The Sun. — 1851-10-21 (London, England)

WESTMINSTER.  A miserable•looking barefooted woman was brought before Mr. Arnold under the following circumstances :  A police-constable proved that his attention was called to the defendant by a gentleman who found her sitting on the previous evening on the step of a door in Belgrave-square. Finding, upon inquiries, that she was in a state of destitution without any place of abode, the constable took her to St. George's workhouse, in Mountestreet, Grosvenor-square, when the porter said she had been there before, and refused to admit her. Under those circumstances, the constable took her to the station for shelter.  Mr. ARNOLD directed the constable to request the attendance of one of the parish officers of St. George's to give some explanation why a woman found in this destitute condition wax refused relief.  In the course of the day, Lacey, one of the officers, attended, when Mr. Arnold represented to him the circumstances of the case.  Lacey said he was not in attendance when she was brought to the workhouse, as stated by the constable, but begged to put the magistrate in possession of some circumstances connected with her history. She was a short time ago charged at the Marlboroughstreet Police-court with attempting to commit suicide by drowning herself in the Serpentine, but she had merely walked up to her middle in water, and then screamed to attract attention until she was got out. As she was then in a state of destitution she was taken to the workhouse and clothed, but subsequently demanded her discharge, and left the place. In about a fortnight afterwards she was again taken before Mr. Hard wick for an act of mendicancy, and committed for seven days. She had, besides the occasion on which she had discharged herself from the workhouse, been clothed from bead to foot by the authorities. Something, he thought, ought to be done with her, as she was addicted to very indecent and filthy practices. Mr. ARNOLD observed that the point was, the woman was found on the present occasion really in a state of destitution, and taken by the constable to the workhouse, where nothing was done for her. Lacey said he had before stated when she had the opportunity of being maintained in the workhouse she insisted upon being discharged. Mr. ARNOLD thought that, being evidently in a state of utter destitution, it was the duty of the porter at the workhouse to have relieved her, irrespective of character, and his refusal had compelled the police to lock her up, because they did not know what else to do with her. It was the porter's duty to have taken her in, to be dealt with as the board of guardians might think fit. The circumstance was one bringing great odium upon the administration of the poorlaw. He thought it was harsh treatment to have refused her relief.  Lacey said he would take the woman to the workhouse, and see that she was properly attended to. Mr. ARNOLD observed that it would be as well, in so obvious a case of destitution as the present, that the porter did not act so authoritatively, and refuse admission. John Groves, a chimney sweeper, was charged with disturbing one of the ministers of St. Luke, Chelsea, while performing .a funeral service. Upon the case being called on, Johnson, the parish sexton, said that the Rev. W. A. Snake, the minister, who bad been interrupted by defendant, had desired him to state that he wished to withdraw the charge. Mr. ARNOLD observed that he had no doubt the Rev. Gentleman was actuated by the kindest motives, but as it was a matter of public misconduct, and as the Rev. Gentleman was not the person who had charged the defendant upon the police-sheet, but Johnson, the sexton, he must hear the case. Johnson then stated that while the clergyman was reading the burial service at a funeral in the churchyard, on Saturday afternoon, the defendant called out through the rails, " Why don't you pull off your smock ?" and added something about no fees for burials, baptisms, and churchings. The clergyman, at the conclusion of the service, directed witness to find a police-constable, and give the defendant in charge ; which he did. Defendant had since waited upon the Rev. Gentleman, and having expressed the greatest contrition for his misconduct, he (the sexton) had been requested, as he had before stated, to solicit his discharge. Mr. ARNOLD asked the defendant what he had to say to the charge ? Defendant replied that he was extremely sorry, but he was under the influence of liquor at the time he committed the offence, and did aot know what he was about. Mr. ARNOLD inquired whether be was a dissenter ? Defendant, in a faltering tone, evidently ashamed of the avowal after such gross misconduct, replied that he was a member of the Established Church. Mr. ARNOLD said he had been guilty of the most disgraceful and indecent conduct, calculated to outrage the feelings of the minister in the highest degree; but as that gentleman had expressed his desire to withdraw the charge he would pay attention to the request, which he was sure was dictated by the kindest motive. H e hoped the defendant's expression of contrition was sincere, and he should discharge him upon his entering into his own recognizances to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for the next six months.