I have been to his
house four or five times, and never witnessed any levity or
indecorum between my brother and his servants. His
manner of speaking to them I often thought rather
rough. I certainly saw nothing in the behaviour of his
servants inconsistent with the respect due to a master. 1
had no reason to suspect any improper intercourse be-
tween them. Miss Monekton is at liaAings suffering
and r a pulmonary affection.
Cross-examißed by Mr. Doane—l have no town
house. I never stayed on a visit with my brother. I
have dined with him once and lunched once, in the
dining-room. There was no difficulty in dining there ;
no necessity for going into the kitchen. My brother has
stayed with me for a fortnight in the country. He never
sat and smoked in the kitchen there. He would walk
out, or sit in some small room.
By Dr. LUSHINGTON —Was your brother in the habit
of smoking to prevent a disorder of the chest, or for
amusement ?—He told me he had been recommended
to do it.

Mr James Edward Mathew examined—l am a sur-
geon and apothecary, residing in Church-row, De Beau-
voir-square, near Mr. Monckton'* parsonage. I have
been the medical attendant of his family fur nearly two
years. I first attended Sarah Huggins in June, 1843.
She is liable to hysterics, for which I have frequently
attended her. She is of a decidedly hysterical tempera-
ment. She had an excessively violent attack when I first
attended her, in June, 1843. I stayed with her three or
feur hours, from eleven at night till three in the morning.
I have been frequently sent fur a similar attack, not so
violent. She is subject to neuralgia. a painful affec-
tion of the nerves, which may exist independent of
pregnancy. Hers was connected with the teeth. lat
tended her off and on from June to Christmas, 1843. I
accompanied her to a dentist, who extracted a tooth
from her lower jaw, which relieved her from neuralgia,
and from hysterics to a great extent. She still had a re-
turn of hysterical affection till the beginning of last
year. I discovered that she was in the family way
She had a fainting fit. I communicated to Mr. Monckton
the next day the fact of her being pregnant. He was in
the garden. I told him his servant was in the family
way. He said, "If that is the case, she must go away
directly." He seemed perfectly astonished. He had a
spade in his hand, and he dug it in the ground as he
said so. I said, " I think you had better not send her
away for a few days, as her health will not admit of in!',
l'het was on account of her fainting fits. In four or
Five' days she went. I have been in the habit of:very
frequently visiting Mr. Nfonekten's house. tnevete saw
any undue familiarites on the part of Mr. Monckton to
his servants or on theirs to him. I never saw any dis.
tinctiou in his behaviour to Sarah Huggins, except on
account of her ill health. He has accompanied me to
her bed-room, from kind motives. She was always
dressed. I never saw any impropriety of conduct,
levity, or anything which gave me the slightest sus-
picion that there was any undue intimacy between
Mr. Monckton and any of his servants. I never heard
Sarah Huggins speak to him other than servants
ought to speak to their master. I never saw him take a
meal with his servants in my life. I have seen him in
the kitchen half a dozen times in a year, and then he
was in his gardening dress. I have seen him eat his
dinner in the kitchen; but never with the servants. I
have supped with him in the kitchen; not with the ser-
vants. He is a little supper-eater,—some bread and
cheese or cold meat. Mr. Monckton's constitution re-
quires exercise. He suffers from dyspepsia; that is, in-
digestion, accompanied with disorder of the stomach. I
should recommend exercise for such a habit. I never
att inded Mr. Monckton fur the disease alluded to. I
never heard Mr. Monckton use a blasphemous or inde-
cent expression. or saw him guilty of an indecent act to
his servants. His manner of addressing them is rather
rough. I have attended Susan Huggins for spasms. I
have observed a misunderstanding between her and her
stepmother, who would not do anything for her daughter
when she was ill, and Mr. Monckton was kind enough
to allow her to go to his house, that her sister might at-
tend her. I never saw Mr. Monckton intoxicated. He
is frequently in the habit of visiting the sick. He ap-
peared to me to be quite an exemplary cleigyman. I
never saw Mr. Sheldrick at church.
