remained closed, and the congregation was obliged to
disperse elsewhere.

Alderman Salomons was returned for Greenwich on
the 28th June, in opposition to Mr. Wire, by a majority
of 2165 to 1278. Mr. Salomons issued an address
expressing his intention of delaying to take his seat while
the Oath of Abjuration Bill was pending in Parliament,
as he desired to take his seat with the direct concurrence
of all the branches of the legislature.

Mr. Edward Strutt was returned on the 16th inst.
for the borough of Arundel, vacant by the resignation
of Lord Arundel and Surrey. Mr. Collins, a Peelite,
has been returned for Knaresborough in opposition to
Mr. Lawson a protectionist. And Mr. G. F. Young, a
protectionist, has been returned for Scarborough in
opposition to Lord Mulgrave, the former member.

Two new Roman Catholic Bishops—Dr. Turner,
Bishop of Salford, and Dr. Errington, Bishop of Plymouth,
were consecrated at Manchester, on the 25th, by
Cardinal Wiseman; the Irish Primate Cullen, the
Bishop of Beverley, the Bishop of Birmingham, and
the Bishop of Northampton, assisted in the ceremony.
The spectacle was open to the public. Five shillings
was charged for the choir-aisles, half-a-crown and
eighteenpence for other places.

A meeting on the subject of Jewish Emancipation,
called by Baron Lionel de Rothschild, was held in the
London Tavern on the 24th. Mr. Raikes Currie was
in the chair, and the chief speakers were Mr. John
Dillon, Mr. Ingram Travers, Mr. Osborne, Mr. Samuel
Morley, Mr. F. Bennoch, Lord Dudley Stuart, Sir
Henry Bateman, Mr. Anstey, and Alderman Salomons.
The result was a resolution to the effect that ministers
can only entitle themselves to the confidence of
reformers by being prepared to stand or fall by such
measures as the Jew Bill; and the meeting called upon
the prime minister, as member for London, forthwith
to introduce into the House of Lords, as a cabinet
measure, a bill for the total abolition of the present
oath of abjuration. A petition was also agreed to,
based on the resolution.—Alderman Salomons afterwards
met the electors of Greenwich; by whom he
was enthusiastically received, and the petition which
Sir Benjamin Hall has presented was agreed to.

NARRATIVE OF LAW AND CRIME.

A daring Burglary has been committed in Cheshire.
A gang of five men, wearing black masks, and armed
with pistols, aroused the family of Mr. Hine, at Hockley,
during the night, and demanded all their valuables,
threatening to break in if their demands were not
complied with; some of the ruffians did force a back-door,
but were stopped by an inner-door. Mr. Hine and his
son, who are Quakers, consulted; and, to escape a worse
fate, capitulated, giving a gold watch and chain and
some money to the robbers; who then decamped,
declaring that the family had got off a great deal too well.
This occurrence has created consternation among the
people in the vicinity, who live in lone and unprotected
houses.

A Serious Affray took place between the men of the
91st Regiment and the police at Liverpool, on the night
of the 30th ult., which filled the town with great alarm.
The cause of quarrel which led to the outrage on the
part of the military, arose from some punishment inflicted
on three soldiers of the 91st, at the instance of the police
on duty. A number of the soldiers have been fined by
the magistrates, and imprisoned in default of payment.
The 91st Regiment left Liverpool on the 5th, and was
succeeded by the 28th, which seems to have followed its
example of coming into collision with the police. A
soldier attacked a constable; more of each force came
up, and a general struggle ensued; but the police
showed much forbearance, and eventually the soldiers
were taken into custody by a picket, and marched to
the barracks. It is stated that a court-martial will be
held on some of the officers of the 91st Regiment, on the
charge of being absent from duty when the late conflicts
were waging between the men of that regiment and the
Liverpool constabulary.

Hayden, the foreman of a brick-yard belonging to the
Earl of Leicester at Holkham, has been Murdered by
Henry Groom, a man also employed on the estate.
Hayden, though not a brickmaker, had been appointed
foreman, which caused some dissatisfaction. Groom
had been employed for years at the Earl's: formerly he
was steward's-room boy; but from an accident to his
arm, and deafness, he was obliged to take to out-door
labour; he had been in the brick-yard, whence he was
discharged by the foreman; then he obtained work in
the making of a terrace at Holkham Hall. On the 4th
instant, Groom seems to have lain in wait for Hayden,
remaining in a clay-pit till he came by in his donkey-cart;
it is supposed that he had enticed Hayden into
the pit on some pretence, and then shot him dead with
a pistol loaded with ball. The donkey was found
wandering about with the cart; search was made, and
the corpse of the foreman was found in the pit lying in
a pool of blood. Hayden had been to obtain money to
pay the workmen—£15; that money and his watch had
been taken. As Groom was seen in the pit by a gentleman
a short time before the murder, suspicion instantly
fell on him. He was quickly arrested at his home, and
the plundered money and watch were found upon him.
A pistol recently discharged was discovered in the house.
The murdered man was in his thirty-second year, and
has left a wife and child; the assassin is forty-nine, and
married.

A riot, in which A Man was Killed, took place in
Shoe Lane during the night of Saturday, the 5th instant.
The Irish, who live in Plumtree Court, quarrelled and
fought; and the row became so great, that a large body
of police were marched to the spot. The Irish were
greatly exasperated at this, and resisted the police. The
latter used their staves; and during the melée, John
Hogan was killed by blows of a policeman's staff on his
head. At the inquest, witnesses declared that the
deceased was not offending when the constable beat
him; and he died very shortly after. The jury found
it impossible to fix upon the constable who had been
the assailant. They returned a verdict tantamount to
"Manslaughter against a policeman unknown." The
jury then handed the following memorial to the coroner,
with a request that it might be forwarded to the proper
authorities:—"And this jury are of opinion, that the
neighbourhood in which the deceased died is in a most
disgraceful state. In the house in which the deceased
lies, the drainage, or some other cause, made effluvia so
great, that the jury were compelled to leave the place
as quickly as possible; and should an epidemic again
visit the City, from the dreadful state of these courts
they think they would be a nursery for pestilence and
disease. They also suggest the propriety of an additional
light in these courts, more especially at the Holbom
end."

A case of Revolting Cruelty has come to light at
Salford. The police heard that Esther Swinnerton, a.
girl of seventeen, was badly treated by her step-mother.
The officers went to the house, and found her in a damp
cellar, in a shocking condition. She was taken to the
workhouse, and died a few days after. At the inquest,
the surgeon of the workhouse stated that the deceased
was a cripple from curvature of the spine; she was in an
advanced stage of consumption, but death had been
hastened by diarrhœa and inflammation, the result of
neglect, want of nourishment, and confinement in a
damp cellar. Several witnesses described the treatment
of the girl by her father and step-mother. The man is
a collier, and the woman kept a small-ware shop: the
husband, though he did not sufficiently protect his
daughter, does not appear to have ill-treated her
himself; in fact, his wife was "master;" he once talked of
destroying himself, from domestic unhappiness. With
regard to the step-mother, the disclosures showed most
atrocious conduct towards the "cripple." The coroner
pointed out, that if the stepmother wilfully accelerated
the girl's death, she was guilty of murder. Twelve out
of the thirteen jurymen found a verdict of "Wilful
murder against Elizabeth Swinnerton."

At the Central Criminal Court on the 7th, James
Smith was tried for Forging and Uttering a Check for
£73. Some account has already been given of this case.
The prisoner is the son of the perpetual curate of