Fisher observed that his prisoner kept one of his hands in his left coat pocket. Acting on impulse, Fisher caught hold of his hand, and asked what he had there. The assassin coolly replied that it was only a pistol-the one, he added, which he had just let off in Drury Lane. Fisher took the pistol from him, and delivered him into the custody of the police. The prisoner proved to be John Graham, clerk to a solicitor. An inquest was held on the body, when evidence to the above effect was given; other evidence was also produced showing that the prisoner had been in the habit of carrying fire-arms about the streets.

66

Louisa Cook, a servant girl, stated that she was walking near Princes Street, Drury Lane, on Saturday night, April 25, between 8 and 9 o'clock, when she met a lad and accidentally stumbled against him. He turned reproachfully towards her, and, calling her a b―w, asked what she did that for? She rejoined, "Can you prove me one, you puppy?" and walked down Princes Street. He presently followed her, and striking her on the shoulder, said, "You called me a puppy, did you?" She said, And you called me a w -!" He then said, "If it wasn't for one thing, I'd do for you to-night." As she at the same moment observed the butt-end of a pistol projecting from his coat pocket, she became alarmed, and said she would call for a policeman and give him into custody for threatening her life. He then walked away in the direction of Drury Lane. Shortly afterwards she heard the report of fire-arms, and followed a number of people who were going towards the Bow Street police-station. She told a

policeman what had occurred to her, and, on being taken into the station-house, immediately identified Graham, who had been apprehended, as the youth who had threatened her life only a few minutes previously.

Constable F 83 said, on seeing the prisoner in company with the young man Fisher, who had followed and overtaken him, he went to apprehend him. He said, "Policeman, is the man hurt? It was quite an accident." Witness searched him at the station, and found five leaden bullets and a powder flask in his pockets. Fisher had taken possession of his pistol. The prisoner added that he was going to the shooting gallery in Drury Lane.

William Pocock, F 14, (an officer of the detective force,) deposed that on Saturday evening, the 25th ult., he heard the prisoner Graham give his address as No. 1, Harrison Street, Gray's Inn-road," to which place he then proceeded, between 9 and 10 o'clock. On reaching the house he was shown into a small back room at the top of the stairs, which was represented to him as that of the prisoner. He there found two guns, one powder-flask, containing six ounces and a half of gunpowder, a shot-bag and belt containing small shot hanging over the mantel-piece, a small box containing three small cannons, a bullet-mould, and 20 leaden balls, with several pieces of metal; also a small screw-driver and a variety of other articles connected with firearms, such as a powder-canister, &c. He also found one book, upon the elements of chemistry.

The father of the prisoner stated, that he had always evinced a great taste for fire-arms and for playing with gunpowder, and being his

eldest and favourite son, he had unfortunately allowed him to indulge it. It further appeared that the prisoner was in the habit of going out into the suburbs shooting birds on Sunday mornings occasionally. The Jury returned a verdict of "Manslaughter" against John Graham, who was tried on the 18th June, and found "Not Guilty."

ERUPTIONS OF MOUNT HECLA. -This volcano has been in a continued state of activity for some time past. Besides the destruction caused by the eruptions, they have been followed by another visitation; a fatal malady having attacked the cattle, from eating herbage which had been covered by the volcanic ashes.

"These ashes act more particularly on the bones of the animals which have swallowed them. Thus, on the bones of the feet there are formed, in less than twenty-four hours, osseous excrescences of an oblong form, which gradually assume so formidable a development that they prevent the beasts from walking; the same phenomenon is then manifested in the lower jaw, which is, at the same time, enlarged, and extends in all directions, so considerably that it eventually splits in several places; whilst on the teeth of the upper jaw there is formed a species of osseous needles, very long and pointed, which take root in the lower jaw, and even traverse it-a phase of the malady which always determines a fatal issue. As high winds had prevailed for some time, the volcanic ashes were scattered throughout the island; and a great number of cattle, especially oxen, cows, and sheep, had perished. If the eruption of Hecla is prolonged for two months more, all the rural proprietors who

