The Express.
London, England, 1867-08-06 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, TUESDAY EVENTING, AUGUST 6, 1867.

as to neutrals and belligerents. But there were some
counter considerations which we were bound to
bear in mind, and one was that by exercising the
power of seizing enemies' goods on neutral ships
we necessarily annoyed the neutrals, and ran the
risk of converting them into enemies. It was not
possible to deny that we had bound ourselves by
this compact to all the maritime powers except
Spain and the United States, and it was observed
and acted upon in the Italian war and in the war
which took place between Prussia and Denmark.
In the war of last year between the Prussians and
the Austrians the question did not arise. In all
these cases we had been neutral, and had been
guided by the principle of the declaration being
carried out, and it would hardly be fair for us to
accept the benefit of it when we were at peace and
not be bound by it when we were at war. It must
also be borne in mind that those who had
adhered to the declaration had abandoned the
right of privateering, and we had to con-
sider whether by. repudiating the declaration
we should not be reviving the right of privateering,
by which we might be great losers. He did not
wish to argue it, however, as a matter of ad-
vantage, but as a matter of good faith. We had
given a pledge to the other powers who signed it,
and it would not be right for us to turn sharply
round and say we would not be bound by it. At
any rate we could not free ourselves from the obli-
gation without long notice.

Sir R. PALMER agreed with Mr. Mill, that when
we were at war we ought to be at war in earnest.,
and that the notion of a national war and a mer-
cantile peace was absurd ; and he agreed with Lord
Stanley as to the importance of observing engage-
ments of this kind.

Mr. Lawn:HERE hoped the Foreign Secretary
would uphold the policy of the late government in
this matter.
After a few observations from Mr. D. GRIFFITH
the subject dropped ; and
Mr. WHALLEY having made some observations
with a view of showing the connection between
Roman catholicism and discontent in Ireland the
house went into committee of supply, and the vote
for the maintenance of Greenwich Hospital and
schools was agreed to after a discussion, in which
many of the complaints to which utterance was
given in the early part of the evening as to the
extravagant cost of the establishment were re-
iterated.

Lord Naas, in proposing that 340,7001. be voted
for national education in Ireland, stated that there
had been au increase of 81 schools during the year,
and an increase of 1 per cent. of the children on
the rolls, and that the total number of children
attending the schools was 983,000. The Roman
catholic bishops had addressed a letter to the coin-
miasisners proposing certain rules to be carried out
with regard to the model schools, and that Roman
catholic chaplains should be appointed to
them. The commissioners agreed to this plan,
and requested the government to propose
an increase of 19,0001. in the estimates
to carry it out, but the government found that
there was much opposition to the plan, that the
presbyterians all opposed it, and that with regard
to the board itself, out of 12 whose opinions were
known seven were in favour of it and five against
it. Under these circumstances the government
declined to propose the amount necessary to carry
out the plan. It was the intention of the govern-
ment to make another effort to terminate the dif-
ferences which existed in Ireland on this subject,
and with that view they intended to issue a royal
commission to inquire into the whole system of
primary instruction in Ireland. He also thought
it would be well to consider whether some altera-
tion might not be made in the composition of the
board.

After some discussion, in the course of which
Mr. C. Fortescue remarked that the government
was already in possession of sufficient information
to legislee without appointing a commission, Mr.
Lefroy insisted on the necessity of religious edu-
cation, and Mr. B. Osborne complained that the
education given was not commensurate with the
cost,

The vote was postponed.
Some other business was disposed of, and the
house adjourned at 20 minutes past 2 o'clock.

iiabal anis iffilitarg.

PO1:TS110/"TH, AI;GOST 5.
Two courts-martial were held on board the Vic-
tory to-day, at which Captain C. Fellows*, of the Duke of
Wellington, presided. The first prisoner was George
Creswell, a bandsman on board the Achilles, who pleaded
guilty to desertion, and was sentenced to lose the whole
of his money, medals, and gratuities, and to undergo
twelve months' imprisonment with hard labour 48/x days
out of every twenty-eight in solitaryconfinement) in Lewes
gaol, The second prisoner was Yr. David Francis', •
first-clam assistant engineer on board the Himalaya, who
was charged with drunkenness on two occasions. The pri-
soner pleaded guilty to one charge, but denied the other.
Evidence was then given. The court thought both charges
proved, and sentenced the prisoner to dismissal from the
service.

