specting one of the persons on the outside, witness said to her mother, "That's Patrick Murphy, of Longwood, that is speaking to you;" on which the witness's mother said, "Hold your tongue; if he thinks you know him, or hears you mention his name, he will come and murder us." The party them departed for a short time, but soon returned, one of them with a lighted turf in a small tongs, which he held up to the window, denouncing vengeance in consequence of the family having had any thing to do with Neal's ground. Witness described the dress of the prisoner, and particularly a hairy cap he wore that hearing threats to burn the house she ran in terror to a back window in order to effect her escape, when she saw the out-offices all on fire; that witness gave the alarm to her mother and immediately afterwards jumped out of the front window, and that she saw the prisoner standing a short distance from her father's house. She afterwards, upon her cross-examination, explained herself by saying it was his back she saw and not his face; that witness went for safety to the house of a neighbour; and shortly afterwards the whole party, after giving a loud cheer, went away. The house and offices were entirely consumed. Witness was acquainted with the prisoner, and knew him a considerable time before.

Elizabeth Golden, the mother of the last witness, was next examined. She gave a very circumstantial statement of the outrage; the firing of shots into the house, and the fracture in consequence

of some small articles of furniture, corroborating her daughter in every particular, and identifying decidedly the prisoner as one of the banditti.

A young woman of the name of Kinselagh, and who was a neighbour of the prosecutor's, was also examined; but she could only speak as to the prisoner from his voice, which she believed to be his.

A man of the name of Plunkett was next examined. He was in the house the night it was attacked and burned; did not see prisoner, but swore to him from his voice, with which he had been perfectly acquainted. The different witnesses were ably and ingeniously cross-examined by the prisoner's counsel, Messrs. M'Nally and Greene. The delay in swearing information was very powerfully urged, but explained and accounted for from the influence of terror; that as soon, however, as major Willis came to the country they felt assured of protection and safety; that they thereupon came forward and lodged examinations.

Baron George gave the jury a most clear, accurate and impar tial charge, who, having retired for about a quarter of an hour, returned a verdict of Guilty.

An extraordinary incident occurred during the trial. After Plunkett had been about a minute under examination, his wife (from among the crowd) exclaimed to him in a sort of shriek, plainly indicating the agony of her mind and her terror as to the probable consequences, not to say any thing to injure the prisoner. He, however, persevered, and

stated

stated circumstantially all he knew on the subject. The night immediately following, before the assizes were over or sentence pronounced on the convict, Plunkett's house and his little furniture were burnt to the ground: his wife and an infant child, however, escaped unhurt from the flames.

On Saturday last, Murphy received sentence of death with three other offenders, who had been also capitally convicted during the assizes.

and its competency to entertain the original petition either under sir Samuel Romilly's act or the Bedford act. To obviate these difficulties it had been recommended to the trustees to present a petition under that clause of the Bedford act which directed, that whenever doubt arose on the construction of any part of the charter, they should apply for direction and instruction to the person holding the great seal. The trustees accordingly had presented a petition inquiring whether or not the Jews of Bedford should be admitted to a par

AUG. 23.

The Bedford Charity. The Lord Chancellor, on coming into court, proceeded to deliver judgment in this interesting case. He stated that the matter came originally before the Court on the petition of Joseph Lyon and his daughter Sheba Lyon, residing in Bedford, and also of five elders of the Jewish Synagogue in Duke's-place, London, praying that the children of Jews residing in Bedford might be admitted into the charity school of that place; that Jewish parents might be allowed to live in the alms-houses attached to the Bedford charity; and that the petitioner, Sheba Lyon, might be permitted to draw lots for the apprentice fee allowed by act of parliament; and that in the event of her lot being successful, the trustees of the Bedford charity be directed to pay the fee to her. His lordship adverted to the difficulty which had arisen respecting the jurisdiction of the Court,

praying the Court to make such an order as it might think proper. His lordship then proceeded to review the original deed of foundation by Edward 6th, and the acts of 1764 and 1793 relative to this charity. The act of 1793, commonly called the Bedford Act, superseded that of 1764. It recited the letters patent granted by Edward 6th for a grammarschool; the grant made by sir William Harper and his wife; and the purposes to which that grant was to be applied. It directed that the children of all the inhabitants residing in the town should be allowed to come to the school to be taught without fee. The 9th article provided that 900l. were to be given in equal shares and at certain fixed pe. riods, in the following manner: The trustees were to give public notice of a meeting to be held in the town-hall, for the purpose of distributing portions to poor maids belonging to the town between 16 and 50 years of age; and all those wishing to be candi

dates

dates were to send in their Christian names and the names of their parents to the mayor, and were afterwards to draw lots for the portions. Another sum of 700l. was to be laid out in pay ing the apprentice-fees of 20 children, 15 boys and 5 girls; and the objects of this charity were to be selected by lot in the same manner as the candidates for marriage portions. The act also recited the establishment of almshouses for the reception of 20 poor persons, 10 men and 10 women, who were enjoined to go every Sunday to some place of public worship in Bedford on pain of expulsion from the charity. His lordship next adverted to a letter of Isaac Lyon Goldsmid, esq., who stated himself to be of the Jewish nation, and to belong to the synagogue of Dutch and German Jews in London. This person wrote to the Mayor of Bedford, wishing to be informed if there was any truth in the report which he had heard, that the Jews of Bedford were to be deprived of the benefit of the charity; and concluding his letter by expressing a hope that in this liberal and enlightened age the question, whether a man worshipped his God in a church, a chapel, or a synagogue, would not be considered a ground of exclusion from a charitable institution. This last passage of the letter reminded his lordship of the remarks which had been made by the bar on the subject of toleration; and whatever might be his opinion of the sentiment expressed by the writer, he apprehended, when an English judge was told that it was of no moment whether a man