Cross-eXamined—l never saw Mr. Monckton excited
with wine. I would not disbelieve Mr. Patient if he said
so. My bill for attending Sarah Huggins the first year
was 101. 6s. 61. ; the next year 2L or 31. Susan's account
last year was 8/. or 101. fir. Monckton paid Sarah's first
bill. I believe he intends to pay the last bills. Ido not
consider a great deal of smoking good for dyspepsia ; I
knew it is one of the worst things. I attended Sarah
Huggins for an excoriation in about July or August,
1843. I did state this to Mr. Oldershaw. When I taxed
Sarah Huggins with her pregnan ey, she said nothing.
When I told her it would be my duty to communicate it
to her master, she made no answer to the best of my re-
collection. When I saw that Sarah Huggins had re-
turned after her confinement, I was rather surprised, and
I spoke to Mr. Monckton, who said that she had applied
to him to take her back, or, as she had lost her cha-
racter, she would be obliged to go upon the town, and he
had taken her back out of mercy and charity. When I
attended her for an excoriation, I prescribed a lotion of
sulphate of zinc, and pills of mercury and opium. This
was on July 28, 1843. The pill was proper for syphilis.
Re-examined.—l gave the pills as a precautionary
measure. I left them off the day after. I believe de-
cidedly that she had not the disease. I did mention my
fear to Mr. Monckton that Sarah hal acted improperly.
lie said, " I hope not ; if she has, I will dismiss her."
I afterwards told him my suspicions were unfounded.
By Dr. LUSIIINGTON.—When, on your discovery of
Sarah Huggins's pregnancy you told her of it, did no
observation fall from her ?—I believe her only answer
was, she could nut help it. When you said you should
tell Mr. Monckton, did she say anything deprecatory ?
—To the best of my recollection, she made no answer.
Did she show any alarm ?'—Yes, by the colour in her
race, and her confusion. Did she express any wish or
desire that it should be concealed from Mr. .Monckton ?
—No ; not a word about it. Is it the fact, that you had
a suspicion that she had the disease, and prescribed the
pills as a remedy, an f afterwards your suspicions were
cleared up ?--Yes ; it was a measure of precaution ; I
gave her the blue pill, anl when I found my suspicions
were totally unfounded, I discontinued it.
Sarah Huggins examined—l am twenty-five. I went
to live with Mr. Monckton in October, 1812. I left my
f inner place (Mr. Dunn's) because it was too hard for
rue. Mrs. Miles engaged me for Mr. Monckton, as cook.
My wages were 10!. a-year. Fanny Froude came in
September, 1343, and left in December. Her general
habits were dirty. I complained of this to Mr. M nck
ton. She was not honest; she had pilfering and prying
vays. She would take wine, and anything she could
get at. I have seen her intoxicated. She did not tell
tne truth always ; I have heard Mr. Monckton say so,
and knee, it myself. I know Elizabeth Briggs ; she
was never called Bessy by me, or any one in my pre-
sence. She was in the hahit of coning to see me.
She is a washerwoman. Mr. Monckton never tools
his meals with U 9. Ile would c0:113 into the kitchen
to smoke there, in order not to mike a smell upstairs ;
and he has dined once or twice there when his shoes
wore dirty, and he was going into the garden again.
I never sat on Mr. Monckton's knee, and never
saw any other woman do it. I never saw Ann Day on
his knee. I never had a quarrel with Mr. Monckton.
I never, when he laid his heat upon the table, covered
it with my apron. He ha; never carried me up to bed
in his arms. I never recollect water being thrown over
Fanny Froude in the kitchen. I never shut myself up
in my room, nor did Mr. Menckton break open th door.
Mr. Monckton never endeavoured to pet me on his knee
and to give me tea to drink. I never heard Mr. Monck-
ton
sing " Green grow the rushes, 0," or any light
tune, on a Sunday after coming from service at the
church. He has been in my bad-room when I have been
ill, and my sister has been with me, and Mr. Mathew.
Ile never sat in my bed-room smoking and reading a
newspaper. He never used indecent language in my
presence. I never heard him s year. He never placed
his hand indecently on my person—he is too much
of a gentleman ever to insult any one in that man-
ner. I never saw three women sitting in a lot at once
upon his knee. If this has been sworn, and that I was
one of thew, it not true. I never have been on his
knee. About :October, 1843, Mr. Monckton on one
occasion came out of his study, and saw Fanny Froude
intoxicated, and desired me to take her up to bed. I
did so, alone; Mr. Monckton did not co re up; she re-
fased to take off her clothes, and I said I would not take
a.w iy thelcandle till she did. She would not, and lay
dewn with her clothes on, and she had them on when I
went into her room in the morning. I am not aware
hat her clothes were wet. I am positive that Mr.