ADMIRALTY, Arousr s.—Arromitzwrs.—Lieu-
tenante—F. H. S. O'Brien, to the Simone ; C. In Priman.
daye, to the Lord Warder'. Sub-Lieutenant—R. T.C.Gerat,
to the Warrior. blidahipniaa—M. leCaualand, to the
Liffey.

*parting intelligence.

TATTEILSALLS.—MONDAY.
A very numerous musterput in an appearance at Alberkgate to-
day, but the adjustment of accounts so fully occupied the atten-
tion of members as to pat speculation on future events almost out
of the question. The only noticeable movement was that in
favour of Tregeagle for the Derby, who was backed to win £19,000
at 1,000 to 30 and 1,000 to 35. Sunflower colt was also made the
medium of a small investment at 40 to 1. There were some In-
quiries after Vauban for the St. Leger, end be would have found
favour at 9 to 4, while an offer was made to lay 300 to 200 on him
and Hermitoa led.
The long-pending question of the Land Ho bets was at last set
at red by appearance of the following notice In the room:—
" August 1, MT.—Respecting the question of beta on the race at
Windsor, in which Land Ho was disqualified as having been
entered by a person In default, the committee have decided
that the bets shall go with the stakes, and all beta on Land 110
meat be paid." Mr. Chaplin's Musa was second in the race re-
ferred to, and those who backed her on that occarrion are there-
fore now entitled to receive. The following quotations express
the few transactions of the afternoon

T. LEGER.
2 to 1 agst Duke of Beaufort's Vauban (off, t9to 4)
12 to 1
.91r, !ferry's Marksman

30; to 200 on fiiil,l2--and Hermit coupled (of)

DERBY.
1000 to 35 agst Lord Falmouth's Treflesee (t)
40 to 1 Mr. Marry's Sunflower colt (t)

BETTING INLONDON.MONDAT.

The clubs were thronged to excess to-day, but the Goodwood
settling made such heavy demands on the time and attention of
members that betting was for the time being brought to a com-
plete standstill.

BRIGHTON MEETING.

Boma AutviD::Yodi;;:JealiTel;;;;;:Jezabel, Preddent
Lincoln, Life Guardsman, Nine Erna, Cheltenham, Marquis of
Carabas, Julius, Opoponax, Sultan,'Contempt, Bismarck, Eau de
Vie, Menu/thighland Sister, Minute Gun, Regalia, Formosa, Janet
Bawcliffe, Chepstow, Candull, Excitement. Chippenham. Pin-
tail, Prince Regent, speculum, Tremble, Duicirna, John Davis,
Lecturer, Belfast, Ines, Redcap, Dalby, Salamanca, DI Vernon,
Amanda colt, Kettleholder, Lump Sugar, Python, Rampart,
Beauty, Tumbler, Adjutant, Banditto, Chic, Benefactress,
Charles ,-historian, Lady Clinton, Dawdle, King's Cross. Stad-
broke. Nu, Toy, lindaleigh, Liquidator, Narino, Lord Palmer-
ston, Volunteer, Confederate, Van Amburgh, Ajax, Newcourt,
Mandrake, Tyndale, Friponnier, Lord Derby, Lady Bar-
bara, Trariata, Cuckoo, Pantaloon, See Saw, Pegotty, Scotch-
=Wl Pride, Judy ll•eree, Adamanthe, Beautiful Star,
Red Itihand, Lady Rose, Black Prince, Harpenden, Mr. Briggs,
Paris, Nannie, Dunsour colt, Lord Waldegrave, Deformity,
Fanny, Brenda, Bateman, Sister to Lincoln Green, Distaff, Am-
bition, Reindeer, Batthyany, Chantilly, Patti, Lily, Knight
Errant, Troublesome, Trocadcro, Ajax, New Court, 1;.;=,
Tightilt Longhorn, Clio, Historian, Dick Turpla,
The Shrew, Caprice.

RIPON ST. WIURID MEETING.-XONDAY.

