311ttropulio.

The Bishop of London, when attending a meeting at the Amwell Street Parochial School, Clerkenwell, on the occasion of granting a site for a new church by the Charterhouse, explained his views upon church extension. He enforced the local claims of Clerkenwell upon house proprietors— Oh, what can we do in such and such a parish ? It is such a poor pariah. If it were Belgravia or Grosvenor Square then we could expect to raise a large sum for this purpose.' But I am noetalking of the people who live in the houses I am talking of the people who receive the rents, and, if I am

i

not misinformed, it very often turns out that the rental derived from the very poor portion of London, as is called, is really larger than that derived from the neher part. Every inch of ground in London pays rent, and in some cases it goes to the extent of 40,0001. or 50,000/. impress to one man, whereas in other cases it is subdivided. What I wish to upon you is, that it is as incumbent:upon the small proprietor of house property to give in proportion to the extension of church accommodation as it is for the Duke of Bedford or the Marquis of Westminster to give 10,0001., and I believe if everybody did that we should soon at an end to the cry of spi- ritual destitution thronghout the Metropolis. In this particular district a good example has been shown, and is likely to be followed, but still I would impress every one with the importance of giving in proportion to the value of his property." The Bishop added historical allusions—"Clerkenstell, like some other parishes of London either has its historical associations or is fragrant of the country which has long vanished from the locality. It

ri

deves its name from a well near the religious house or priory which stood hem, and would seem to have taken it from clerk's well. For 400 years during the days of religious darkness that religious horse stood, not with- out, I am sure, doing some good for the neighbourhood, and for 400 years pious women laboured in this district. We may think they laboured under grievous error, and so "they did, but they were faithful according to the light granted them by God, and I am not quite sure that when, at the dis- solution of the monasteries, property was taken from the hands of these nuns and granted to some great nobleman, the people gained anything by the way in which it was distributed. There was a great gain by the spread ef light and knowledge, and a pure Gospel. They lived in times of gross darkness ; we live in times of knowledge and light. Let us, then, make the best use of our privileges, and extend the Gospel wherever we have the power, particularly among those who dwell in this vast Metropolis." (Mum)

Mr. Layard addressed the Southwark constituency on Friday week. He stated he intended to go into the House as an independent Mem- ber," which "meant a man to be bullied and carped at by every one : " be entertains the greatest respect for Lord Palmerston, who represents the bold outspoken character of the Englishman, and also properly represents the feelings of the country in his foreign policy. Mr. Layard thinks "that a measure ought to be introduced to admit to a share in the representation that large body of intelligent working men now un- justly excluded." He thinks that a 61. franchise was a fair proposal, but not as a finality measure. He supports the Ballot. He deprecated Lord John Russell's first Italian despatch, but praised the second for its " excdlent " effect on the public mind of Europe.

Mr. Layard attempted to address an audience at the Horse Repository, on Saturday night, but Mr. Scovell's friends mustered strongly, and pre- ventod his being heard ; a vote in favour of Mr. Layard was, however, carried.

Mr. Layard delivered another address on Monday night at Bermond- sey. He laughed at Mr. &oven's local claims, deplored Mr. Fawcett's physical infirmkty, and derided local interests. He was also personal— When he remembered his poor old friend, Sir Charles Napier, tottering along Pall Mall, weighed down by suffering—for he was nearly killed by the injustice that had been done him—he could not help feeling that the men of Souihwark had acted nobly in rallying round him as they did. Ay, the day would come when England would see that the lamented Admiral had been cruelly used ! The same men who had crushed Sir Charles also attempted to crush him. Sir James Graham tried to vamp up a charge against him, but that charge melted away like snow, and Sir James had to. come down to the House to retract what he had said and make him an apology. Would to God that Sir Charles Napier had also had some amends made to him for all that he bad had to endure ! Well, having been in the Crimea during that terrible winter when our soldiers were reduced to skeletons through the horrible maladministration of that period, he returned to the House of Commons. and not being able to sit quiet like a dummy, he there spoke out his mind.' (Cheers.) He denounced the mismanagement he- had witnessed with his own eyes, and of course he was denounced in turn himself. No doubt, he had made some mistakes, as who had not ? He was per- secuted, he was bullied—no stone wasleft unturned to discredit him. Did all this succeed ? Perhaps it did, to a certain extent in the House of Commons; but he ventured to say it did not in the country. Mr. Layard added a lea out of his Indian experience :—After the outbreak of the terrible mutiny,. he went there to ascertain for himself, as was his habit, the causes of that calamity. He went to Bombay, and found a young native gentleman, a Brahmin of nineteen, spealcing English—he would. not say as well as him- self, for that might be paying himself too great a compliment—acquainted with our literature and our history,—in short, fully as well informed as the best of the young men sent out from England to govern India. Yet that native gentleman was called a "nigger," and a person who was hardly fit to carry an Englishman's boots for him. At the time when all the Europeans were excited by the fearful massacres that had taken place, he travelled in company with this youth in an unofficial capacity, telling the native chiefs that he only desired to learn the cause of the horrible outbreak, and, being alone and unarmed, he relied on their protection. He went from Bombay to Delhi without insult, and without having a hair of his head injured. He had been accused of sympathizing with the brutal miscreants who had committed terrible atrocitiee in India. He did not sympathize with them, but he had as much sympathy for the poor and the oppressed in India as he had for his own countrymen ; and so had every Englizhm an who was not corrupted by that horrid Indian atmosphere. If our employes in India abused their trust, they should be sternly called to account. Mr. Fawcett and Mr. Layard both had meetings on Tuesday. Mr. Layard's speech was nearly all in allusion to himself; his creed consisted of a promise humbly to tread in the steps of Joseph Hume, to which he added another item, at the request of an elector, and professed himself a supporter of the Attorney-General's Bankruptcy Bill, but whether it is. the bill withdrawn, or the bill not yet prepared, he did not say. Mr. Fawcett had an immense audience of 3000 or 4000 persons, at the Horse Repository. He said his expenses only amounted to 60/. in the three weeks he had been before the electors. He charged Mr. Layard with want of generosity and fairness, and added that a proneness to indulge in unfounded accusation had not been got rid of by his opponent.

