The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-10-24 00:00:00

VESSEL WRECKED: FIVE LIVES LOST
and Thomas, of Marvnort. bound fri

—The sloop

this port, with a cargo of flour, oatmeal, wheat, &c., was
drive❑ on the beach at Pentlech, on the west side of Red-
wharf Bay, during a heavy gale, about eight o'clock, on
Thursday morning week, the 12th instant, and totally
wrecked. Out of six persons on board only one was with
difficulty, and by the most strenuous exertions, saved.
The persons who lost their lives in this cala:nity were the
captain and his wife, a young man, aged twenty-two, the
wife's son by a former marriage, and two youths, of the
respective ages of seventeen arid fifteen, suns of the un-
fortunate couple. Joseph Daniel, aged twenty-four, the
only survivor, is a son of the deceased captain by a for-
mer wife.

BIRKENHEAD INNKEEPERS.—On Tuesday last at the
Quarter Sessions, Knutsford, an appeal was made by
Mr. Henry Gough, the keeper of the tap of the Wood-
side Hotel, who was convicted before the magistrates at
Birkenhead for opening his house on the eveninc, of Sun-
day. Sept. 24, between the hours of six and eight, during
which time divine service was being performed in the
church of Birkenhead. The alleged offence was proved
by Wm. Porter, the superintendent of the Birkenhead
Police, who acted under the instructions of Mr. Richard
Fry, the churchwarden of Birkenhead. Mr. Fry was
called upon, and, after describing the mode of service in
the church of which he acts as churchwarden, said, on
cross-examination,—l laid this information of! my own
accord.—Mr. Townsend: You are, then, an informer ?
—1 considerered I was acting right in being so.—Are you
not interested in this conviction—who is to pay the ex-
penses ?—The magistrates, I suppose, will pay the cost.
I never was at Bidston Church ; it is not the superin-
tendent's duty to go there. Do not know whether there
is church veiling service at Bidston or not. I know that
lately convictions were laid against several publicans of
Birkenhead; I never gained one against the defendant.
Birkenhead, I kno.., is a parish of itself.—Read that

summons. A previous information by Mr. Fry against
another party was then handed up, and he read aloud till
he canoe to the words "in the parish of Bidston, in the
said county, in which said parish of Bidsto❑ the chapelry
of Birkenhead is situated." The supression of these
words excited a strong mark of disapprobation in the
court.—The Chairman, after deliberation with the other
magistrates, said, there is no case; the service required is
in the after Moon, and not evening. Suppose, as in Ches-
ter, where the Cathedral service commences at seven in
the morning, and a succession of services follow in the
other churches at various hours throughout the day, if
such proceedings were adopted there, as are attempted at
Birkenhead, the public-houses would hardly ever be
opened during any part of the Sunday, and hardly a sin-
gle traveller could obtain any accommodation. The con-
viction is quashed.