NEWBY WILT LA CUP.

Rabbit Trap
Comm

I
1

Six no.
Affection
GAUT NO.IIW NORMAL HANDICAP
The %met
J ency /Ink _

Ten lea
gpsonAmos Pun.
Aaltbead walked over.
Rio BANK MI MS.

Mantra!
Scarthwitch
Pim raa.
FOUNTAINS Mai
Narrow Lampe
Skirmisher
Tao ran.
Sr. WILFRID HANDICAP
Chronometer
Damit
SandraMk

Mx ran.

CRICKET.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

NORTHERN ClRCUlT.—Kraccassna, Auo. L.
CROWN COURT.—(Before Mr. Indies Montagu Smith.)
James Clegg, 18, was charged on two indictments, one
for attempting to murder 11 int= Reece, a warder at the
the New Bailey prison' Salford, and the other was for
stabling with intent to do grievous bodily harm.
Mr. Lereeche was for the prosecution ; the prisoner
was undefended.

The prisoner was sentenced at the spring maims to
twelve months' hard labour for a robbery with violence.
He was undergoing his imprisonment on the 3th April, and
was working on the tread-wheel. About three o'clock
he got off the tread-wheel, and went to sit down,
which was against the ruler unless his turn at the wheel
had been up. This not being the cam Reece, who had
charge of the wheel, ordered him to standi up. He drew a
knife out of his pocket, which he had been allowed to cut
the ends off mats made in the prison, and ran at Reece and
stabbed him twice under the left ear, and once under the
eye. One wound was half an inch deep and near the
carotid artery, and the blade had penetrated
to the bone under the eye. He had told a
fellow-prisoner that he was angering from rhea-
matism, and could not stand the mill, and if
the governor persisted in putting him to it, he would stab
him. The surgeon of the prison described the wounds,
and said they were not dangerous, bat had been near to
dangerous parts of the head. The pr;soner told the court
that he had been a great sufferer h rheumatism, and
bad complained to the surgeon, who refused him an order
not to go on the wheel. He said the prosecutor, Reece, was
unfeeling, and had told him he was taking measure of
him for his coffin, as he had previously done for another
prisonerle at the wheel, who soon afterwards required it.
denied this. The prisoner elicited from a fellow
prisorer, called to prove the sicault, and who had often
been on the wheel with him, that he had often heard the
prisoner crying while undergoing his task on the wheel.
The jury acquitted him of the intention to murder, but
found him guilty urder the second indictment.
The Judge thought the prisoner's conduct was more
attributable to dislike of restraint than to illness, and
sentenced him to seven years' penal servitude.
JoAp Mackie, 33, was charged with having attempted to
murder his wife, at Bolton, on the sth Aprll.
Mr. Blair prosecuted, and Mr. Richardson defended.
The proirecutrie, Mary Ann Maekie, said she was
between 24 and 25 years old,. and had been married to him
five years. Some seven or eight months ago she ceased to
live with him, and took one of the two children with her
to her mother's. The other child had been taken charge
of by the prisoner's mother. She bad since then supported
herself by workibg at a cotton-mill She left him because
of ill-treatment, and threats that be would take her life.
On the sth April, at neon, she was pearling a public-house
kept by John Moores, in olton, when she beard her name
called. On looking round she saw the prisoner standing
at the door, and he beckoned to her. She went to him, and
he took her into the bar parlour, and asked her to have
I some porter. She declined, and invited him to go home to
dinner with her, but he refused. She then tasted • glass
of porter with him. While sitting near him he suddmly
slipped one hand behind her and caught hold of her left
arm, and held it while with his other band he drew a
sharp instrument across her throat several times. She
fell on the floor, bleeding. A surgeon proved that there
were three cuts on the throat.
Verdict, Guilty.
Sentence, twelve years' penal servitude.
Toni, Anoint? 5.
Piuus Counr.—(Before Mr. Justice Lush.)

•IBBIBON P. GROOM.-BREACH OF PROMIBZ OF MARRIAGE.

