« AnteriorContinuar »
entrée, passed into the reception-rooms at one o'clock, and for two hours subsequently there was a continuous succession of arrivals, until all the saloons and the approaches thereto were densely crowded by a brilliant company. At three o'clock the crush at the entrance was so great that orders were issued not to allow any more carriages to enter the palace quadrangle. The rank at this time extended up St. James's-street and Albemarle-street, far into New Bond-street. It was nearly four o'clock when carriages ceased to set down company; and the evening had closed in before the later arrivals had taken their departure. The Prince of Wales returned to Buckingham Palace at five o'clock, again receiving the acclamations of a great concourse of spectators on his way through the Park. — AN ExTRAoRDINARY IMPOSTOR.—Early in the month of January, a woman was found in an unconscious state on the arrival of a train at Strood at night from London-bridge. Restoratives were applied, but no motion of the heart was discovered, and Dr. Brown, pronouncing the woman a corpse, recommended her removal to the dead-house. Two surgeons (Mr. Steele and Mr. Langstone) were sent for, and when the latter had continued his efforts to restore animation for two hours, returning consciousness was perceived, and the woman was ultimately removed to the Strood workhouse, when she said that her name was Bell, that she had come from the United States to visit her father in Glasgow, and was proceeding thence to Chatham to visit her brother, who was a soldier, when, in the railway carriage, a respectably dressed woman first drugged her, then robbed her of 30s., her muff and shawl, and escaped in the confusion at Strood station. The station-master at Strood gave her a free pass back to London and 5l. A few weeks afterwards the sequel of the story was told to the magistrates at Wolverhampton, before whom the woman was denounced as an impostor. Froin London it appears she made her way to Birmingham, where she feigned illness, also at the railway station (New-street); was removed to Coventry, where she said she had friends; was driven round the city during an hour, in a vain attempt to find those friends, and was returned to Birmingham. On the evening of the 10th she was found again insensible on the floor of a third-class carriage at Wolverhampton, and was removed to the Southampton Hospital in that town. Here she was recognized by the house surgeon, who had removed from Shrewsbury Hospital to Wolverhampton, as a woman whom he had cupped and blistered in Shrewsbury some months ago, she having arrived there also in a state of unconsciousness, and, on recovering, having stated that she had been given poison in the train. The house surgeon accordingly informed the police of the character of his patient. From inquiries made it would seem that the woman has on many occasions since March, 1862, feigned “unconsciousness.” At Welshpool, at Newtown, and at Montgomery, in that month, she had been found in the street insensible—in the latter case making a serious charge against three young men who had discovered her. They were taken into custody, but ultimately discharged. Subsequently, a woman answering to her description was found on a railway-bridge near Oswestry, with marks of violence on her throat, and a man, in whose company she had been seen, was taken into custody for attempting to strangle her, but the violence proved to have been self-inflicted. In a few days afterwards she was found in the train at Shrewsbury, as already stated, where, it appears, she also feigned consumption, spitting blood, which she obtained from her arm by biting and pricking it. On the 15th of January of this year we again find her in London, under the name of Harriet Bell. On that night she was found by a porter, on the arrival of a train at Paddington, “in a state of insensibility.” It was supposed that she had taken poison, and she was removed to St. Mary’s Hospital, Paddington. The usual remedies for poison were applied. On recovering, she pretended that she could not speak English, but only Welsh. A Welsh railway porter was sent for, to ascertain what she had taken. She said she was on her way from Glasgow to Chatham, to her brothers, who were soldiers; that while in the train, a man, by sheer dint of superior strength, overcame her and committed an offence upon her person. He then gave her some wine and spirits, and while she was insensible robbed her of 11.10s. Before she was released she could speak English. Then came her last appearance at Strood, Birmingham, and Wolverhampton, on which she was now charged as a vagrant. The magistrates sentenced her to three months' imprisonment. 27. THE CASE of PUSEY AND OTHERs v. Jowett.—(Oxford: Chancellor's Court.)