give him a shilling or a half-crown. That Mr. Wall gave the policeman a shilling, there was no doubt; and was it not probable, that the man, taking advantage of that circumstance, made some observation which induced Mr. Wall to give him, what he considered, to be a sovereign? It was not till he discovered that it was only a shilling that he again laid hold of him. Mr. Wall would have given anything, so would any one, if similarly circumstanced, rather than have such a charge made, unless, indeed, they had had sufficient courage to turn the tables upon the party, and to have attacked and punished him. Here was a member of Parliament going out of the House of Commons at a late hour at night to take the fresh air, having, all at once, a passion for a policeman-a stranger whom he had never seen before, and bestowing upon him a shilling. Such was the story of the policeman, who would have the jury to believe that he did not know what Mr. Baring Wall meant when he squeezed his hand and gave him the shilling. Was the story probable?

The

man admitted, that he looked at the shilling, that afterwards a halfcrown was put into his hand, and that then the indecencies in question were committed. After this he said, "B― you, do you take me for a, or what?" That was his own language; there the jury heard him speaking in his own character. Hear what Mr. Baring Wall said. He said, that he found, on being taken to the watch-house, that he had given a shilling to the policeman, whereas he thought he had given him a sovereign to let him go. He asked the jury whether, taking the story as told by the policeman, and judging of the prob

ability of it from their own understanding, this was not the basest of charges? Was it not probable, that the policeman made use of some gesture and some exclamation, which so alarmed Mr. Wall that he gave him half-a-crown; and when the policeman laid hold of him, he gave him what he thought to be a sovereign, but which turned out to be a shilling? Was it not probable, that the policeman had ascertained the value of the coin-had found it was only a shilling instead of a sovereign, before he took Mr. Wall to the watch-house? The prosecutor stated at the police-office, that Mr. Wall asked him if he belonged to the Guards. He stated this, although Mr. Wall must have seen, from the uniform, that he was not a soldier. The policeman was aware of this inconsistency afterwards, and, in his evidence to-day, he said, that Mr. Wall asked him what regiment he had belonged to. When Mr. Wall was taken to the station-house, what could have been easier than for him to have denied every statement made by the policeman? He might have said, that the policeman wished to rob him; that he had thrust his hand into his pocket and taken the half-crown by force, and that, when he (Mr. Wall) called out, then, to screen himself, the policeman took him into custody. What would have been easier than that? But Mr. Wall was a man of such strict morality, and had such a regard to truth, that he at once told the whole truth, and declared that he had given money to escape. When the jury heard the character of Mr. Wall-when they heard the evidence of gentlemen of all parties and of all ranks, who would speak to his demeanour and to his cha

racter, they would be convinced, that the charge was so improbable that they would feel it to be a duty and a satisfaction to them to return a verdict of acquittal. He would call their attention to Mr. Wall's character, even from his boyhood. It would be proved that he never had been heard to utter a blasphemous or immoral word of any kind; and yet the policeman would have them to believe, that Mr. Wall burst out, all at once, with the most disgraceful language, and that, too, at a time when he was not even labouring under any influence, being perfectly sober. The jury would find, by the evidence, that there was not a more fastidious man than Mr. Wall with regard to his person, never allow ing even his servant to be in the room when he was washing, and being always remarkable for chasteness of feeling. Mr. Wall had been always noted for decency, propriety of behaviour, and reserved habits; and his education was such as to imbue him with the feelings of religion and morality. If Mr. Wall should be convicted after the jury had heard the evidence he should adduce, no man would be safe from such a charge- no man who walked the streets at twelve o'clock at night could secure himself from the designs of a policeman. Mr. Wall was a man well known-his friends were firmly attached to him-his mauners were dignified-his language, of all men, the furthest from anything improper, blasphemous, or seditious. Did they be. lieve it possible that a man like Mr. Wall, for the first time in his life, should be betrayed into the gratification of an unnatural propensity at that hour of the morning, with a total stranger, in a

public street, accompanied by lan guage and acts which would be a proof of the most abandoned habits and long systematic vice? He could conceive such language to have been used only by a man who had been long accustomed to disregard religion. A man who had long been leading a life of vice and unnatural habits would hardly have been so abandoned, so confident of security, as, at such a time, in the middle of the street, to place himself in hazard with a stranger. But, that a man who had never in his life been heard to utter an oath

who was of the most religious habits-who, in his demeanour to servants and friends, was particular in his language and conduct-that such a man should, all at once, for the first time in his life, conceive a desire of making an attack on a police-officer at midnight, and accompany that attack by such language, was utterly incredible.

