The Sun. — 1851-10-29 (London, England)

THE FATAL POACHING AFFRAY AT  RUFFORD.  MANSFIELD, TIIESDAY.—The adjourned inquest on the body of William Roberts, one of the Earl of Scarborough's gamekeepers, who was killed in Machin's Gorse, Rufford, on the night of the 13th instant, in a conflict with a large body of poachers, was concluded yesterday before Mr. Coroner Falkner. Another keeper, T. Charlesworth, of Eakring, lies in a precarious state. Some additional evidence was adduced; and after long deliberation the jury returned a verdict of manslaughter against some person or persons unknown. A court has been held by the magistrates of this division at the Town.ball this afternoon, at which Colonel Wildman, the Rev. G. F. Holcombe, and Messrs. Hardcaatle and W. S. Coke, and Captain Salmond were present. Ten prisoners were arraigned who, with six others previously discharged, had been apprehended on suspicion of participating in the murderous assault upon the Earl of Scarborough's keepers and game watchers. Eight of these were discharged to-day, with an intimation that should evidence of a more satisfactory nature be obtained against them hereafter they would be again apprehended. The only two retained in custody are George Bowskill, besom maker, Mansfield, and George Robinson, framework knitter, of Bulwell. Charlesworth, the maimed keeper, who now lies in a precarious state, distinctly swears that Bowskill was the man who struck the blow that killed Roberts ; and Robinson was found by the police, two days after the affray, concealed in his own cellar at Bulwell, having bruises upon his person, and spots of blood on his dress. A third prisoner, Samuel Sims, also a framework knitter, of Bulwell, is now in the Nottingham Infirmary, in charge of a policeman, who is in constant attendance upon him. He is suffering from a compound fracture of the arm, and is at present unable to be removed to prison. The case of these three prisoners is adjourned for further investigation on Monday next.  BOW CHUI?CiI.  The history of this church is a strange one. As the writer has elsewhere remarked—if not originally a Roman temple, as was generally believed, it was one of the earliest churches built by our Norman conquerors: it has been destroyed by storm and fire; was at one time garrisoned and besieged; and was afterwards the scene of nu assassination. Wo first find mention of it as a Christian church, in the reign of William the Conqueror. Stow says, it was the first in the City built on arches of stone, and that it was therefore called St. Mary de Arcubus, or the Bow; although ho elsewhere says, that it took its name from certain stone arches, supporting a lantern on the top of the tower. In the twelfth century, a tumult of a serious nature occurred in the City, which led to an assault upon the church. The ringleader was William Fitz-Osbert, surnamed Long-beard, an individual of loose morals, who apparently possessed great talents, and was almost worshipped by the lower orders, on account of his exertions as a professed advocate for the poor, against the oppressions of the rich. An attempt being made to seizo him, he took refuge in Bow steeple, together with various followers, and being well provided with ammunition and provisions, was able, for a long time, to defy the authorities. In order to drive him out the steeple was fired. This had the desired effect; the rioters were made prisoners, and after a hasty trial were hanged. In 1271 part of the steeple, which had probably been much injured during the attack on Fitz-Osbert, fell down, and caused the death of several persons. It seems, however, to have been repaired soon afterwards; for in 1284 we find that one Ducket, a goldsmith, who had seriously wounded a person named Ralph Crepin (under what circumstances is not mentioned), took refuge church, ofa e rn sleptde pta einntetrheedadteuerpinle. While Cher©, certain friends saansettuoarilyiCluiejersttheslbeewliehf him, and thatthe hen ndight then so , and had committed iloalcaetiiintgh et bodyhe, suicide. A verdict to this effect was accordingly. returned at the, inquisition, and th customary indignities. Thee realbody circumstances,was interred muev'd'aersers, amongstdw Onom with however, being afterwards discovered Inucnetaorfyaebeohyfi,nwemhoehitt, appearsthe through the evidencewith Ducket inh his was a woman, were apprehended and. execute this occurrence the church • e • was interdicted for a time,. and the doors and windows were stopped up with brambles. After the fire the present edifice was commenced by Wren. The whole of the works appear to have been completed in the year 1680. The crypt of Bow Church, which belongs apparently to the end of the eleventh century, is now filled with coffins of all ages and sizes piled one upon the other, which have doubtless contributed in silence their share of disease and premature death to the inhabitants of the neighbourhood. In 1849 we gave a view of part of this crypt with its fearful furniture, which we have reason to know had its effect in rousing the public to a sense of their guilty folly in permitting intramural interments. How much longer such madness is to be permitted we know not. We repeat our;denunciation of the system, and would urge, with respect to Bow Church, that the bodies should be immediately removed to consecrated ground, and any fresh deposits there be strictly prohibited. The crypt is ventilated, the coffins are put in f • air order, and we would carefully avoid attaching blame viduals connected with this charnel-ho to any indifrom being as bad as many others. It which is far system which we protcst—a system foul It is against the Yztc.'m foul and murderous