—In this case, which was a proceeding instituted by the Rev. Dr. Pusey and two other Doctors of Divinity in Oxford, against the Rev. Francis Jowett, Professor of Greek in the University, for heresy contained in certain of his published writings, and in which the defendant had taken objection to the jurisdiction of the Court, the learned Assessor, Montague Bernard, Esq., after hearing the case fully argued, delivered his judgment. He commenced by recapitulating the proceedings taken in the suit up to the present moment, when he was called upon to decide whether the Court had jurisdiction or no in the matter. He read most of the citation, and observed that the only objection made to it was that it was too vague, because it stated that the act complained of was committed “in Oxford and elsewhere.” He decided against this objection, on the ground that, if the specification of a place was needed, the mention of Oxford was a sufficient specification. He then proceeded to deal with the question of jurisdiction, premising that he did not think himself bound to confine his view to the arguments which had been addressed to him, or to the grounds stated in the protest. The defendant's proctor founded his protest on three grounds. He held that the Court had no jurisdiction in matters mere spiritualia, and that heresy was a spiritual matter; that the Court was unfit to do justice to the case; and, lastly, that it had no power over a Regius Professor. He would take first the constitution and procedure of the Court. He thought it would be granted that the University ought to have a power to correct violations of its statutes, and that this power should be so exercised that every accused person might be heard, and that the ViceChancellor might have the assistance of a person not unacquainted with the duties of a judge and the principles of English law. The procedure in this Court would be substantially the same as that of the Court of Arches. Each party might be heard by counsel. If the judge erred—and he was quite sensible that he had neither the learning nor the authority to decide such a case satisfactorily —he might be set right by the Queen's Bench, or by an appeal to the Privy Council. He was of opinion that the promoters were not to blame for resorting to this Court, which was the only Court open to them, and that he was not precluded by its defective constitution or procedure from entertaining their complaint. He came now to the objection founded on Mr. j. being a Regius Professor. Having stated the extraordinary nature of the claim made to complete exemption from University law on the part of such
ersons, he decided against the protest on this point, holding that
rofessor Jowett's office was not a bar to his being cited to appear in this suit. He then approached the main question, with respect to the nature of the offence charged. Unless the citation alleged an offence with which he had the power to deal—a breach of some law which he was authorized to enforce—the suit fell to the ground. The Court had to enforce two bodies of law—the general law of the land and the particular laws of the University. It might be argued that Professor Jowett was charged with an offence against the ecclesiastical law, which was part of the law of the land; but, if so, this was an offence which, as such, he had no power to punish. The Church Discipline Act showed clearly that he had no jurisdiction. The question remained whether this was an offence against the statutes, and, if so, an offence with which he had authority to deal. After deciding that the fact of the offence charged being in one point of view an ecclesiastical offence did not preclude him from punishing it, if it were also an offence against the statutes, the learned Assessor proceeded to examine the University statute-book. There were three statutes which might be thought to apply to the case, that on the subject of tutors, that on professors, and that on the powers of the Vice-Chancellor. He held that the first of these might apply to such a case, but that in the present instance it would be improper to apply it, as no complaint had been made by the College, and there were no grounds to suspect collusion. The second, he thought, did not apply at all, as it was only intended to restrain the teaching of professors in their professorial character and in their dealings with their pupils. The third statute—that on the powers of the Vice-Chancellor—was very vague in its terms. It might empower him to judge this case, and therefore he could not allow the protest, which * denied his jurisdiction; but
he thought it left him a discretionary power, and in the exercise of this power he declined to go forward with the case. He should not call on the promoters to exhibit articles. It confirmed him in this exercise of his discretion to find that there appeared by the archives to have been only one case since the year 1600, when a trial for heresy had taken place in this Court. That was a trial for a blasphemous libel, which was an offence against the common law. He had the less reluctance in deciding as he had done, because, if he was wrong, there was a ready remedy, and he would be set right by a higher tribunal. His judgment was that the protest was disallowed, but the case would not be permitted to be carried further. Mr. Digby Latimer, on the part of the promoters, gave notice of appeal. Mr. Pottinger applied for the costs of the defence. The Assessor refused the application. The appeal was afterwards abandoned.
