The Sun. — 1841-07-30 (London, England)

INTERMENT OF TEE DEAD WITHIN THE CITY. _ .  Mr. ANDERTON said that he rose to submit a motion of interest and importance to rich and poor. He was able to show, if the Court thought it necessary, that there was the most unanswerable arguments for applying to the Legislature to prevent the sepulture of the dead in future in the City of London, the only great city in the world, he believed, in which the practice was permitted.—(Hear, hear, and cries of " Refer it at once to a Committee.") He should take the hint, as the Court appeared to be unanimous on the subject. He then moved—" That it be referred to the City Lands' Committee to examine into the means of sepulture in the City of London, and the state and condition of all the churchyards, places, and vaults, for burying the dead therein, and also whether it is expedient that an end should be put to the interment of the dead within the City, and to report thereon to this Court." The motion was carried unanimously. Sir PETER LAURIE gave notice of a motion, " that it be referred to the Committee for general purposes, to consider the propriety of removing the unnecessary end unsightly attic projecture over the pediment of the portico of the Mansion-house, and to report their opinion thereon to this Court."—Adjourned.  PoisoNs:—Considerable sensation hasbeen created in the scientific circles by the report of the commission of the Academy on the experiments performed by M. Orfila for the discovery of poison in the human body by the use of Marsh's apparatus. The commission, which is composed of the first chemists of France, unhesitatingly declares that the pretended proofs of metallic stains produced by this apparatus are for the greater part fallacious ; in other words, that the persons condemned to death on charges of poisoning upon the experiments of M. Orfila, without other proof, were judicially murdered. M. Orfila having frequently declared as a wit' ness on the trials of those persons that his experiments were infallible,—a declaration which carried conviction to the minds of the Juries, he naturally attempts to iontrevert the opinion of the commission; but he does so with Much feebleness, and for the present, at least, he is lost in public opinion. You will remember that in the case of Madame Laffarge, the counsel for the defence were triumphant until M. Orfila went down to perform his experiments, and that the Jury returned a verdict entirely on his evidence, although several eminent scientific men then declared, as the commission now does, that his experiments were not proofs. But for M. Orfila, Madame Laffarge, against whom legal proof was wanting, whatever might be the moral impression of the Jury, must have had an acquittal ; for in her case the circumstantial evidence bore as much in her favour as against her. The feelings of M. Orfila now are not to be envied ; for although no man doubts his conscientiousness, it is the general opinion that in the endeavour to establish his theory, and convey to the public the impression which lie himself' felt as to the certainty of his experiments, he bore in all cases with unrelenting severity upon the accused. So great is the sensation produced by the report of the Academy, that it is not probable he will ukain have an opportunity of turning the scale of justice in favour of the prosecutor by such evidence as has hithezto been received.—Letter from Paris.