The rev. Arundel Bouverie was then called. He had known Mr. B. Wall for upwards of 20 years. Had been at Eton with him and afterwards at Oxford, and from that time had been intimate with him. He believed, that he had as high a character for morality and religion as any man in England. His conversation was strictly in accordance with that character, and he had never heard him make use of a single blasphemous or low expression.

Dr. Pearson, dean of Salisbury, had been acquainted with Mr. Wall upwards of 26 years. Mr. Wall had been a private pupil of his before he went to Eton. Knew him there and at Oxford, and afterwards accompanied him abroad on his travels. His conduct during the whole time he had known him had been most gentlemanly and

uniformly correct. Never heard him, upon any occasion, use oaths or blasphemous language.

Viscount Morpeth said he had known Mr. Wall for 12 years, and during that time his conduct had not only been correct and gentlemanly, but he always considered him as being possessed of a most peculiarly decorous and refined mind.

Smith, esq., stated, that he had known the defendant since they were children. He was rather fastidious than otherwise. There was nothing would have surprised witness more than any impropriety of language from him.

William Warner had lived in the service of the defendant for 13 years. Had left it little better than three years. Was butler and valet to the defendant, and had travelled with him abroad. Was in the habit of always attending him to dress. He was always as decent as it was possible for a gentleman to be. Was never admitted into his room while he was dressing. His language was always gentlemanly. Never heard him swear in his life. Never heard him use any irreligious language, or anything bordering on it.

The earl of Darnley was at Eton with Mr. Wall. Had known him intimately since. He had always borne the highest character for morality, delicacy, and propriety of language; never heard him make use of obscene or vulgar language; should not think him capable of making use of such language.

Lord Auckland stated, that for the last 15 years he had been in habits of great intimacy with the defendant. Knew few men more observant of propriety in conduct and language. Had seen him in

warmth of temper, when he might have forgotten himself, but never heard a low, blasphemous, or ob scene expression fall from his lips.

Edward Farrell succeeded Warner in his situation of butler and valet to Mr. Wall. Had every opportunity of forming a judgment of Mr. Wall's character. Never heard him use the slightest expression bordering on immorality or irreligion. Considered him the last man in England against whom such a charge could have been brought. When dressing he was remarkably shy.

Sir Thomas Baring, the defendant's uncle, Mr. William Gutch, apothecary at Broughton, near the defendant's country residence, Mr. Alexander Baring, another uncle of the defendant, Mr. H. Labouchere, Mr. W. Lascelles, the hon. Mr. Ponsonby, Lord Eliot, and Messrs. J. Calcraft, Sturt, J. E. Denison, and Sloane Stanley, gave similar testimony.

Lord Sandon was called; and sir J. Scarlett said he had several other noblemen and gentlemen to speak to the character and habits of Mr. Wall, but he thought it unnecessary to call them.

The Lord Chief Justice was about to sum up the evidence, when the jury intimated that they thought it unnecessary to trouble his Lordship. They then turned round for a minute or two, and returned a verdict of Not Guilty. The verdict having been recorded, one of the jurymen said the jury were of opinion that the defendant's character was entirely spotless.

OLD BAILEY, JUNE 4. The Calthorpe-Street Murder. George Fursey was placed at the bar, charged with stabbing John

Brook, a police-constable, in Calthorpe-street, on the 13th of May, with intent to do him some grievous bodily harm. [See Chronicle, p. 82.7

The prisoner, who on his apprehension was very meanly dressed, appeared now in a good suit of clothes, and had altogether a respectable appearance.

