Star.
London, England, 1830-06-02 00:00:00

BISHOP OF LONDON.

We abridge the following letter, which has just ep-
peared in the British Co-Orcrator, in reply to the
Bishop's letter on the neglect of the Sunday :
" It is not for the purpose of stimulating or directing
) our Lordship's exertions in the suppression of vice that
I uov.- feel emboldened to make this address. Notwith-
standing the pertinacious silence of the Athenian inqui-
sitors of the day as to your Lordship's " pious and
charitable deeds," I feel assured that you would not have
felt yourself compelled to descend from your appointed
post of dignified elevation, to reprove the occasional
transgressions of your inferiors, had you not already
vainly exhausted your endeavours to put a stop to the
C. pry day excesses of your peers.
" The painful emotions excited by a consciousness of
the magnitude and inveteracy of those vices, the Sunday
i:rr.ctice of which your Lordship labours to check, are
much augmented by the intimation given in the com-
mencement of your letter, that " the number of the
parochial clergy, whose special duty it is to watch and to
oppose their progress, is notoriously and lamentably in-
adequate to the extent of the province intrusted to them."
The former of these facts, the nature of the vices thus
exposed, their hideous, their increasing enormity in the
" first Protestant church of Europe," the founder of
Bible societies, and the focus of religious missions to
every region of the heathen world, is sufficiently appal-
ling; but the paucity of the agents in whose hands alone
your Lordship seems to think the remedy is placed, must
change alarm into despondency ; particularly when we
consider that the want of pecuniary means cannot be the
cause of such deficiency ; for I am convinced your Lord-
ship will agree with me in the conclusion, that if the
whole of the sum annually drawn from the inhabitants of
London and Westminster for ecclesiastical purposes, was
fairly calculated and duly apportioned, the amount would
be found amply sufficient to afford adequate remunera-
tion to a competent number of qualified assistants in aid
of your Lordship's efforts; more especially as such pecu-
niary exactions from the earnings of the people are in-
tended tnr the remuneration of those who devote them-
selves by a solemn oath and pledge—to use the words of
your Lordship's most appropriate quotation,—' not to la-
bour for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat
which endureth to everlasting life.' Agreeing, there-
fore, as I must, with your Lordship, as to the melancholy
deficiency in number of those on whom you calculate for
assistance, and equally convinced that their number will
only increase with the increase of the 'pecuniary contri-
butions drawn from the labours of the industrious to
sepply those chosen agents with what they deem neces-
sary for enjoying most of the comforts and some of the
luxuries of life, it is, I must acknowledge, a melancholy
reflection that the savoury vapour of the flesh-pots of
Egypt is the cloud by which too many of the guardians
of the ark of the new covenant are guided in conducting
the countless multitudes of their followers during their
pilgrimage through this wilderness of vice to the expected
land of promise.
" But, my Lord, there is at least one circumstance to
console and cheer you in your exertions ; and to point
your attention to this circumstance is the main object of
my address. If the number of your paid auxiliaries be
small, it must be consolatory, it must be encouraging, to
be assured that the cause you advocate, the cause of so-
briety and temperance, has no small number of voluntary
unpaid advocates. I had indeed hoped, that before I
came to the conclusion of a tract, which, small as it is in
hulk, discloses such a mass of accumulating corruption,
I should have met with some allusion to the efforts of
those, whose humble, disinterested agency is now most
actively exerted in the cause of sobriety, of truth, and of,
virtue. And I consider your Lordship's silence as to a
fact, the knowledge of which would have cheered your
spirit in the relation, and animated those who think with
you in the perusal, solely to your ignorance of the exist-
ence of a body, which, being chiefly formed from among
the lower classes, are consigned by your Lordship ' to
the patient and unobtrusive labours of those faithful
teachers' the inferior clergy, while your Lordship, with
due regard to your exalted rank and station, confines
your exertions to those among the higher grades, who,
to use your own energetic language, do all in their
power to render your efforts ineffectual, by their careless-
ness, their indifference, and their evil example.'