Monckton did not go up to her room at any time that
night. On Christmas-day, 1843, I invited, with Mr.
,Monclaten's permission, Mr. and Mrs. Williams, my
mother and father, my cousin, and Mrs. Briggs. Mr.
Monckton did not dine with us; he stood and carved, but
ate nothing. He might have drunk a glass of beer. Mr.
Williams asked him to carve, as he could not, on account
of his hand. Mr. Monckton was not the worse for
liquor when he went to dine with Mr. Wade. After he
was gone, Mrs. Williams sang " the Nice Young Man,"
and some of the songs are not decent to be men-
ti stied. On New Year's day the same party came
again ; they were invited by me the day after Christ
inas•dey; Mr. Monckton did not invite them. He did
net dine with us ; he had his dinner first in the study.
lie never endeavoured to put any one on his knee. I
never heard of such an attempt. If he had attempted to
take Mrs. Williams ou his lap, I must have seen it. She
did not go upstairs before me. Mr. Monckton never
ealled rue " Miss Huggins," or " Sally." He never
rubbed my stomach when I was in bed. I should have
thought it a great insult, and would not have allowed
him to do it. I recollect Mr. and Mrs Williams had a
quarrel with me about April; I do not know what it was
*bout. (The witness then proceeded to deny all the
c inversation deposed to by Mr. and Mrs. Williams as
having taken place in the kitchen after they had spoken
to Mr. Monckton in the garden.) I never, on my solemn
oath, have been in bed with Mr. Monckton. He has
never taken an indecent liberty with me. In September
I was confined at Gravesend of twins—seven months'
children. They died the next day.
Is Mr. Monckton the father of those children?—No
(very firmly).
Who was the father ?—I will not divulge his name to
any one.

Why not ?—I gave my solemn oath that I would nut ;
and I do not think I ought to break such an oath.
I- believe I was first in the family-way in April. M
Mathew discovered it in July. He said he would men •
tion it to Mr. Monckton I said nothing. I was dis-
tressed and alarmed, and that is the reason I did not
answer. Mr. Monckton told me I must leave his house
the next day. I did in three days. I went to Mrs.
Pearson's, at Gravesend. I to,,k with me seven sove-
reigns. It was my own money—what I had saved from
my wages. I made the baby-linen myself. I wrote to
Ann Day to request Mr. Monckton to come down to me,
as a clergyman. I was not well. This was three days before
I was confined. He did not come the first time. He was
again asked, and came. He talked to me as a clergy man, in
a spiritual way. He did mot laugh or joke. He did not
smoke a cigar. I never called him brother. After I
was confined he came again. He stayed in my room
only about a quarter of an hour. He spoke seriously to
me. I returned to Mr. Monckton's on the 9th of October.
I wrote to Ann Day to ask him to take me back again,
and he said if I acted ditierantly from what I hail he
would allow me to return, and he took me back. I have
conducted myself with propri• ty since. When Lady
Galway was at Mr. Monckton's, in June, 184-1, I was
always about the house. I waited upon her a:, dinner. I
was never kept up in my own room.
The examination of this witness in chief having con-
cluded, the Court adjourned till the following day.
The Duke de Broglie was in Court during soma part
of the proceedings.

DIOCESAN COURT OF INQUIRY—SATURDAY.
This case was resumed this morning at the sitting of
the Court, when Sarah Huggins, Lady Galway, Lieu-
tenant Monckton, and Arthur Bennett were exa-
mined, and their depositions were taken with a view to
rebut the testimony of the different witnesses examined
for the prosecution. The next witness called was
Mr. Oldershaw, Mr. Monekton's solicitor, who deposed
as follows:—Having answered a few preliminary ques-
tions, he continued by sal ing he considered that the
conversation he had with Mr. Lake was private, and
should not have been taken advantage of by Mr.
Lake. Witness here produced a letter from Mr.
Monckton, denying the charges. Did not know of the
girl being confined at Gravesend until some time in
January, and first heard of 'it from Mr. Lake.
Re-examined—Heard Mr. Lake say he would not
believe Mr. Monckton's denial en his oath unless he dis-
charged his servant. Told witness he recommended Mr.