7. RECEPTION OF THE PRINCEss ALEXANDRA of DENMARK.— For several months it had been known that a marriage was in contemplation between His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales and the Princess Alexandra of Denmark; the preliminaries were settled during the visit to the Continent paid by Her Majesty in the autumn of 1862, and in consequence the Princess became for a short time the guest of the Queen at Osborne in November. The Princess, who was born December 1, 1844, is the eldest daughter of Prince Christian of Denmark (of the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderbourg-Glücksbourg), by the Princess Louisa, the daughter of the Landgrave William of Hesse; her names are, Alexandra Caroline Maria Charlotte Louisa Julia. Her father was at this time, in virtue of the hereditary law of July 31st, 1853, heir-presumptive to the throne of Denmark, and also commanderin-chief of the Danish cavalry. In the month of February of the present year, the marriage treaty having been concluded, both the King and people of Denmark expressed their satisfaction by making valuable presents to the Princess, the King himself bestowing on her, among other gifts, a diamond necklace, to which is appended a fac-simile of the famous Dagmar cross, and the Princess expressing her sense of the affection shown to her on leaving her home by bestowing a sum of 3000 thalers, to be oned as dowry among six brides belonging to the poorer Classes,
The departure of the Princess from Copenhagen took place on the 26th of February, when all the houses from the ...] palace to the railway station were adorned with garlands and hangings, and decorated with English and Scandinavian flags, and immense crowds thronged the streets. Her Royal Highness, with her parents and her eldest brother, Prince Frederic, occupied an open carriage, escorted by the Hussars of the Guard; flowers were thrown from the windows of the houses along the route, and a guard of honour was stationed at the railway terminus, which was handsomely decorated. All the Ministers and high functionaries, the municipal authorities and the élite of Copenhagen, were assembled at the station. The Chief President of Copenhagen delivered a farewell address, for which Prince Christian, the father of the Princess, returned thanks. The royal party proceeded through Korsoer, Kiel, Hamburg, Hanover, and Coblentz, and reached Brussels in the afternoon of the 2nd of March, where they were received at the railway station with great ceremony by the Duchess of Brabant, the Count of Flanders, the Burgomaster of Brussels, and the English and Danish Ambassadors. The royal party and suite were afterwards conducted in ten state carriages through the city to the palace, where they remained for the two following days. They left Brussels on the morning of the 5th, the English Minister, the Grand Marshal of the Belgian Court, &c., accompanying them to Antwerp, where they embarked on board the “Victoria and Albert” royal yacht, and proceeded towards Flushing, at which port a squadron of escort had been assembled some days before, under the command of Rear-Admiral Smart, K.H. It consisted of the “Revenge” (flag-ship), 73, Capt. Fellowes; “Warrior,” 40, Capt. Hon. A. Cochrane; “Resistance,” 16, Capt. Chamberlain; and “Defence,” 16, Capt. Phillimore; the “Trinculo,” tender to the “Revenge,” was also in attendance. On the evening of the 4th, the officers of a Dutch man-of-war and the chief inhabitants of Flushing gave a ball to the officers of the English squadron. The night was very bright and clear; the moon was at the full, and there was not a cloud in the sky. The experience of Admiral Smart, however, induced him to doubt the continuance of fine weather, and led him to order the squadron to prepare for sea a day sooner than was at first intended. At 2.30 p.m., the next day, the “Revenge” steamed away, and the “Warrior”, quickly followed. This of course was disappointing to the people of Flushing, as it plainly indicated that the royal yacht would pass on, and not anchor in their roads. The “Resistance ’’ and the “Defence ’’ remained at their anchorage, ready to salute. It was nearly eight o'clock before the “Victoria and Albert,” which had passed Flushing without stopping, drew near the two chief vessels of the escort. Instantly a gun from the flag-ship was answered by another from the “Warrior,” and then both ships fired the royal salute of twenty-one guns, the yards