ANOTHER ASSAULT ON AN OFFICER OF THE WORK-
HOUSE.—OH Friday last, a young and rather good look-
ing girl, apparently of about 15 years of age, named Mary
Reynolds, was brought before Mr. Rushton, at the police-
court, under a charge of having grievously assaulted Mrs.
Coleclough (or Co'emit) the superintendent of what is
called in the establishment the female classification ward.
Mr. Lowndes, solicitor, appeared on behalf of the parish
authorities, and opened the case. It appeared that on
Thursday, about noon, the prisoner had had a quarrel with
another girl ; that blows had resulted ; and that on Mrs.
Coleclougg (as st ited by herself) interfering to quell them,
she was attacked by the prisoner, and her collar and cap
torn off. Mr. Dowling, commissioner of police, inti.
mated to the magistrates that some irregularity had taken
place in the workhouse with regard to the taking of the
prisoner into custody, which he thought it proper to call
attention to. He said that a police-officer (344) had been
sent fir, and that when the charge was made on his arriv-
ing at the house, he had stated that, as it was early in the -
day, the case might be brought before the court that day,
(Thursday,) but the governor (Mr. Evans) had refused to
prefer it then, alleging as his reason that the prisoner
should have " another night in bridewell," meaning (as
we inferred,) that he should confine her over night as a
preliminary punishment before he brought her to the po-
lice-court to have the case investigated, and her punish-
ment duly awarded by law. The police officer was called,
and fully corroborated this observation of Mr. Dowling.
He said that he found the prisoner locked up ; that he
stated that he believed there would be sufficient time that
day to have her brought before the magistrates, but that
the governor refused to let her be [taken away, on the
ground before stated. The words used by the governor
were, " I'll not let her go ; I'll give her a night's lodging
here first." The governor being called upon by Mr.
Rushton to reply to this charge of irregularity, said that
he bad a complaint to make against the police officer, and
entered upon a somewhat disjointed statement, accusing the
officer of not telling truly the whole of the facts. He said
that Mrs. Coleclough was then suffering so much from the
injuries she had received, that she could not then attend the
court, she being in a fainting state for some time after the
assault, and that this was the main reason which he had
assigned for not bringing down the prisoner. The officer
reiterated his statement, and said that another officer was
present. Mr. Rushton said that what the governor had
stated was a proper enough reason for the case not being
brought on the day before, but what was stated by the
officer as having been said, was not so.—The Governor
said that the Bridewell-keeper and the officer had refused
to book the charge ; and that he was himself prepared to
come to the court at the time, but (he repeated) did not
in consequence of the illness of Mrs. Colecleugh. Mr.
Rushton said the Bridewell-keeper and the officer had
acted properly. It was their duty to obtain correct in-
formation before a charge was booked, and the reason as-
signed for the detention of the prisoner over night did not
appear satisfactory. She ought to have beeb brought to
that court on the previous day, and might have been re-
manded, until Mr. Coleclough could appear. The gover-
nor admitted that in speaking to the officer he was under
considerable agitation, arising from the assault. Mr.
Rushton inquired of Mrs. Coleclough how many paupers
were in her department, and on being told 57, he said it
was quite impossible for one female to manage so large a
number. The prisoner, on being asked by Mr. Rushton
what she had to say, stated that another girl had quar-
relled with her, and had thrown sand upon and struck
her ; that she had retaliated ; that Mrs. Coleclough had
come up and struck her first with a rule for ruling books,
and that she had certainly then, but not before, turned
upon her and tore her cap. Mr. Rushton said she must
pay £5 for the assault, or be imprisoned and kept to hard
labour for three months. The prisoner said where could
she get £5 ? and left the court shouting in a manner in-
dicating a revengeful feeling. [We should be the last to
endeavour to extenuate the conduct of refractory paupers,
but conviction is forced upon us by this and other recent
cases, that the present management of the workhouse,
under, as we suppose, the new poor-law system, is most
i
injudicious, f not oppressive, and calculated to produce
continual collision between the officers and those placed
under their care. The governor appears to labour under
an impression that the house is to be regulated as a sort
of gaol, rather than as an asylum for the poor and desti-
tute. It was but recently that a pauper who had been re-
leased from the borough gaol for an assault, and where as
lie laboured under disease he had been put to the light oc-
cupation of picking oakum—went back to the house, and
though still ill, and with a certificate from a district
surgeon, to the effect that he was unfit for hard labour,
he was immediately, and without any surgical examina-
tion, ordered to go and break stones, and a hammer was
put into his hands. The consequence was, that the
pauper—certainly a passionate and unruly man—commit-
ted an assault upon the governor and one of his officers,
for which he is now again suffering punishment in prison.
The case as it came out before Mr. Rushton showed the
existence of an indiscreet, if not a vindictive, feeling to-
wards the man ; but on his being tried at the Sessions,
all the witnesses heard before Mr. Rushton were not
brought forward, though enough transpired to induce the
jury to append to their verdict a remonstrance, as re-
garded the conduct of the surgeon of the house (since
[ retired), to the effect that he (the prisoner) had not been
treated over and above humanely. In that case, as in the
, one now before us, the respective prisoners could call no
witnesses before the court with a rew to mitigvateenh
charge against them, and the full weight of the e igce
went against them—the officers of the house
nuseeaarptpheeamrinaggiisn.
court, and taking their places on. the se
strate, in place of being put into the witness box—a
custom that would be more honoured in the breach than
the observance. Discipline and subordination are cer-
tainly required in a workhouse; but it is something new
for a governor of such an establishment to assume the
magisterial office, and take upon himself to inflict a pre-
liminary punishment upon an offender before he or
she
is
brought before a legal tribunal—as if he conceived such
offender would be too leniently dealt with by the proper
authority. On the last point lie need not in future be
under any apprehension, for we unhappily
to carryseeadispositml
sufficiently strong in authoritative q
ample rigour the tender mercies of the neewpooria with
.1