Monekton to go to the country, and the matter might
blow over, and that he would get somebody to do the
duty. Mr. Lake said to witness that if he were an un-
married man he might do the same. Witness
then distinctly offered Mr. Lake a declaration denying
the charges, both by Mr. Monckton and the servants.
Was authorised by Mr. Monckton to do this. Denied
this before the Bishop had been written to. Mr. Lake
was most violent in his language to witness. (Witness
here read a letter from Mr. Monckton, denying the
'Charges that he had heard were rumoured about him and
his servants )
.To the COURT—At the time witness had received that
letter, he was aware the girl had been, confined; told Mr.
Monekton, as Ids professional adviser, that he had been
giiilty Of gross indiscretion, at least his conduct would
• be open to such for taking the girl back.
Here the Court adjourned for a few minutes, and when
it resumed,
Sarah Huggins was recalled for cross-examination,
she having fainted when first brought into Court.—She
deposed that Susan went to her mother's, and returned
after three days' absence, to the parsonage. This
was in summer. It was after Lady Galway left in June
that Sarah left. When she came back she was ill,
and came to be nursed, as she could, not get proper
attendance at home. Has never left the parsonage
since. She is there as a servant. Will swear she
does not know what wages her sister has. Ann
Day has 10/. a-year. Has lied quarrels with her
sister, but not in regard to Mr. Monckton. Ile has
been in witness's bed-room at day and night
when she was in bed ill. Had a peculiar illness
bet once, cannot say when; but it never happened before
ur since. Was not ill when Sarah Lovett was at the
parsonage, but is not sure ; complained of pain to
Mr. Mathew. Will swear that Mr. Monckton did
not bathe her ; went to live with him in October,
1842. Will not swear she was a virgin then. (Here the
Counsel put other questions as to the conduct of the wit-
ness and her moral character, both before she went to
Mr. Monektou's and while there ; but she declined to
answer them.) She then continued by saying that her
sister and Ann Day suspected she was in the family-a ay.
A few days after Mr. Mathew examined her she went
to Gravesend with her sister is a cab. Witness
did not see her off. Was at Gravesend
about ten weeks. Mr. Monekton came down about three
days after she was confined. One of the children died on
Saturday, and the other on Sunday. Does not recollect
that Mr. Monckton had tea upon the occasion of his visit;
asked him to take her back when she was well. He
said he would not promise. Said she would pay him
back the money he lent her when she should get
another place. The birth of the children was en-
tered in the register as Sarah and Susan, and
witness as the wife of Huggins, a mariner.
Mr. Monckton never broke open her door to her know-
ledge. Did not receive any wages for the time she was
away. Did not sea Mr. Monckton sit at the table at the
dinner on Christmas-day. He stood and carved, but did not
see him eat. After dinner he sat in the drawing-room.
He went away about five o'clock. He returned about
• supper time. Did not hear any singing that night.
Betty Biggs had a child about five years old, which
she often brought to the parsonage ; she also
brought wine to Gravesend from Mr. Monckton.
Mrs. Williams used to sing indecent songs; cannot say
how many—whether thirty, or forty, or fifty, or sixty, or
seventy. The new-year's dinner was at one o'clock.
Anne Day was sent for the Williamses. Mr. Monckton
was in the kitchen when they came. He had dined
before that, in the study, alone. Was never seat after
by Mr. Monckton, to go back. Never saw any impro-
priety between him and the other servants.
Re examined.—Mr. Monckton was not present when
Mrs. Williams sang indecent songs, nor did he know it.
His house is very large, and requires three servants
when there are visitors. Mr. Monckton had not the
slightest means of knowing that she had misconducted
herself with any other person.
Mr. Duke sworn.—ls a medical man. Cured Sarah
Huggins of erysipelas.
Anne Day sworn.—ls twenty-four years of age ;
went as servant to Mr. Monckton in November,
1843 ; saw Fanny Froude there ; she was a girl
of unclean habits ; heard her frequently con-
tradict herself ; saw her very much intoxicated once.
Mr. Mnncktou carved on the Christmas-day, because
Mr. Williams could not do so, having lost a thumb. Mr.
Monckton was very cheerful that day, but not tipsy.