Mr. Layard addressed a meeting at Horsleydown on Wednesday. The speech was facetiously critical upon Mr. Scovell, and respectfully apolo- getic to Mr. Fawcett, whose reply to Mr. Layard, the night before, had evidently taken effect.

Mr. Layard addressed six meetings on Thursday in various parts of the borough. His tone was generally satirical, auto-biographical., anee- dotical, and critical, styles of oratory which seem to be appreciated in Southwark. Speaking at one place, Mr. Layard deplored "the terrible slaughter of hundreds of thousands of unhappy Chinese." Mr. Scovell addressed a meeting at the Rotunda ; his creed is extension of the fran- chise, the ballot, abolition of church-rates, equalization of poor's-rates. He would not vote for the abolition of flogging in the army. An elector moved an amendment against Mr. Scovell, based on that refusal, but it was lost by a large majority, and a resolution accepting Mr. Scovell was passed. Mr. Walter Meller, of Clapham Common, has issued an address to the electors. He says, "that Ultra-Toryism is dead, and the politics of the Manchester school are a mockery.' He maintains the sanctity of the Sabbath, and seeks to extend popular education. Lord Ranelagh's name is mentioned as a candidate in the Conservative interest.

Mr. Alderman Salomons addressed his constituents at Deptford on Wednesday. He is confident of an increased trade with France, as a consequence of the commercial treaty. He thinks a Reform Bill de- pends more upon opinion without than within the walls of Parliament. He thinks Reformers must make up their minds to get by piecemeal what they want. Passing over some local topics, Mr. Salomons next alluded to taxation, direct and indirect, of both of .which we had such an abundance as to satisfy the advocates of each system : he hopes taxation has reached its culminating point. The Alderman promised to give votes as before, in favour of non-intervention, economy, and the ballot, and got a vote of confidence in his conduct.

Mr. W. Williams, M.P., addressed his constituents at Lambeth, on Monday. There was only a scanty attendance, but Mr. Williams, nevertheless, expounded at full length his views upon all the topics of the day. The Finances received special attention, as might be expected. A vote of confidence in Mr. Williams was passed.

A crowded meeting of the Royal Geographical Society was held on Monday evening, to hear an address from Lieutenant Maury, of the United States Navy, upon "The Physical Geography of the Sea, more particularly with reference to the Climatology of the Antarctic Regions." He commenced by noticing the Nautical Congress at Brussels in 1853, at which a system of observations was determined on by the representa- tives of England, the United States, Holland, France, ancl Russia— In accordance with that plan, instructions were given to the commanders of the ships of those nations to make observations in all latitudes. The re- sult had been the collection of upwards of 1,000,000 observations on the currents of the ocean, the direction of the winds, the temperature, the height of the barometer, and other meteorological phenomena, the whole of which Captain Maury undertook to discuss, and some of the results of which he described. He stated that, in pursuing the investigation of the physical geography of the sea, the inquirer is led into the examination of phenomena connected with various sciences, which he must pursue to arrive at satisfac- tory conclusions. The points to which he especially drew the attention of the meeting were the directions and variations of the trade winds North and South of the Equator, and the difference in the temperature and in the height of the barometer. Taking bands of latitude 5 deg: wide from the Equator, he found that on the South the direction of the wind in the bands nearest the Equator was more Southerly than in the bands more remote, until, on arriving at South latitude, between 35 deg. and 40 deg., the wind during exactly half the year was Southerly, and for the other half Northerly. The much larger proportion of water in the Southern hemisphere is suffi- cient to account for its warmer temperature, and Captain Maury supposes the effect to be produced by the greater fall of rain observed in the South. On the coast of Patagonia, the annual fall of rain, if estimated from the observed fall during forty-one days, must be nearly twelve feet, instead of two feet, as in the neighbourhood of London ; and this great condensation of the vapour, he assumes, causes it to part with its latent heat and warm the atmosphere. The lower state of the barometer in the Southern hemi- sphere he did not attempt to explain, but contented himself with mentioning the fact that the average of a vast number of observations shows that the mean height of the barometer is half an inch less than North of the Equa- tor. Beyond 50 deg. South the wind blows generally towards the Pole, and this regular current of air Captain Maury attributes to the comparative heat of the Antarctic regions. Another curious fact is, that the wind is much stronger in the South of the Equator than on the North. The frequent ap- pearance of large icebergs in the Antarctic seas indicates that there must be land there, for icebergs are never formed at sea; and he called on the Royal Geographical Society to promote explorations to the South Pole, which might open important resources. He said that the region to be explored— of which we now know no more than of the moon—is only ten days' steam from Australia, and if this country did not shortly undertake to investigate the hidden treasures of the Antarctic circle, the United States would "go a-head."