Yes, my Lord, I feel confident that your zealous wish
for the universal spread of truth will be gratified by
knowing that in the very heart of this Circean hogsty, in
the midst of this deluge of profligacy wherein you have
vainly sought for a spot to rest your hope that the waters
of corruption were assuaging, a few at least are to be
found who employ the leisure of Sunday in a manner
totally different from what you describe, as being habi-
tual among the great mass of the population of this me-
tropolis. A few at least have seen the deplorable state
of public manners—the total disregard of those social
feelings which teach us that the surest means of securing
our own best interests is by promoting those of our
neighbour—the universal prevalence of that undisguised
selfishness that looks solely and incessantly to its own in-
dividual gratification,—the arrogance of overabundant
wealth, fencing itself in on every side by the terrors of
the prison and the halter—the recklessness of hopeless
destitution that courts crime for the shelter of a prison,
and too often meets the clergyman, for the first time, in
company with the executioner—a few, I say, have con-
templated this chaos of the conflicting elements of so-
ciety, and have resolved to seek a remedy, not by re-
proaching the rich for their excesses, or by taunting the
poor with their degradation, but by applying the leisure
hours of Sunday in discussing, soberly and calmly, ques-
tions whose solution, they hope, will lead to a satisfac-
tory analysis of the confusion of conflicting opinions and
practices in which they perceive rich and poor, learned
and 4aorant, clergy and laity to be, so long, so hope-
lowly entangled. They have already analysed, and hope
they are not far from arriving at a satisfactory answer to
the momentous question from which Pilate turned away,
and on which his victim was silent,—What is truth ?
They hope, by this clue, to unravel the strange mystery
of error in which mankind has been so long involved, and
from which no system of religion is free. They have
endeavoured to trace the character of man from his for-
mation, to ascertain how it has been made the extra-
ordinary, the anomalous compound it now exhibits, and
to discover how it can be raised to that state of high in-
tellectual elevation, of which we know it to be capable."

ALARMING FlRE.—About eleven o'clock last night
a tire of the most alartuing nature broke out in the house
No. SO, Rahaer-street, Goswell-street-road, lately occu-
pied by a Mr. Moore, Mit, about three weeks ago, was
taken by two ladies for the purpose of letting that part of '
the house which they wanted not fot their own purposes.
The accident was alarming by the fact of a careless ser-
iant girl having ignited a parcel of wooden shavings in
the lower part of the hank, and in two or three, minutes
',hereafter thti•whote. )idude was. ip such ilaine that the
innuitediwith difficulty saved their lives.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, JuxE 1.
LORD ♦. COOPRR AND 'PRATT.

Mr. POLLOCK (Mr. Alexander with him) stated that
this was an action to recover the value of some wool
which had been consigned to him. There were several
counts in the declaration, the last of which was a count in
trover, upon which the whole case turned. The plaintiff
advanced the sum of 5,0001. to a person named O'Brien,
secured upon bills of lading of a quantity of wool, and a
policy of insurance upon the same. The wool arrived in
due time from Spain, and was lodged in the warehouse of
the defendant. The plaintiff's clerk took an account of
the marks and numbers of the wool, and in course of his
business the plaintiff sold the wool, and when he wanted
to deliver the wool to his customers, the defendants set
up the claim of a firm of Loughlan and Co. upon part of
the wool, and the plaintiff was obliged to pay 5001. to get
the wool for his customers. The present action was brought
to recover that sum.

Mr. CAMPBELL, for the defendant, here interrupted
the Learned Counsel, and said he could prove a lien upon
the wool in Loughlan and Co. previous to the transaction
between O'Brien and the plaintiff. He then called
Andrew Loughlan, jun. one of the firm of Loughlan
and Co. who proved that they advanced to O'Brien
2,0001. in the beginning of April, 1829. It was secured
partly upon the bill of lading of 112 bags of wool.
Mr. POLLOCK then said, this evidence put him out of
Court. He therefore must submit to a nonsuit.