He did nut attempt to throw down Mr. Williams. Never
saw Mr. Monckton attempt to take Mrs. Williams
on his knee. Witness never sat there, nor saw any of
the servants do so. Never heard him use indecent or
blasphemous language. Never heard him drink a
toast, " He:e's to the waitress's health. Never
heard such a thing mentioned, as that " Some
d—. old woman had said what was doing
at the parsonage," or any such expression. Mrs.
Williams never said in the presence of witness that she
(witn.,ss) told her (Mrs. Williams) that Mr. Monckton
slept with Sarah Hugeins six nights out of seven. She
dare not say so in her presence. Ile never put his hand
indecently on witness's person, or said anything indecent
to her. The witness gave the same positive nega-
tive answers to all the questions relative to
smoking, eating, Sze , &e., with the other servants, as
sworn to by the witnesses for the prosecution. Never
saw any one with Mr. Monckton while preparing a
sermon in his study. lie has taken tea in the kitchen.
Sarah Huggins wrote to witness to ads Mr. Monck-
ton if he would condescend to visit her (Sarah) at
Graaeseinl. Witness burned that letter some time after.
The tone of the letter was that Sarah feared she had
very much offended her master by her misconduct.
Told this to Mr. Monckton. He did not go down until
after witness had received a second letter from Sarah.
Serali wrote to witness after her confinement, announc-
ing the death of the two children, an:l requesting Mr.
Monekton to visit her.

Lady Galway, the mother of Mr. Monckton, deposed
to the high character and morality of her son. She had
never, during her visits, perceived any impropriety of
conduut towards the servants. The general tenor of the
evidence of the lady was to discredit the itnpwations
against her son. Several other witnesses were examined
upon the same points, but the evidence was not mate-
rially different from that already given on the same scle
Mr. DOANE replied at great length.
The Commissioners retired to consult, and on their
return—

Dr. LUSIIINGTON said it was impossible, at that late
hour of night, for the Commissioners to draw up any
final report in conformity with the provisions of the Act
of Parliament. Still, however, he ought to state that the
Commissioners were unanimous in the report they in-
tended to make. Thinking it advantageous in a case
like this, he (Dr. Lushington) would, with the assent of
his brother Commissioners, state the general result of
the inquiry under the various heads. Ths Commissioners
were of opinion that their decision could not fall within
the nature of a judgment, but still they thought that they
were called upon to give their return under the 4th sec-
tion of the Act--that they were bound to find in favour
of the Rev: air. Monckton upon parts of the charges, and
that upon just evidence, and against him upon one part.
Now, it was the intention of the Commissioners to make
a special report as to the charges in which, in their opi-
nion, he had offended against the lawsecclesiastical. The
charges were that he had offended against the laws ec-
clesiastical—that he had been guilty of fornication—that
he had taken indecent liberties with various women—
that he had been intoxicated, &c., thereby bringing
scandal upon the Church of England, of which he is a
member. Now, the Commissioners were of opinion that
as to the charge of fornication they were not justified in
reporting that it had been proved. But they were of opi-
nion that there were circumstances which had rendered
this investigation absolutely necessary—circumstances
which induced alarm to those who were anxious to
uphold the purity of the church (as we understood the
learned President.) The Commissioners would allude in
their report to the children bc>g-otten on the body of the
servant, and that she was allowed afterwards to remain
in the house, and subsequent to the time when he de-
clared that his house was well regulated. The Re-
verend Mr. Monckton ought to have afforded a
full explanation upon matters connected with those
charges. He, however, contented himself with a general
denial. Now, the Commissioners were of cpinion that
he must be relieved from the charge of fornication, but
that his conduct had brought scandal upon the Church.
As to intoxication, the Commissioners were of opinion
that no evidence had been produced as proved it. As
to the final part of the case, the Commissioners were of
opinion, especially with reference to Sarah Huggins and
other matters—the habits of Mr. Nionekton —the indul-
gences which he followed have given ground for scandal
to the Church. The Commissioners had the power to

acquit. They acquitted him from the charges of fornica-
tion and of intoxication, but his conduct with respect to
Sarah Huggin., and in other affairs already mentioned,
rendered it their duty to report to the Bishop, and he
would take that ineAsures as he might be advised: The
Commi,sioners could not close those proceedings without
expressing their strong and entire approbation of the
manner in which this case had been conducted by the
counsel at the bar.