John Brook. I am serjeantmajor in the Lincoln Militia, and was appointed on the 4th of June. I had been upwards of 12 months in the C division of police. On the 13th of May I was called out about 12 o'clock. We went from St. James's watch house to the riding-school in Gray's-inn-lane. We got to the riding-school about 2 o'clock, and remained there about an hour. I was then ordered to march in the right sub-division. There were about 40 men in that sub-division. We marched round Gray's-inn-lane into Calthorpestreet, where I saw a vast number of people coming apparently from the fields at the other end of the street. There were several hundreds, the streets being full of them. About the centre of the street I saw a person with a banner furled up in his left hand. I saw him some paces before he got where I was. The banner appeared a sort of American banner-white and red. The prisoner was the person who carried the banner. When he came in the centre of the street where I was, he raised his right hand, and struck me in the sixth rib on the left side. Before then I had done nothing. I had never raised my staff, nor struck any one, nor saw anybody else attempt to do so. I only commanded the sub-division. The blow was with the right hand, and the instrument was something like

a dagger, about seven or eight inches long. The hilt of it was brass. After I had received the blow I retired back two or three paces. I then looked particularly at the prisoner, and saw an instrument like a dagger in his right hand. My wound was a very severe one, and I was obliged to leave the division. A constable named Redwood, who was on my left, ran towards the prisoner, and I saw him and the prisoner and other constables scuffling. I went towards the fields, and met a sergeant, who took me to a doctor to have my wound dressed. It bled very much. It was eight or nine days before I was able to go about. When the wound was probed, it was found that the dagger had struck the sixth rib.

Cross-examined.

After I was stabbed, I saw the prisoner in a stable or coach-house. I did not then say "That's the man, because he carried the death and liberty flag." Did not hear any other person say so. There were 50 or 60 persons in that stable or coachhouse, but not all policemen. When I got in, the prisoner was called forward by name, and I identified him. That was an hour and a half or two hours after I was stabbed. I don't recollect seeing any wounded men in the stable. The prisoner was bleeding at the side of the face, but I saw no wound. I did not see that his head was bandaged. I did not perceive that he had been violently treated.

Re-examined.—I was 25 years in the 1st Grenadier Guards. I was at the battle of Waterloo.

By Mr. Justice James Parke-I observed no one try to take the flag before I was struck. I did not try to take it.

Henry Charles Redwood.-Was a police-constable of the C division on the 13th of May. The last witness was my sergeant. When we got into Calthorpe street we found a mob of people coming from the fields, and saw a flag, which I have now to produce, carried by the prisoner. [The flag was produced. It was a red and white striped flag, with stars in one corner, and a blue ground.] The prisoner carried the flag furled in his left hand. He came from the right-hand corner of Calthorpestreet, and I left my rank to get the colours from the prisoner; and while doing so, Brook said "Hold." That was before I got to the prisoner. Brook was in front of the prisoner, and then the prisoner passed Brook. I lost sight of Brook, but kept my attention on the prisoner. I then went up to him and demanded the colours. He refused to deliver them, and I said I would take them from him; I seized the flag with both hands, and at that moment he raised his right hand, in which I saw a blade, terminating in a point, about six or eight inches in length. I then struck him with my staff for my safety. Before I struck him I raised up my left arm to ward off the blow, and I received a stab in the arm. I struck him somewhere on the head, and then collared him and took him into custody. The wound I reIceived was a three-sided one.

Mr. Clarkson objected to this evidence, as it was the subject of another charge.

Their Lordships overruled the objection.

Witness.-The instrument was afterwards found in the stable. When I took him into custody, I delivered him over to Holland and VOL. LXXV.

Compton, of the C division, and they took him away.

Mr. Phillips objected to the admission of evidence respecting the nature of the witness's wound, in aggravation of this case, because it was the subject of another indictment.

The Solicitor-General contended that it was evidence in this case, merely to show the prisoner to be in possession of some instrument, and not to put the witness's wound as a part of this case.

Their Lordships admitted the evidence, but took a note of the objection.

James Compton.-I belong to the C division. On the 13th of May I was close to Redwood. I did not see him stabbed. I heard him say he was stabbed. He had then hold of the prisoner. He called for assistance, and myself and another officer took hold of the prisoner and conveyed him to Burbidge's stables.

Cross-examined.-There was a scuffle between Redwood and the prisoner, but I cannot say what followed. There were scuffles in different parts of the streets. The scuffle was between the police and the people. The police were trying to disperse the people. I cannot say how the police were trying to disperse the people, more than that they were telling them to go away. Certainly there were blows struck on both sides. There were stones thrown. I saw a man with a short stick loaded with lead. I saw one man hit with this. I saw it afterwards in the stable. Before I went into the stable, I saw a scuffle between the police and the people. I saw four or five sticks and staves. I cannot say whether the police struck right and left. I saw the police strike. When we Y