Admiral Fitzroy, Sir L. M'Clintock, Sir Edward Belcher, Dr. Rae, and Captains Jansen and Washington*, took part in the critical discussion which followed.

The Reverend Bryan King has submitted the questions at issue between himself and his parishioners to the Bishop of London. A "mo- nition" was issued on Saturday, commanding the reading of two psalms ; the sermons to be preached in a black gown ; the "super altar," and "credence table," are to be removed, and the choristers are abolished. Mr. Hansard refuses to remain on those terms, and leaves the parish.

The case of the respondents in the Shedden's petition, was opened on Friday week by Mr. Bolt. He, denounced the case of the petitioners as in- credible ; he would prove that Ann Wilson, the elder petitioner's mother had gradually insinuated herself into Mr. Shedden's house, that she was a woman of light character, and openly lived as Mr. Shedden's mistress. Mr. Shedden sought to make her his wife by a death bed marriage, for the pur- pose of legitimatizing the children. The letter of the 12th of November, 1798 was decisive upon that point ; the explanations given of that letter's disappearance were unsatisfactory ; it had been traced to his possession. Mr. Bolt continued his address on Saturday, and proceeded to analyze the evidence of the petitioners as to the marriage of Mr. Shedden with Ann Wilson. He also defended the conduct of Mr. William Patrick, pointing out the pains he had taken with the education and settlement of the elder petitioner whom he had sent to the University of Edinburgh, and subse- quently into the Navy. He accused the elder petitioner of having wickedly forged a case as the petitioner had himself accused Mr. Patrick of forging a letter and a bond. Evidence was given in support of the respondent's case. Mr. Skene, the Deputy-Clerk of the Court of Session, produced the docu- ments used in the suit in the Court of Session in 1848, among which were the depositions of the two witnesses named Barr and Neilson who have since died. These depositions were read. The statement of John Barr was to the effect that when he was a boy he was a clerk in the House of Shed- den and Co., of New York, and resided in the house of William Shedden, and that he afterwards joined a vessel belonging to the firm, and in the in- tervals between his voyages resided with William Shedden ; that in 1789 and in 1792, Ann Wilson was living in a house of her own at New York ; that William Shedden visited her there ; that she afterwards went to live at his house and remained there until he died, but that he never heard her addressed as his wife, and never saw her at his table; that she was reputed to be intimate with other men, both before and during her cohabi- tation with William Shedden ; and that soon after his death she married a person named Vincent. The other witness, Mr. Neilson, deposed that when he was a young man he lived with his father, a merchant in New York, and knew William Shedden, who was a man of -high character and standing ; that he always understood him to be an unmarried man, but he never remembered being inside his house. An officer of the House of Lords produced copies of the proceedings, and the judgments in the appeals of 1808 and 18o4. Mr. Love, who had been a clerk in Mr. Patrick's office from 1820 to 1826, proved that a list of documents purporting to have been delivered by Mr. Patrick to the petitioner in October, 1823, was in Mr. Patrick's writing, and that a copy of the list was in his own handwriting. He had no doubt from the endorsement upon it, that the copy was made in October, 1823. (Among other papers named in this list, was the letter of the 12th of November, 1798.) Mr. Graham, a Parliamentary solicitor, who had acted for the petitioners in the appeal of 1854, proved that they had borrowed a number of docu- ments in his custody, relating to the suit, and had given an honourable assur- ance that they should be returned. They also signed a si,guedareceipt for them. He had frequently asked for these documents, but Mr. and Miss Shedden refused to return them. The deposition of the Rev. W. Berrien, rector of Trinity Church, New York, was read. Be stated that marriage certificates were not usually asked for, but it was the practice to give them when they were wanted. As to baptisms he said he knew many instances in which they had taken place at privat:houses, andliad not been recorded. He also proved an entry in the register on the 7th of November, 1798, of a marriage between William Shedden and Ann Wilson.

The correspondence referred to by Mr. Bolt in his opening was then given in evidence. Among them was a letter written by Mr. Patrick to the peti- tioner in May, 1839, in which he vindicated the steps he had taken after William Shedden's death, and said that he had found the funds to de- fray the expenses of the suit instituted by Hugh Cmwfurd.