The President (Dr. Lushington), after a slight con-
sultation with his brother Commissioners, intimated that
on Ova Bth of April a formal and written judgment
would be deli►ered.

The Court sat until nearly half-past ten, and it was
as crowded by earnest hearers as at the moment when
the Commissioners took their seats, so great appears to
be the interest taken in this novel investigation.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
BO W-STREET.

Mr. _Paid)°, n, the landlord of the Printers' Arms, in
New Church-court, Strand (lately kept by Mr. Mealy),
appeared in answer to a summons, charging him with
opening his house for the sale of liquors on the morning
of Good Friday last, between three and four o'clock.
Inspector Mullins stated, that hearing some persons
talking in the defendant's house, at a quarter past four
on the morning of Good Friday last, he knucked at the
door and requested admission. He was shown up stairs,
and there saw about a dozen met. (stated to be printers)
drinking and smoking together.
Mr. Duucombe, th defendant's solicitor, said the ma-
gistrate would at once S9O there was no occasion to pro-
ceed with the charge, as he could clearly prove that for
years the house now kept by his client had been fre-
quented at the hour mentioned by a respectable body of
men connected with the morning papers in the neigh-
bourhood, who, after leaving thir work, generally as-
sembled there to partake of refreshments—having been
necessarily eccupiel the whole night, without cessation,
in their work as compositors. No one else was ever
suffered to visit the house at that time, as the evidence
of the waiter, in Mr. Fairburn's service, would satisfac-
torily attest.
James Wilkie, a compositor on the Morning Chronicle,
deposed that some of the compositors on that journal
and the Posswere in the habit of supping regularly at
the Printers' Arms, which was at that time exclusively
open to them. To guard against the admission of others,
the " privileged" applicants called out " Boz." upon
which the door was immediately opened by the waiter.
The waiter corroborated these statements, and proved
that the house was duly cleared at 12 o'cloclz on Thurs-
day night, and kept clear till the arrival of the compositors.
Inspector Mullins—But the license in express terms
prohibits the opening of the how.e on Good Friday.
Mr. JARDlSE—Probably so ; but in a case like this
there was a very manifest distinction to be observed, and
he was of opinion that the defendant could hardly be
said to have " opened" his house, in the meaning of the
law, when it was merely used by a party of re-
spectable people, who did not assemble to ket drunk
and disorderly, but merely to take refreshments,
which their occupation prevented their getting at
an earlier hour. The fact of the house being closed
at an early hour, and every caution taken to shut out
any persons but those in question, who were compelled
to work on Good Friday, as well as other days, con-
vinced him that there was no intention on the part of
the defendant to break through his license, although, by
a literal interpretation of the terms of that license, he
might, indeed, be considered culpable. Under the cir-
cumstances he should not interfere, but, at the same
time, would recommend the defendant not to give any
ground for the charge on a future occasion.
The summons was, therefore, discharged.
George Aiken and Chalks Wright, two young men,
very respectably dressed, were placed at the bar before
Mr. Twyford, charged with having assaulted several
police:nen.
Wells, constable of the F division, stated that in con-
sequence of information he received at the station-house,
that a disturbance was going on in Brydges-s treet, Drury-
lane, he went there and found the two prisoners assault-
ing every person who came in their way. Wright was
given into his custody on a charge of having broken a
window of the shop of a Mrs. Spicer ; and, on his appre-
hending him, the other prisoner attempted to rescue
him, declaring that he would knock his brains out if he
did not release his friend from custody. Some other
constables at length arrived, who were severally assaulted
and kicked by the defendants, but the latter were at
length overpowered, and conveyed to the station-house.
The prisoner Aiken denied that he had done anything
more than endeavour to get his friend home, who he
admitted was very drunk.
The other prisoner admitted he was so drunk at the
time, that he did not know what he was about.
Mr. TWYFORD said he could make no distinction be-
tween the defendants and persons of a different grade in
society. The charge against th( in had been clearly
proved, and he should, therefore, feel it his duty, in
order to protect the police, to commit each of them for
one month to the House of Correction.

The defendants begged hard to have their sentence
changed to a fine, which they expressed their readiness
to pay ; but the magistrate was inexorable, and they
were sent off in thR van, like common persons.