worshipped God in a church, a chapel, or a synagogue, that it was his duty to recollect, that Christianity was part of the law of the land. He was not, indeed, to push that part of the law in such cases as the present further than the acts of parliament required; but as far as the acts looked to Christianity as a part of the law, it was his bounden duty to consider it such. But to resume. The mayor of Bedford, in his answer to this letter, stated that the trustees, to resolve their doubts, had taken the opinion of an equity barrister of great eminence; that by his advice they had resolved not to admit Jews to the benefit of the charity; and that they left it to the parties to apply to the Chancellor if they thought themselves aggrieved. This accordingly produced the present application to the Court. The first question to be decided was, whether Jew boys were to be admitted to the charity school; and in determining that point, it was proper to bear in mind that this school was originally founded by Edward 6th as a grammarschool. He believed that in all such schools great pains were taken to educate the youth in the doctrines and principles of the Christian religion; indeed, he himself remembered the time when, in some parts at least, the boys at grammar-schools were attended to church on Sundays by the masters. Now, as to the practice at this school there were various affidavits on both sides. The first, in support of the application, was that of Michael Joseph, a Jew, who stated that he had two sons and seven daughters

all

all born in Bedford; that both his sons had been admitted into the charity school, the eldest having attended the writing-school and the youngest both the writing and the grammar-school; that his two eldest daughters were married, and that they had both received the marriage-portions of poor virgins. It appeared from this deponent's affidavit, that no Jew had ever been admitted into the hospital or alms - houses. There were also the affidavits of Joseph Lyon, Godfrey Levi and several other persons, to the same effect; and the result of all their testimony was, that as far back as 30 years ago, a few of these children had been admitted into the school, but that none of the Jewish nation had ever participated in the benefit of any other parts of the charity. The first affidavit on the other side was that of Dr. Bryan the master of the grammar-school. He stated, that each boy attending the grammar-school was taught the Latin language, and that when he had made some progress in the study of Latin he began to learn Greek; that in studying the latter language, the Greek Testament was the book chiefly read till the boys had acquired considerable proficiency in the language, and that every boy in the school was instructed in the Christian religion. He said, that on his appointment in 1811, he found Nathan Joseph, the son of Michael Joseph, at the school; that the said Nathan Joseph learned only the grammar of the Latin language, was not more than a year at the school, and attended both the writing and gram

mar-schools; that he was required to dispense with this boy's attend ance at morning and evening prayers, it being contrary to his religion to join in Christian worship; that he was also required to dispense with his attendance every Saturday, that being the Jewish Sabbath; and that he complained of the boy's frequent absence to his father, who said it was necessary on account of his being of the Jewish faith. The next affidavit was that of the writing-master, who deposed, that no Jewish boy had been admitted into the writing-school since his appointment in 1814; that all the boys in his school were instructed in Christianity, read the Bible and New Testament and learned the Church Catechism. There were also similar affidavits by the masters of the hospital and of the preparatory school. With regard to such regulations for the conduct of the school as rendered Jewish boys inadmissible, his lordship remarked, that there was nothing either in the charter or in the acts of parliament that prevented the wardens and fellows of New College, Oxford, who were the visiters, to make whatever regulations they might think conducive to the benefit of the school; and he apprehended that if in the exercise of their visitatorial authority they made regulations that excluded Jews, their decision must be submitted to. If the school consisted partly of Jew boys and partly of Christians, he did not think it possible that two such systems could go on together. It was impossible that a Jew boy could comply with the regulations made by the visiters

for

for the purpose of carrying on the grammar-school in such a manner as to preserve the boni mores of the scholars, which the charter declared to be one of the principal objects of the school. Then, as to the hours of attendance, and the morning and evening prayers, how was it possible for a Jew, acting conscientiously, to allow his son to comply with these and various other regulations, which it was unnecessary for him to enumerate? On the whole, he could have no doubt that Jew boys were not admissible into the grammar-school. The next point to be considered was, whether Jewish girls were entitled to the provision made for poor maids. The primary object of the charity being instruction in the Christian religion, was there any thing to warrant him in saying that it ought to be applied to other purposes? He could not believe that the acts of parliament contemplated the admission of Jewish girls to this charity, because, in mentioning the regulations with which the candidates were to comply, it was directed that each of them should give in her Christian name and her surHe was aware it might be said that a Christian name did not necessarily mean the name by which a person was baptized, but it was used in contradistinction to a surname. This he was ready to admit, when the distinction was applied to the names of a person professing the Christian religion; but still he thought that a Christian name was something that did not belong to a Jew, something to which a Jew could not lay claim. He, therefore,

name.

could not consider the Jewish girls entitled to become candidates for the portions of poor maids. As to the right of admission into the alms-houses, it was evident that such a thing was never contemplated by those who framed the act of parliament, for there it was directed that the persons enjoying the benefit of this charity should go to a place of public worship on Sundays, or be expelled from the institution.

Mr. Heald begged to remind his lordship that the point here was not whether Jewish poor maids were to be admitted as candidates for marriage portions, but whether they were entitled to become candidates for apprentice fees.

The Lord Chancellor was perfectly aware of that, but the principle was precisely the same in both cases. The regulations prescribed by the act of parliament for casting lots, &c. were precisely the same in the one case as in the other, and therefore he did not think it necessary to go into the details of them all. It was his opinion that the Jews were not entitled to participate in any part of this charity; but that judgment being founded on a petition which had been argued, he did not mean that the order should be drawn up for a fortnight, in order that the parties might have an opportunity of communicating to him any remarks that they might think of importance.

His lordship directed the costs of the trustees to be paid out of the estate; and in answer to an application from Mr. Heald, for the payment of his client's costs

also