Mr. Collier replied on Monday and Tuesday, on the whole case. The Judges retired, but speedily returned to deliver judgment. The Judge Or- dinary, complimented Miss Shedden upon the ability she had displayed. The evidence by which the petitioners eudeavoured to establish the fact of the marriage was, he said, entirely evidence of habit and repute. No direct evidence was offered, but it was said that the evidence given was the best that could be procured after the lapse of seventy years. But the petitioners felt that they had to account for the circumstance that the marriage was private, or rather secret. It might not have been thought necessary to solemnize it in a church, or in the presence of a clergyman, but what ne- cessity was there for any seeresy in the matter ? The reason suggested was that the lady's father disapproved the match because of the disparity of age. It was also suggested that soon as they were married, they cohabited as man and wife, and lived together down to the time of William Shedden's death ; that they were received in society, and were visited by ladies, and visited them in return. But how strange, then, was the reason given for keeping the marriage secret ! Would the father be more reconciled to his daughter's cohabiting with William Shedden, because he did not know that she was married to him ? One of the strangest reasons that could be assigned for keeping a marriage secret, was that the parties were openly cohabiting RS man and wife. But the petitioner had not always been in the same story as to the reason for this privacy. In a remarkable letter written by the pe- titioner to William Patrick on the 14th of June, 1841, after he had had an angry controversy with William Patrick, and negotiations had passed be- tween them, as to some means of enabling him to attain the great object of his ambition—the possession of the Scotch property, he said that his sister had informed him, that their mother was a young person living with her parents on a small farm belonging to their father, and that their father did not acknowledge her marriage publicly, " on account of her humble birth." If this was true, what became of the reason now suggested for the privacy ? This letter was written by a man who .today by his counsel, and on former occasions had declared that until 1848 or 1849, he never had the slightest intimation of any marriage prior to the deathbed marriage between his father and his mother. That was not all. Be said in the same letter that his sister had told him in 1829, ten years before the letter was written, that a woman was then alive who was present at the private marriage. The dif- ferent reasons assigned at different times, for the privacy of the marriage, did not tend to increase the confidence of the Court in the evidence of habit and repute. The Court thought the marriage in 1798, intended to " re- store the honour and credit " of Mrs. Shedden and the children, was proof that something had been lost. " What then was the reason ? It was to make the children legitimate, and that ground had been alleged when it suited his purpose by the petitioner himself. That was the idea running all through the long letter of the 14th of June. In addition, there were the declarations of John Patrick and of William Patrick, of Virginia, to the same effect. He next came to the important letter of the 12th of November, 1798, and it was conceded that if that letter was genuine there must be an end of the petitioner's ease. What was the probability of such a letter having been written ? If there had been a previous marriage, it was ex- ceedingly improbable that the other members of the family in England and Scotland should have been ignorant of it, Mr. Shedden being looked up to as the head of the family and the owner of the old Roughwood property ; but it was very likely that they did not know that he had any children. But, assuming that he married for the purpose of making his children legi- timate, was it likely that, having appointed William Patrick the guardian of his son, he would write such a letter ? Was it not likely that he would give some instructions to the guardian and bespeak his kindness to the child. To what theory were the petitioners driven to make out that it was not written ? They had first to get rid of the letter of John Patrick of the 9th of November, and they therefore said it was artfully written to pave the way for his subsequent forgery of the letter of the 12th of November. John Patrick, in that letter, spoke of the deathbed marriage, and evidently sup- posed that it would be effectual to make the children legitimate. In the postscript, he added that the dying man had two important letters to write— one of them to William Patrick. There was then every reason to suppose that such a letter as that of the 12th of November would be written, and two copies of it, called a duplicate and a triplicate, were produced. On the duplicate was endorsed, Original per ship Fanny,' rather a curious concoc- tion if the letter purporting to be an original was fraudulent. Opposite the William Shedden,' at the bottom of the letter was the word, Signed,' the constant form of indicating in a copy that the signature was not an original, and by the side of it were the words Attested—John Mills.' If there was a fraud, John Mills most therefore have been a party to it, and they had evidence that John Mills was a person in the employment of William Shed- den' for it was so stated in the will, by which a legacy was left to him. On the triplicate was endorsed, Original by the Fanny, and duplicate by the- Amsterdam packet.' Was it not monstrous that without a surmise against the character of John Mills, without any motive being ascribed which should induce him to join in a conspiracy with John Patrick, he should be accused of bearing witness to a gross and abominable falsehood ? But there was tin. strongest internal evidence that the letter was genuine. The greater part of it consisted of a mere statement of truisms, and the whole pith of it lay in the word restore.' He said he bad just married Ann Wilson, which' re- stores her and two fine children to honour and credit,' the inference being that if she was to be restored to honour and credit she must previously have lost them. The letter of November, 1798, not being produced, what had become of it ? Mr. Patrick said that he gave it to William Shedden, and never got it back again. Two lists had been produced, dated the 7th of October, 1823, of documents purporting to have been given into the hands of William Shedden, and the clerk Love proved that, according to the course of business in the office, the list was made out, and he made a copy of it on that date. How came the list to be ena,:e out ? The petitioner had just returned from India, and Mrs. Patrick, finding that he was wholly ignorant of his family and his status, revealed to him the secret of his tirth. ; he became violent and angry, and entered into a violent controversy with ,Patrick, who sought to pacify him.. Imputations had been cast upon William Patrick for not disclosing to the- petitioner the secret of his birth, but it appeared to be for the advantage of the young man that he should not know it. It appeared that after the dis- cussion in 1823, certain papers were given him for perusal. Patrick said all in the list were given, but Shedden said not, and added that whatever papers he did receive were sent back again. Very possibly they were ; but then some papers were again returned to him before the 3d of January,. 