The plaintiff was then nonsuited.
OLD BAILEY SESSIO , June 1.
—a._
_ OLD COURT.
_ _

John Barnes, a respectable looking man, aged 30, was
indicted for stealing, on the 21st of April last, sixty-one
silver plates and other articles, value 4001. the property
of the Marquis of Bath. The prisoner formerly lived in
his Lordship's service as under-butler.
Mr. ALLEY submitted there was not sufficient evidence
to go to the Jury.
Mr. Baron VAUGHAN said he should certainly leave
the case for the decision of the Jury.
The prisoner, on being called on for his defence, merely
declared that he was innocent of the charge against him.
The Marchioness of Westmeath, and several other wit-
nesses, gave the prisoner an excellent character.
Mr. Baron VAUGHAN summed up the evidence at
great length, and the Jury, after a few minutes' delibe-
ration, returned a verdict of—Not Guilty.
The announcement of this verdict was received with
clapping of hands, and other demonstrations of joy by
the prisoner's friends, a number of whom were in the
gallery.
Mr. Baron VA UG HAN—Shame ! Shame! We are
not in a theatre : such conduct is disgusting, and if re-
peated I shall immediately order the persons to be turned
out of Court. Prisoner, you have had a narrow escape.
The prisoner was then arraigned on a second indict-
ment, for stealing three dozen of drinking-glasses, the
property of the Marquis of Bath.
Mr. A DOLPH us stated the case for the prosecution.
It was proved by the Marquis's butler that he missed a
quantity of glass from his Lordship's stock, and that the
glass produced by Gardiner, the officer, and stated by
him to have been found at the prisoner's residence in
Adam-street, Edgeware-road, resembled in pattern and 'I
general description those used in the Marquis's family.
The Steward also gave evidence of certain admissions
made by the prisoner as the officer was conveying him
from Roehampton to London, on the morning of his ap-
prehension.—The prisoner said that if he must tell the
truth he might as well acknowledge having taken part ofl
the glass.
For the defence a witness was called, who stated that
he had sold the prisoner glass of the description of some
portion of that produced about nine months ago ; and
other witnesses gave the prisoner a good character for
honesty.
Mr. Baron VAUGHAN summed up the evidence, and
the jury returned a verdict of Guilty.
Thomas Crockford, aged 35, was indicted for felo-
niously assaulting Elizabeth Lloyd, a child under ten
years of age, and Sarah Reed, aged 19, with aiding and
assisting in the perpetration of the felony.
The prosecutrix stated that she resided with her pa-
rents, in Bethnal Green. She knew the prisoner
Crockford ; the other prisoner, Sarah Reed, lived in
the neighbourhood of her parents. On Monday three
weeks she saw the prisoner, Sarah Reed, standing
opposite her residence, and she called witness over and
asked her would she take a walk with her. Witness
consented, and the prisoner Crockford followed them to-
wards the Crown and Anchor public-house. The prisoner
Crockford then took her to a house and offered the land-
lady sixpence, but she turned both of them away. The
prisoners then took her into Lamb's-fields, a distance of
about two miles, where there were some empty houses;
the prisoner Crockford then threw witness down, and
Reed stood by laughing. (The witness here detailed the
particulars of the assault, which are unfit for publication.)
A man came up and saw what Crockford did ; he knocked
Crockford down. Witness was crying and asked the
man to take her home to her mother, but he refused, and
said he had other business to attend to. She told her
mother a few days afterwards what had happened, and
she took her to the hospital, where she was examined by
a doctor.

On her cross-examination by Mr. C. Phillips, the wit-
ness contradicted herself in repeated instances, and made
several admissions which proved that although so young
improprieties of the grossest description had taken place
between her. and son►c boys in the neighbourhood.
Mr. James Lake, a surgeon, stated, he examined the
person of the prosecutrix. The appearances that he
found might have been occasioned by natural causes, or
by violence.
Mr. Baron VA tic HAW here observed, that it was im-
portant to society that infants of the tender age of the
prosecutrix should be protected from the attacks of any
worthless ruffian who might commit an assault upon
them ; but in this case he doubted whether the evi-
dence of the prosecutrix was so far entitled to credit
as to warrant the Jury in convicting the prisoners.
The Jury must be satisfied that the offence with which
the male prisoner stood charged had been completed.
If they were, the consent of the prosecutrix, suppos-
ing it had been given, went for nothing, she being
under ten years of age. Perhaps, however, they had
better hear another witness.

