Mr. Berkeley's petition alleged that the Countess of
Shrewsbury had exercised an undue influence over Miss
Talbot, and had endeavoured to induce her to marry a
Frenchman named Rochefoucault; that Miss Talbot had
persisted in refusing, and that thereupon the Countess
had sent back Miss Talbot to the convent, not as a pupil,
but as a postulant, with the avowed object of compelling
her to take the veil; and it prayed that Miss Talbot
might be removed from under the care and management
of the Earl and Countess of Shrewsbury. Before the
Lord Chancellor gave judgment, the case had been fully
argued before him during several successive days. The
letter which, at the commencement of the proceedings,
his Lordship alluded to as having been received by him
from Miss Talbot, was as follows. It is said to have been
written in the round hand of a school-girl, on ruled paper,
and underscored in the manner indicated by small
capitals:—

"Taunton, Tuesday, Feb. 18.
"My Lord—You will, of course, see that I have written in
answer to Mr. Craven Berkeley's FALSE statements, and I am
sure in such a case you will think it only just for me to express
myself what is the pure truth, as I have done. It is scarcely
credible how a GENTLEMAN can act as Mr. Craven Berkeley has
done; for I assure you my Lord, he was down here at the convent
himself on the 14th February. He then asked me a numerous
SET FORM of questions, as if he had some object in view, but
wished to get a little information beforehand; and at his departure
he said he should come again and bring with him a little
HALF-SISTER of mine. No opposition was made, for how could
we know how Mr. Craven Berkeley intended to act? but after
the manner in which he has spoken of the convent at Taunton,
where I have spent the happiest days of my life, and where I
have experienced for nine years the most unchanging kindness,
how could I read his petition and not feel a just indignation at
such conduct? so that it is now, my Lord, my own free and
deliberate wish never again to see Mr. Craven Berkeley: should
I meet him anywhere he would not surely be the first to address
me, and most assuredly I should not. He has disgraced himself
for ever in my eyes, and I should think in the eyes of every
just and reasonable person. Believe me, my Lord, I ALONE in
this house have shown any feelings of indignation; for all under
this roof are too good to let any feeling rise but that which everyone
must naturally feel, compassion for so WEAK AND DISHONOURABLE
a man. This letter your Lordship is at liberty to show to
whom you please. I do not feel to have said more than I ought.
I may have spoken strongly of Mr. C. Berkeley's conduct, but
I have not passed the limits of truth and justice. I must add,
that every word of the letter is FROM MYSELF. I am alone while
writing it, and therefore no one CAN allege that I have been
prompted by any one. Every word is the result of my own
thoughts and reflections. Mr. Norris, whom I saw on Monday,
told me of your Lordship's wish that I should go up to town
again and see a little more of the world. It will cost ME much
CERTAINLY, TO LEAVE TAUNTON, where are all my dearest and
truest friends; but your Lordship acts for the best, and I would
not therefore on any account oppose your wishes. After Easter
I shall be ready to yield myself, and again enter a world,
WHOSE CHARMS I CAN NEVER VALUE.—Thanking your Lordship
for the kind interest you have taken in my welfare,
"I remain, yours respectfully, AUGUSTA TALBOT"

Mr. Berkeley, in an affidavit subsequently filed,
swore to his belief that Miss Talbot was trepanned into
writing the above letter by Dr. Hendren, the Roman
Catholic Bishop of Clifton. The affidavit of Miss
Jerningham, the Lady Superioress of the convent, explained
the ambiguous position of Miss Talbot: she was admitted
among the postulants, because of the rule that she could
not be readmitted as a boarder; but she was not a
postulant; she never underwent the ceremonies of
postulancy, nor wore the postulant's attire; and she was
free to leave the convent when she liked. Her admission
among the postulants was exceptionally conceded,
with the ecclesiastical permission of Dr. Hendren.