1824, for on that day he wrote to Patrick, thanking him for his father's letter, and saying that he had never seen his father's writing before. This might be explained by supposing that in the previous October a copy only of the 12th of November had been sent for the mere purpose of showing the amount of the bills which it had enclosed, and that the contain- ing, perhaps, the last signature of his father,' as he described it, was not sent until January. John Patrick had, in 1798, said that the dying man had one letter' to write to William Patrick, and if William Patnck had in his possession a letter with his last signature, it must have been that letter. No reasonable man could doubt upon the evidence that Mr. Shedden re- ceived that letter in 1823. Mr. Shedden denied it ; but could they depend. on Mr. Shedden's evidence ? Mr. Shedden had denied that he had the slightest knowledge of any statement about his father's former marriage until 1849, whereas in his own letter he owned that his sister had told him in 1829, that a woman was then living who was present at it. If he the.n made no inquiries, it must have been because he was satisfied that it was a false story ; if he did make inquiries, what was their result ? It was not till twenty years or thereabouts from that time that he set up the former marriage. Could they trust him when he stated on his oath that he had never seen or heard of his father's letter until 1841? Again, he must refer to an expression in the letter of the 14th of June—' Only to think of your seeking for an American certificate when you had received my father's own letter telling you of his marriage with my mother ! ' Upon.. the whole of the evidence he was forced to conic to the conclusion that such a letter was written by the deceased, that it was given to the petitioner, and that the petitioner had not produced it. Was it. harsh to come to that con- elusion? How had the petitioner dealt with other papers ? Documents had been abstracted from the registry of the Scotch courts, documents had been obtained from his own Parliamentary agent on an assurance that they should be returned, and they never have been returned ; documents had been burnt in America through the instrumentality of Jean Shedden. Patrick and Crawfurd had been accused of entering into a fraudulent aim-- bination. A bond of 40001. which had been produced was said to be a. forgery, but no evidence had been given to raise a doubt that William, Redden' s signature to it was genuine. Under these circumstances, the impu- tations against William Patrick failing, there was not a particle of doubt in his mind as to where the truth of the case lay. I think, then, his lordship con- tinued, that in the first instance, the evidence in support of the petitioner's case is very flimsy ; that contradictory and conflicting reasons have been given to account for the secrecy of the supposed marriage, as it suited the purpose of the petitioner at different times; and that everything has hap- pened as in a true story it would have happened with reference to the death- oed marriage for the purpose of making the children legitimate, to the letter of the dying man concerning the guardianship of his son, and to the reason why that letter is not produced. Without the least hesitation, therefore, I must pronounce that Walter Patrick Ralston Shedden is not the legitimate son of William Shedden and his mother; and that he is not a natural born British subject." The J udge Ordinary severely condemned the conduct of the elder petitioner, for whom he had no sympathy. "For the female petitioner I do feel most deeply. I have no doubt she has been bred up in the belief of the truth of her father's story. From the intimate and familiar knowledge she has dis- played with every particle of evidence connected mediately or immediately with the case, I have no doubt that for years and years her mind has been devoted to its consideration ; I have no doubt that she has received her father's statements with the unhesitating confidence of a dutiful and affec- tionate child, until they have become interwoven with her very nature. What is to be the consequence to her of this judgment ? One of two things. If she is not convinced by it, she will live under the harassing sensation and conviction that she has sustained a grievous wrong, and is unable to obtain any redress. Such a position is said enough. But, if she is convinced by it, she will have to mourn and lament over a course of conduct which has em- bittered the last days of an aged man, who for a period far exceeding the ordinary limit of human life has lived honoured and respected, and with in- tegrity unimpeached; and she will feel that she has been instrumental in submitting him to a relentless persecution, carried on by means of unfounded aspersions and most unjustifiable litigation." Justices Wightman and Wil- liams expressed their entire and unhesitating concurrence in the decision of the Judge Ordinary. The Court granted costs to the respondents. Applica- tions were made by the learned counsel on both sides with respect to the documents, the respondents desiring that they might be returned to their respective owners, and the petitioners that they might be kept in the cus- tody of the Court until copies of them could be taken. The Court directed that the usual course should be followed, and the documents returned to the parties who had produced them, or who had established that they were en- titled to their custody. Mr. Collier said he was desired by Miss Shedden to move that the bond for 40001. might be impounded. His Lordship said there was no pretence for suggesting that it was a forgery, and refused the application. The case has occupied the exclusive attention of the Court for fourteen days.