Sarah Small, the mother of the child, was then ex-
amined. She stated that the prosecutrix was ten years
of age on the 24th of May. On the day named is
the indictment • she came' home, but did not complain of
anything having happened to her ; but a week after, in
consequence of some suspicions, witness examined her
person, and she questioned her as to what had hap-
pened,' when the told her that a man named Jem
had done it. Witness took her to a doctor's, and on
their return the prisonet was standing at his door,
and the prosecutrix then pointed him out as the man
who had ill-titled her. Witness' told him what the
prosecutrix had stated, and asked him why he had

ill-used her child, and he said he would speak to her
about it, and he followed her into her house, and he then
begged she would say nothing about it. They then went
out and drank together, and the prisoner slipped a rag
into her hand ; she opened it when she got home, and found
it contained five sovereigns. The prisoner's wife then
came and pleaded very hard for him, and a feeling for
her sex induced witness to promise not to prosecute.
She took the money innocently and not for gain. She
kept it three days and then sent for a police officer, who',
took the male prisoner into custody. The prisoner after-
wards gave her five sovereigns more. The policeman
compelled her to prosecute.
Cross-examined.—She did not tell the policeman that
he might get money too. She supped and drank with
the male prisoner, after making the charge against him.
After the male prisoner gave her the second five sove-
reigns, they went to the play together. Never said the
prosecutrix had admitted the male prisoner was not the
man who ill-treated her. Witness put her mark to a
paper at the hospital.
The paper was here put in and read. It ran as
follows :—" Mrs. Small declares that Mr. Crockford was
not the man who ruined her daughter, as she has ad-
mitted in her own words."

Mr. Baron VA crania/ here said, after this evidence,
the prosecution could not be entertained for another mo-
ment. It was clear there had been something wrong on
the part of the male prisoner, from which a verdict of
acquittal would not clear his character. However profli-
gate and abandoned the conduct of the prosecutrix, yet
the law threw its protecting shield over infants of her
tender age, and would not suffer her to consent to such
an offence as that charged against the prisoner. Many
of the answers given by the prosecutrix, showed not only
that she had no regard for the obligation of an oath, but
were evidently meant to deceive and mislead the jury.
The evidence of both mother and daughter was so scan-
dalous and infamous that no reliance could be placed on
it; and, under those circumstances, the jury would do
best to acquit the prisoners. The jury accordingly re-
turned a verdict of Not Guilty.
Mr. C. PHILLIPS said, now that the case is over,
allow me to remark that the male prisoner has not been
heard in his defence, and to say that, according to my
instructions, he has a complete answer to the charge. I
may also add that the parish have not taken up this pro-
secution, as all respectable parishes do in cases of this
description, where they think the evidence can be relied
on. I shall advise him to indict the parties for conspiracy.
Mr. Baron VA con AN—lf you feel that you ought
to do so, and that for the justice of the country a prose-
cution ought to be instituted, I hope it will be done ; but
I think that the less stir the prisoner makes the better ;
I cannot overlook the fact of his having paid money to
to these parties.
1 Mr. Broughton, the magistrate who committed the
prisoner, whispered something to the learned Judge.
Mr. Baron VA UG HAN—I understand from the worthy
magistrate sitting by me that there was not time between
the prisoner's commitment and the breaking up of the
Grand Jury, for the parish to make up their minds upon
the subject, and I trust, therefore, it will not go forth to
the public that they refused to prosecute.
Robert Durley was convicted of stealing a silver wine
cooler, value 92/. from the dwelling house of Mr. Solo-
mons, a jeweller, in the Strand.
Waddington, the officer, applied to the Court to have
the property given up to him until the reward offered byMr.
Solomon. had been paid. The Court refused to interfere.