The Lord Chancellor, in giving judgment, entered
minutely into the circumstances of the case. He
declared his opinion that in the first instance the
Countess of Shrewsbury was competent to judge on the
propriety of placing Miss Talbot in the convent. But
since the young lady had been into the world and her
prospects had otherwise changed, and since it became
uncertain how long the Earl and Countess would
remain absent from this country, Dr. Doyle ought to
have exercised greater diligence in his care over his
ward. Dr. Doyle had been remiss in not applying to
the Court till an intimation was lately made as to the
propriety of his so doing; especially when he became
aware that the mind of the young lady was "wavering,"
and that it was becoming uncertain whether she would
not become a nun. A very high contempt of the
authority of the Court would have been committed by
allowing a ward of Court, either to become a postulant
or to take any other step calculated to bind her future
life to any particular course. He believed that ever
since the statute of Westminster it had been a very
high offence to make a ward of Court take the veil—an
offence liable to indictment, heavy forfeiture, and
imprisonment. That statute continued. If a marriage
were contracted without the approbation of the Court,
it was a contempt of the Court: à fortiori, much more
so was it to make persons devote themselves to a
religious life: marriage was consistent with persons
retaining their ordinary position in life, but taking the
veil was so serious a change, that to allow a person not
arrived at the age of maturity to bind the future life,
not probably by actual vows, but by some influence or
other more cogent than physical force, was a much
greater offence; and the Lord Chancellor declared that
he should have no hesitation, and should have felt it
his duty, to commit bishops, priests, governesses, clergy-
men, or any one else who should be connected with
such a transaction. But no bad motives could be
imputed to Dr. Doyle, as he seemed to have been under
the impression that the young lady was in the convent
as a boarder; and therefore the interests of the ward
did not require his removal. In reference to Mr. Craven
Berkeley's petition, the Lord Chancellor felt that upon
the whole it had been of great advantage to the ward.
But the most material statements in that petition were
incorrect. The Lord Chancellor had ascertained from
his personal conversation with Miss Talbot, when he
visited Alton Towers, that the marriage then on the
carpet was not regarded with personal repugnance by
Miss Talbot; and when it was broken off, chiefly from
the Lord Chancellor's own disapproval of it, Miss Talbot
expressed her resignation in terms not consistent with
the notion of the alleged repugnance. The matter thus
charged in Mr. Berkeley's petition was of a character
deeply reflecting on other parties, and was unfounded
in fact. In that point of view solely, the petition might
be dismissed with costs; but the petition had been the
means of rendering a great and worthy service to the
Court and to the ward. The order of the Court, therefore,
was, that Mr. Berkeley's petition be dismissed,
and that the costs of both parties be paid out of the
estate.

Three young women, the servants of a maltster named
Miller, at March, in the Isle of Ely, having been detected
in pilfering some flour, and threatened with dismissal
if the offence was repeated, attempted to commit
Suicide by taking laudanum. One of them accomplished
her purpose, and was found dead under a hedge; the
other two had taken more laudanum than the deceased,
and voided it,—hence they recovered. They have since
been committed for trial for "Wilful murder," on the
charge of having incited their companion to commit
suicide.

The trial of Levi Harwood, Samuel Harwood, and
James Jones, for the Murder of the Rev. Mr. Hollest, at
Frimley, in September last, took place at the Kingston
Assizes, on the 31st ult. and 1st inst. The circumstances
are fully detailed in the Household Narrative for October
last. The principal witnesses were Mrs. Hollest, the
widow of Mr. Hollest, and Hiram Smith, one of the
criminals, who had been admitted as approver. Mrs.
Hollest swore positively that Smith was the man who
fired the pistol-shot which caused her husband's death.
The jury, after two hours' deliberation, found Levi
Harwood and James Jones guilty, and acquitted Samuel
Harwood; declaring their unanimous opinion that
neither Levi Harwood nor Jones fired the fatal shot.
Levi Harwood and Jones earnestly protested their
innocence of the murder. Baron Parke explained to them,
that though neither of them fired the shot, they had
both intended to fire in case of resistance, and were
therefore rightly found guilty of the murder. He
sentenced them to be hanged, and with great emotion
besought them to repent. Samuel Harwood, on being
discharged from custody, was at once arrested on the
charge of being concerned in a burglary committed in
Sussex. Hiram Smith was kept in custody awaiting