The Road murder was almost fully discussed in the Queen's Bench on Saturday, upon the Attorney-General's application to quash the finding of the Coroner's inquest for informality and indiscreet haste. A rule was granted, calling upon the Coroner to show cause why the verdict should not be quashed, and a writ of ad melius inquirendum, which would create a special commission, issued. The grounds alleged were, that the Coroner told the Jury it was not their duty to inquire for the murderer, that would be done by the magistrates, and that he at first declined, and only afterwards hastily examined some of the family of Mr. Kent. The conclusive ground against the validity of the inquest is that the proceedings were recorded on paper and not on parchment, as required by law.

An attempt was made on Friday week, to strike a Mr. Daniels, an attor- ney, off the rolls. There were two grounds alleged ; 1st, that he had not duly served his articles; 2d, that he had been guilty of fraudulent conduct before his admission. The case had been referred to Master Turner, whose report was read. Mr. Daniels had served his articles at Amersham, but his principal resided twelve miles off, at Marlow. He- had purchased property value 4501., and two policies for 800/., although he knew the person whose life was insured was dead, for 10001. The Court decided that it had no power to notice what an attorney had done before his admission ; if it had occured after admission, it would have been visited with censure and punish- ment. The rule nisi was discharged with costs.

Losses upon speculative time bargains cannot be proved as debts in the Court of Bankruptcy. Mr. Morgan, a member of the Stock Exchange, ob- tained advances of full value upon foreign securities at the date of the ad- vance. The securities fell, and the lenders sought to prove for the diffe- rence, 1761. 88. 9d. Mr. Commissioner Fane held that the transactions were gambling, and rejected the proof. But the Lords Justices on appeal, on Saturday, decided that the transactions were legitimate, because there had been an actual advance which had been continued from time to time, and ordered the proof to be received.

The Court of Common Pleas decided on Monday that the the estate of the late Mr. Shadwell was bound to pay the 1.50/. a year to his nephew, the revising barrister, whose income was to reach 600 guineas a year before the annuity ceased.

The Court of Exchequer was equally divided in opinion as to the writ of habeas corpus, to bring up William Thompson, the prisoner summarily con- victed of an assault upon a woman. The motion, therefore, falls to the ground.

Mr. Bourcicault, the well-known author and actor, moved in Vice-Chan- cellor Wood's court for a perpetual injunction, restraining Mr. Egan from performing in Manchester the second scene of the third act of Colleen Baten, now performing at the New Adelphi Theatre, London. Last week, an in- terim order was granted. The defendant submitted to the injunction, and was willing to do what was right. The Vice-Chancellor decreed a perpetual injunction.

Mr. Elliott was ordered by Vice-Chancellor Wood not to work the coal underneath the Victoria Bridge over the river Wear, now belonging to the North Eastern Railway Company, or draw off water therefrom. Mr. Elliott appealed, on Saturday, to the Lord-Chancellor, who confirmed the decision.

A commission-agent cannot have double commissions—one from each party. But the Master of the Rolls, on Saturday, held in Holden versus Webber, that where a practice prevailed, of which one party had notice, he could not come to complain that his agent had received a commission from a contractor for railway works.

Messrs. Streatfeild, Laurence, and Mortimore, of London, and Laurence, Mortimore, and Co., of Liverpool, applied for certificates at the Court of Bankruptcy on Wednesday. Assignees and creditors opposed on general and independent grounds. Mr. Laurence, one of the bankrupts, was examined at great length, as to the transactions of his firms with parties in the leather trade—Baker, Mundy, Smith, Patient, and Smith, Gibson, J. Herbert Smith and Co., Clark, Draper, Hacker, Waring, Mortimer of Chippenham, and Mortimer of Andover, Ryder of Paris, and Schrader of Glasgow, all houses either bankrupts or who have offered compositions. Streatfeild and Co. made advances for these houses, and are now liable upon bills bearing their names. "They discounted with the Bank of England, Bolitho and

Co., London Joint Stock Company, National Discount Company, City Bank, Currie and Co. and other houses. When they had a large amount of bills they did not dace them all with one discount house. He could not tell the largest amount of bills he discounted with one house in a week. It might be 40001. or 6000/. None of the firms ever complained of the amount of paper placed with them. The rate of discount was generally the Bank mini- mum for bills at three months, and a quarter to half per cent for bills above. They charged 6 per cent, and the difference was their profit. The country tanners consigned goods for sale." He had also dis- counted with various other parties. The applications in some cases came from the banks themselves, including country bankers. They asked for bills, and he obliged them with some. Up to the last mo- ment they were hi the highest credit in the city of London. A number of bills had been created by drawers and accepted for the purpose of meeting former liabilities. He considered them trade bills. The bills discounted with the London Joint-Stock Bank for the last fifteen years were of that description. He knew that but for the assistance rendered to many firms, they must have stopped ; but even then they might have had ample means to meet their liabilities. Since the panic of 1857 he was not aware the paper of several houses was increasing and the business diminishing. It was so with the case of Smith, Patient, and Smith, but not generally. He was present at the meeting held on the 2d of July to discuss their affairs, when representatives of the London Joint-Stock Bank, the Bank of London, National Discount Company, and Overend, Gurney, and Co., were there. The assistance rendered to other houses was no doubt discussed. He had no recollection of telling them that but for the assistance rendered to other houses many of them must have come down years ago. He did not know he said that but for his financial ingenuity the house of Streatfeild must have come down years before. He might have said something. He did not consider he was bolstering other houses up."