have not enough hay to keep their herds-and the majority are in this situation-will be obliged either to slaughter their cattle, or to abandon them to certain death on the pastures thus poisoned by the volcanic ashes. The eruption of Mount Hecla was extremely violent. The flames which issued from the three great craters attained a height of 14,400 feet; and their breadth exceeded the greatest breadth of the river Picersen, the most considerable river in Iceland. The lava had already formed lofty mountains; and amongst the masses of pumice-stone vomited by the volcano, and which have been found at a distance of three-fourths of a mile, there were some which weighed half a ton. By the eruption of Hecla, the enormous quantities of snow and ice which had accumulated for several years on the sides of that mountain have melted, and partly fallen into the river Rangen, which has overflowed its banks several times. The waters of that river, which runs almost at the foot of Mount Hecla, and which receives a large portion of the burning lava, were so hot that every day they cast upon the banks numbers of dead trout, almost half-baked. Every night vivid streaks of the aurora borealis illumined the sky."

Majority

506 495

11

ILLEGAL MARRIAGES.-Dublin.-An important judgment was given in the Court of Queen's Bench, in the case of the Queen v. the Rev. Richard Taggart, a Roman Catholic clergyman, brought before the Court on a special verdict found at the Downpatrick Assizes. The indictment against the traverser was founded on the late marriage Act, the 7th and 8th Victoria, cap. 81, sec. 45; and he was tried for a felony in celebrating a marriage between two Protestants. There were several counts in the indictment; but the special verdict had been found on the second, third, fourth, and fifth counts in the indictment, and which rested on the provisions of the 45th section of the statute. This raised an exception in the application of the Act as to the case of Roman Catholic priests celebrating marriages which might then be lawfully celebrated, and it was upon this exception that the traverser's counsel relied.

The Chief Justice pronounced the judgment of the full Court. The indictment, as far as it had been brought before them was founded on the 45th section of the 7th and 8th Victoria, chap. 81. There were several counts in the indictment, and the especial verdict depended on the construction to be

given to the 45th section of the Act. The charge against the prisoner was, that he had solemnized a marriage in a certain unlicensed place, between two members of a different persuasion, and there was no forced construction, no straining of words to show that his case came within the terms of the Act of Parliament. The words were clear and explicit -he was within its express terms, and the only question was, had he celebrated a marriage that was not within the operation of the statute? He (the Chief Justice) would repeat it, that the present was not a case in which the Court was spelling out the intention of the Legislature; their meaning was so clear and explicit as to leave no doubt. Coming now to the exception in the Act, the argument for the Crown is this

originally, the marriage between two persons who were Protestants, or between a Protestant and a Roman Catholic, by a Roman Catholic clergyman, was valid. Then came an Act of Parliament by which Roman Catholic priests were made subject to severe penalties, death, and afterwards a fine of 500l., for solemnizing such marriages, and then the 19 George II. provided that the marriage itself should also be null and void. This was the state of the law until the passing of the 3rd and 4th William IV., chap. 102, and by that Act all the penalties for the performance of such ceremonies were repealed, but the marriage itself remained invalid as it was before. Such being the state of things after 1833, until the passing of the 7th and 8th Victoria, chap. 81, the Court had to consider the exemption contained in that Act, and that exemption was never intended to be a personal privilege. It was not meant to extend the power or authority of

the priest in the celebration of marriages, but to uphold the validity of the ceremony when performed between members of his own communion. It left free and untouched the rights of that clergy where the marriage would have been previously legal; their rights were to remain in that respect as before the passing of the statute; but the marriage celebrated by a Roman Catholic priest between Protestants was absolutely null and void. The relation of man and wife did not arise; there was no relation but that of concubinage between the parties, and the issue were bastardized; and what the Court had now to consider was, were those who celebrated marriages invalidated by the law to be protected by the Act of Parliament in question? The exception as to the Roman Catholic clergy from penalties was in relation to marriages that may now be lawfully celebrated"-the exemption did not extend to excuse them from the general words of the Act, where they celebrated illegal marriages, and, like the clergymen of other persuasions, they then came within the penalties prescribed by the statute. There should, therefore, be judgment for the Crown.

