A deputation from the great public meeting held at
the London Tavern in support of the Independence of
Turkey, consisting of Lord Dudley Stuart, Professor
Newman, Messrs. Prout, Nicholay, Hickson, and John
Wilson, waited on Lord Palmerston, on the 16th, with
the address to the Queen agreed on at the meeting.
Lord Palmerston listened attentively to the observations
made by the members of the deputation, and promised
to present the address to her Majesty.

NARRATIVE OF LAW AND CRIME.

At the Central Criminal Court on the 29th ult., Henry
Robert Abraham surrendered to take his trial on four
charges of Manslaughter—for causing the death of the
four persons who perished by the falling of a house in
the Strand. A number of gentlemen accompanied him
into court. He pleaded "Not guilty." It was pleaded
for him that the evidence was contradictory, and it
failed altogether to support the charge; Mr. Abraham
was not near the spot when the accident occurred; the
charge could not be supported in law or fact. Mr.
Justice Cresswell, having read the depositions, entirely
concurred with the counsel. In the first place, there
appeared to be a very great contrariety of opinion among
the witnesses whether anything had been left undone
which ought to have been done to prevent the accident;
in the next place, all those who seemed to think that
something else might have been done differed among
themselves as to what that something should have been.
It was proved also that the defendant was absent at the
time the accident occurred, and there was nothing to
show that there was any negligence on his part in being
absent. The Attorney-General stated, on behalf of Mr.
Abraham, that there was a host of men of eminence and
skill present to testify to the professional character of
the accused. The excavation had been made without
Mr. Abraham's authority, and much deeper than was
intended; and on the morning of the disaster the deceased
Mr. Rowe was unable to be at the works till two hours
later than usual. Mr. Justice Cresswell observed, that
it was very right in the case of such a dreadful accident
that an inquiry should take place; but, perhaps, in the
present instance the law of manslaughter had not been
quite understood. It was clear, however, that the facts
would not support the charge against the defendant, and
it was therefore quite useless to go into the evidence.
The jury accordingly, under his lordship's directions,
returned a verdict of "not guilty" upon each of the
inquisitions; and Mr. Abraham and his friends left the
court.

On the same day Richard Pardington and Joseph
Woods, engine-driver and fireman appeared to meet
a charge of Misdemeanour—that of causing the Railway
Collision at Hornsey. The offences alleged against
the accused were, the neglecting to attend to a danger-
signal exhibited by a porter; and also neglecting the
fixed signal nearer the station, whereby they ran into
a coal-train, the tender of which had got across the
rails. The charge was rested upon the construction to
be put on the 15th section of the Act for Regulating
Railways—"that any person who should willingly do
or cause to be done, any act tending to obstruct the
passing of any engine or carriage upon a railway, so as
to endanger the safety of any passengers travelling on
or upon such carriage, should he deemed guilty of
misdemeanour." The counsel for the prosecution (Mr.
Chambers) said that the prisoners had endangered the
lives of passengers; but he must admit that if the line
had been clear they were driving the train at a rate
quite in accordance with their duty.—Mr. Justice
Cresswell: Then, supposing no signal had been up, the
defendants would only have been acting in the proper
performance of their duty?—Mr. Chambers:
Undoubtedly that would be the fact.—Mr. Justice Creswell:
Then the real offence with which they are
charged is not seeing the signal. Can you say that
this amounts to willfully doing an act tending to
endanger the safety of the passengers? It is quite clear
to me that it is not.—Mr. Chambers: It was an act of
omission; and not of commission, certainly.—Mr. Justice
Cresswell: Yes, but not of wilful omission.—Serjeant
Wilkins: Unless they intended .to destroy their own
lives.—Mr. Chambers said it could be proved that the
prisoners were talking together, instead of keeping a
good look-out. But after what had been said by the
Judge, he felt it would be idle to proceed further.—Mr.
Justice Cresswell, after conferring with Mr. Justice
Williams, said he was clearly of opinion, that upon the
counts which were framed under the 13th and 14th
sections, the court had no jurisdiction, as the Quarter
Sessions for the county was expressly mentioned as the
tribunal to which such a charge should be remitted.
With regard to the third count, which was framed under
the 15th section, he was of opinion that the mere fact of
omitting to see a signal would not amount, according
to the words of the statute, to "wilfully doing an act to
endanger the safety of the passengers." The learned
judge further remarked, that it appeared to be cutting
it very fine to have the coal-train shunted across the line
so near to the period when the express-train was due.
It was clear that some danger was apprehended,
for the danger-signal was put up before they commenced
the operation.—The jury returned a verdict of "Not
guilty."

Ahalt and Ali, the two Lascars who formed part of the
crew of the "Queen of the Teign," were Convicted of
Wounding Robert Mills, one of the English sailors during
the mutiny on board. [See Household Narrative for
October, p. 221.] The jury recommended them to
mercy, upon the supposition that they were "ignorant
of the value of life." Even taking this recommendation
into consideration, the judge could not pass a
lighter sentence than fifteen years' transportation. The
indictment for manslaughter against the master and
two seamen of the "Queen of the Teign" was ignored
by the grand jury.

Miss Margaret Cantwell, a lady of great respectability,
has been tried in Dublin upon the charge of Stealing a
few inches of Ribband. She is one of six sisters, who
keep a Roman Catholic school in Dublin. The charge
was, that she put a piece of velvet ribband into her
reticule while making purchases at Cannock and White's,
a large Dublin shop. The trial lasted five days. Hosts
of witnesses were produced to make out that the theft
had been committed. But the first witness for the
defence, a lady who accompanied Miss Cantwell to the
shop, clearly showed that nothing of the kind had
occurred; that the bit of ribband had been taken by
mistake. The jury deliberated a moment, then returned
a verdict of "Not guilty." The crowded court
expressed the utmost pleasure; all rose, ladies standing
like the rest in conspicuous positions, and cheering
vehemently. The crier failed to stop the outburst.
Miss Cantwell left the court in a covered car, cheered in
the street also.

On the 8th inst. Vice-Chancellor Page Wood delivered
an important judgment in the Birstal Chapel Case.
The Attorney-General had filed an information on the
relation of certain Methodists of Birstal, in the West
Riding of Yorkshire, with a view of getting a decision,
from the court that a meeting-house at Birstal, and
property belonging to it, should be subject to the trusts
of a deed, dated 1751; and that new trustees should be
appointed in certain cases. The chapel was founded by
John Nelson, one of the earliest adherents of John
Wesley. By the deed of 1751, the nomination of the
preacher or preachers was placed in the hands of John
Wesley, and at his death of Charles Wesley.
Subsequently to 1751, however, the gathering of ministers
took place which ultimately became known as the
Conference; the Birstal Circuit was formed, and the
preachers were appointed by the Conference. Certain deeds
executed later vested the appointment of the preachers
in the trustees; and those deeds or parts of them the
court were prayed to declare null. The Vice-Chancellor
went very fully into the history of the whole transaction,
and came to the conclusion that, in accordance with
the original foundation, the appointment of the preachers
lay with the Conference; and decreed that the deeds or
parts of deeds executed since 1751 are null and void in
so far as they vary from that deed. He thought it was
not shown that, under the deed of 1751, trustees not