Mr. Thomas, the bankrupts' book-keeper, was also examined as a witness. i

He explained an entry by way of transfer n the books from the account of Smith, Patient, and Smith, to "the executors of Mr. Smith," which had no real existence as an account ; it "was made for a purpose." " Any person referring to the accounts would see that a sum of 60,000/. had been written off Smith, Patient, and Smith's account. Any clerk could see by the books that instead of Smith, Patient, and Co. being debtors for 73,000/. they were debtors for 23,0001. He and Mr, Laurence had agreed that the 50,0001. should be thus transferred. He believed he himself sug- gested 50,0001. as the amount to be entered in the book as transferred. He knew some of the debtors to the Liverpool firm. They included the follow- ing, their present positions being given : Thomas Barton and Son.—Had made some arrangement with their creditors. Clarke, R. and J.—Bank- rupts. Esseray.—Made some arrangement. Gibson.—Bankrupt. Lafour. —Made some arrangement. Waring.—Arrangement. The witness pro- ceeded to state that Thomas Barton and Son's indebtedness had been as fol- lows—January 1st, 1857, 45,0001.; January 1st, 1858, 100,3491.; January 1st, 1859, 116,0931.; January 1st, 1860, 97,6771.; at the time of bankruptcy, 92,443/. Bartons were large tanners of Liverpool. It was the practice to assist them with money when they required it. As regarded Waring, Clarke, and several other accounts, they had stood indebted on the aggre- gate thus—January, 1858, 132,0001.; • January, 1859, 169,000!.; January, 1860, 140,000/. ; time of bankruptcy, 125,0001."

Mr. Thomas being questioned as to " assistance " given to other houses, said he "believed that if Laurence and Co. had not assisted Smith and Co., the latter would have been brought down, and this would probably have brought them down also. It might have done so. Believed that Mr. Lau- rence had not said that they could not decrease Smith and Co.'s account and keep their position. From January, 1859, the bankrupts were continually assisting Smith and Co. to meet their bills. Mr. Laurence had said that it would not do for him to take too many of Smith's bills to the same bank. From what Mr. Laurence told him he believed Gibson's bankers (Messrs. Me)lersh, of Godalming), wanted to reduce that account. That was rather a difficult thing, because Gibson's liabilities were large. He thought it strange that Messrs. Mellersh should want security from Streatfeild and Co. for Gibson's debt to them. Bank-notes might have been taken three or four times to Jones, Lloyd, and Co., for the purpose of being placed to Gib- son's credit. He could not say that money was paid in in a fictitious name, though it was paid in in a wrong name." Mr. Linklater—" Well ; tell us all you know about it." The Witness—" Money was paid in to Gibson's credit in the name of Henderson.'" Mr. Linklater—" In what other name ?" "I can't give you any other names. I paid in money myself in the name ofHen- derson ' so that I can speak to that name. Mr. Laurence suggested that it should paid into the bank in some other name, and I suggested Henderson." Mr. Linklater—" The suggestion that the name of Henderson should be used came from you ? " "Yes." Mr. Linklater—" What was the object of that mode of proceeding ?" " Because we did not wish Mellersh and Co. to know that we were providing Gibson with funds." Mr. Linklater- " Or, perhaps, because you wished Mellersh and Co. to believe that Gibson was able to meet his bill?" "Because we did not wish Mellersh and Co. to know that we were assisting Gibson." Mr. Linklater—" I suppose that you from your position, have become acquainted with the various ways of keeping the ball rolling ? " "Well, having been connected with the house of Streatfeild and Co. for so long, I have had some experience of course, though I do not accept your term of keeping the ball rolling.' " Mr. Linklater—" What I mean is, that you were cognizant of the different modes of raising the wind ?' " "I can't agree with that term either." Mr. Linklater—" We will say, then, quelling the storm ? ' " The Witness (smiling) said, he "hardly thought that a proper expression." The meet- ing was adjourned until Wednesday.