2. A MARRIAGE IN HIGH LIFE PREVENTED. This morning, just as the Rev. M. D. Ffrench was about to commence the morning service at St. George's Hanover Square, a license for marriage was presented by a lady and gentleman. Upon the document being read, the reverend gentleman was much surprised to find that it authorized the performance of the ceremony for parties no less distinguished than the Lady Anna Eliza Mary Temple Nugent Brydges Chandos Grenville, daughter of Richard Plantagenet, Duke and Marquis of Buck

ingham and Chandos, and Gore Langton, Esq., son of Colonel Gore Langton. The late hour at which the proposed bride and bridegroom reached the church rendered it impossible for the ceremony to be performed previous to the morning service. Mr. Ffrench, in the meantime, seeing that the bride and bridegroom were not accompanied by any of their friends, and fearing that the proposed marriage was a clandestine one, sent a messenger to the Duke of Buckingham to inform him that a marriage in which he was so deeply interested was about to take place. After a pause of incredulous amazement, the Duke hastened to St. George's Church. In the meantime the morning service had been completed, and the preliminaries had been duly performed in the vestry, and the parties had proceeded to the altar to have their union completed. The clergyman had just commenced, when the Duke of Buckingham arrived, and warmly expressed his decided objection to the performance of the ceremony. On the other hand, Mr. Gore Langton and the lady claimed as a matter of right that the ceremony should proceed immediately. Mr. Ffrench calmly stated that his duty did not afford any option; the parties were, it appeared, of mature age, the license was in all respects sufficient, and he was bound to perform the ceremony without further delay. A scene of painful excitement ensued; but finally the clergyman declined to perform the ceremony, and the lady retired with her father. It was stated that the objection of the noble parents of the bride were not so much directed against the person of the bridegroom, (although much surprised at the discovery of the attachment,) as to the clan.

destine manner in which the union was about to take place. The parties were subsequently united, with the consent, but not in the presence of the Duke and Duchess.

SHOCKING TRAGEDY.-A very painful occurrence took place on Battersea Bridge. About 3 o'clock in the afternoon, a young woman, decently clad, was observed to proceed on to Battersea Bridge, from the Chelsea side, accompanied by three children, one a boy, about seven years of age; a girl, about four years of age; and an infant in arms, also a girl, about ten months or a twelvemonth old. When she got to the middle of the bridge she walked to and fro a few yards in a hurried manner, and then threw the children one after the other over the railings into the river, and was getting over the balustrades herself, when she was prevented doing so by the passers by, who secured her, and she was taken to the station-house in Milman's Row. the station-house she stated her name to be Eliza Clark, her age 24 years; that she was the wife of William Clark, a journeyman painter, living at No. 7, Cumberland Street, Marlborough Row, Chelsea, and that the two youngest children were her own, but the eldest was the son of her husband by a former wife.

At

Exertions were immediately made on the river to safe the unfortunate children; the second child (a girl), four years old, was promptly rescued, and carried to the Swan public-house, where restoratives were applied, and its life preserved. The infant child was also promptly got out, but life was quite extinct. The body of the eldest child was not discovered until several days subsequent.

The miserable woman was taken the same afternoon to the Westminster police-court, and placed at

the bar, before Mr. Burrell, charged with throwing her three infant children into the Thames from Battersea Bridge.

The poor creature, although somewhat meanly dressed, was a pattern of cleanliness and neatness, and had the appearance of a respectable and quiet woman.

James Perryman, pot-boy at the Adam and Eve, Duke Street, Chelsea, said, at about five minutes before 3 o'clock this afternoon I was in the back yard of our house, which looks upon the Thames, and is close to Battersea Bridge. I was on a sudden startled by hearing something splash in the water, and I looked towards the spot, and saw a second child go from the centre of the bridge into the water, and then I saw another one go in from the same place. I immediately went and told my mistress that I had seen a woman throw her children over the railings of Battersea Bridge into the water.

Mr. Taylor, the chief clerk.Did you see any person throw the children into the water?

Witness. Yes, after hearing the first splash, which I suppose must have been caused by a child, I saw the prisoner throw the two others into the river; there did not appear to be much struggling. The children were alive at the time they were thrown into the water. I saw one of them kicking as it fell into the water. I told my master, and we jumped into a boat and put off towards them. I saw a man afterwards bring a child out. I afterwards went on the bridge and saw the prisoner standing near the parapet.

Jesse Hattan, a gardener at Wandsworth.-I was passing over Battersea Bridge at about three o'clock, when I observed the prisoner walking backwards and forwards in a very hurried manner,