At the Central Criminal Court, yesterday, Mr. Andrew Steinmitz, a bar- rister, was charged with "having sent a certain letter to one Julius Eicke, containing menaces, and demanding the restoration of a certain valuable document, without reasonable or probable cause." Mr. Steinmetz was anxious to be a captain of Volunteers ; Mr. Eicke was ready to get up a corps, provided Mr. Steinmetz would pay for the equipment of two hundred men at 3/. 108. each. The agreement was made, but Mr. Steinmetz thought that the men ought to repay his advances ; Mr. Eicke replied that that could not be acceded to ; and Mr. Steinmetz wrote him the letter com- plained of. The letter .was dated the 27th of July, and contained the fol- lowing passages-

Sir—if wiLli in twenty-four hours you do not retract the letter you wrote to me yesterday, and also return the paper which you obtained from me by surprise and linfairly, I will bring the whole affair before the Lord-Lieutenant. For the public benefit, and that of the Volunteer movement, it is very necessary that this sus- picion' matter should he sifted to the bottom. You admitted, yesterday, that your brother was the Lieutenant Eicke of the sale of commissions affair, and now another member of the same family appears to be trying his hand at the Volunteer move- ment." The letter also contained a statement that the prosecutor had calumniated Lord Brougham and his brother, and also the Earl of Jersey, and some other matters ; but the extract above given was the portion relied upon to sup- port the indictment. The Jury immediately found a verdict of "Not guilty."

Emma Padfield was indicted and tried for the murder of her Child on

Wednesday. The circumstances are still fresh in public recollection. In one indictment the child was called William Augustus Padfield, in anothet William Augustus Bryant; the last surname being that of the putative father of the child. The prisoner admitted to a fellow servant that she gave the child poison, and kept it on her knees till it died. To the In- spector who arrested her she said, "I have been in great distress ; I have often wanted even bread." Frederick Bryant, a young man of eighteen, the father of the child, was called as a witness he gave evidence in a very offhand manner, denying at first that he had promised to maintain the child. Two letters signed "Thomas Wright," were put into his hands' he admitted them to be his, and they contained promises and remittances. Mr. Gay, a surgeon, proved that death was the result of suffocation. He found no trace of poison in the body. The Jury found a verdict of Guilty, but recommended the prisoner to mercy on four grounds; her seduction- poverty—mental anguish—and previous good character. Mr. Baron Bram- well, with considerable emotion, passed sentence of death, promising to for- ward the Jury's recommendation to the groper quarter, where it will "re- ceive the most careful and anxious attention."

The guardians of the Shoreditch Union, should look into the administra- tion of their workhouse. No less than four eases were before Mr. Barker at Worship Street Police office last week—three of them refusals to admit destitute persons into the house' and one of assault preferred by an inmate against the master, who she had alleged had struck her. The three persons, were sent to the workhouse with an officer, and the assault was remanded, to allow for the production of two of the inmates as witnesses.

Another case, still more serious, has terminated in the verdict of a coroner's jury, finding that Thomas Bates, aged sixty-two, committed suicide by hang- ing himself after having been refused admission to the workhouse. He had been very infirm, and unable to work, but still he earned 3d. or 4d. a day, and his children sometimes gave him halfpence. He had been an inmate of the workhouse in October, 1859, and was an inmate of the sick ward, but was discharged as "relieved " : the board ordered him la. a week, and a 41b. loaf. The surgeon says, he was not in a fit condition to leave the house; the clerk to the board admits that Bates was ordered to leave the house. (It is such workhouses as Shoreditch, which render necessary and constitute the only argument in favour of centralization.] A statement made by Mr. Potter, Deputy-Chairman of the West London Union, that the City Magistrates refused to hear evidence and to " re- move " Irish paupers, was denied at the Guildhall police court on Saturday by Alderman Salomons and Alderman Copeland. The statement was made to the Parliamentary Committee on the "Irremoveable Poor." Both alder- men say that they made the orders for removal whenever the evidence es- tablished an Irish settlement, and they would have noticed the statement before if it had not been told to them that the evidence was not at all satis- factory to the Committee.

Ellen Archer, a person who figured rather notoriously some time ago in an action for the recovery of a diamond ring, was committed for trial on Wednesday, to answer a charge of bigamy. Her first husband has been ound at the Australian diggings, and brought home by the second, who fwishes to rid himself of a wife ingenious enough to spend 6000/. out of his fortune of 13,000/. in a very short time.

An inquiry was commenced on Friday week, before Mr. Traill and Cap- tain Harris at Greenwich, into the loss of the steamer Connaught.

Kilburn Church, Maida Hill, was destroyed by fire on Thursday night week. The services of the London Brigade were not of much avail, as the church and contents were soon destroyed. The cause is unknown.

On Thursday evening a mysterious fire occurred at Messrs. Norman and Medealrs, Brooke's Market, Holborn. The foreman wad the last to leave the premises' after seeing that the gas was turned off at the meter ; he had some trouble to lock the front door, the lock having been tampered with. A quarter of an hour after he had gone flames were discovered. A suspicion exists that the fire was caused by some men, in revenge, two of their com- rades having been sent to prison for attempting to enter the premises.

On Monday evening, Mr. Stiller, one of the principal messengers of the War Office, Pall Mall, committed suicide by hanging. A messenger, named Grey, holding a similar position, destroyed himself in the adjoining room in March last.