Mr. Manisty, Q.C., and Mr. P. Thompson were for the
laintiff ; Mr. Cave and Mr. Mellor appeared for the de.
pendant_

The plaintiff in this action was Mils Jane Gibbison, who
brought her action to recover compensation in damages
from the defendant for a breach of promise of marriage on
his part. The plaintiff was a young woman, 22 years of
age, and the daughter of the late Mr. Gibbison, who died
in August, 1865. He was a woollen draper at Retford, and
also kept an inn at the same town. The defendant, Mr.
Wm. Williamson Groom, was a young man, • little older
than the plaintiff, and was the son of an extensive
tradesman in Bond-street, London, and carried on the
business of • japan manufacturer. The defendant was
sent by his father to Retford to serve his apprentice-
ship, when he became acquainted with the plaintiff, and
paid his addresses to her. After they had kept com-
pare together for • short time the defendant, on the sth
of blay, 1865, wrote • letter to the plaintiff's father,
stating to him that he bed no doubt noticed during the
previous few months that he (the defendant) had frequently
kept company with his daughter, and that she was his fre-
quent companion in his walks. They had enjoyed each
other's society very much, but there was &drawback to it,
inasmuch as they had not his sanction. He assured Mr.
Gibbison that he loved his daughter truly, and be be-
lieved that his love was returned by her. His was not
a love at first sight, or a mere flirtation, and they could
not love each other more than they did. Mr. and Mrs.
Gibbison gave their mount to the intended marriage,
and the courtship between the two young people pro-
ceeded. A large number of letters were written by the
defendant to the plaintiff, the earliest epistle referred to
during the trial being dated Jan. 15, 1865, in which he ad-
dressed her as his dearest love. At that time the plaintiff
was staying at Not ton, near Melton, with Mr. Wise, who
married her sister, and the letter was addressed to her at
that place. The defendant assured the plaintiff that he
longed to see her, and said that her carte de visite was
almost worn out in his pocket, and that her looks required
no improvement. He had never before truly loved a girl,
and she would find his heart warm towards her. In July,
1865, he addressed another letter to her, calling her his
dearest pet, and hoping soon to receive from her • dozen
kisses. On the 6th of November, 1865, in • letter
addressed to the plaintiff, the defendant termed her his
deareetJenny,andstated that the first letter he had written
to her was on the 7th November, 1864, just twelve months
previously, and he hoped that they would know each
other for many years, adding, " I would I were • bird
that I could fly to thee." (Laughter.) In • letter on the
4th of January, 1866, the defendant again addressed the
plaintiff as his dearest pet, saying that earrings could not
improve her, as she wee handsome without them, and on
the 30th of the same month he told her that the more be
looked at her carte de visite the more be liked her, and
stated that his father had recently been put to 3,000/. ex-
pense in connection with his business. On St. Valentine's
Eve he sent her a letter in which he said that he loved her
meet sincerely, and that be believed she loved him in
return. He said that valentines were useless pieces of
paper, not fit for people that were engaged to each other,
sad went on to say that from her lips he could hear
words fit for angel's food. On the sth of June he wrote '
to her wishing her many happy returns of her birthday,
trusting that not a lung tune would elapse before her
name would be changed, and that the first wish he had
upon earth was to prove the sincerity of his love. His
father, mother, and sister became acquainted with his
intended union with the plaintiff, and on the 2nd of
September, 1866, he wrote to the plaintiff informing
her that the mete& was approved of, but that the
governor (meaning his father) " did not take very kindly
to the new idea," but that time would work great
wonders in this respect, and that his father wished to
see his daughter-in-law. The defendant after this sent
the plaintiff a gold locket with chain, containing their
miniature portraits ; and at the latter end of September,
1866, the defendant's mother wrote to the plaintiff,
showing that her son confided her secrets to her, and
informing her that the defendant had his father's consent.
Marriage was an important step to take, and her heart
went affectionately towards the plaintiff, whom she
looked upon as one of themselves. No doubt the union
would make them both as happy as possible, and her best
blessing was upon them. On the 3rd of September the
defendant wrote to the plaintiff, saying that his father
wished to see her carte de visite, and he was glad to state
that" the governor had taken to the new idea," and that
there was a bright future before them. On the 16th of the
same month the defendant wrote to the plaintiff's mother,
calling her his future mother-in-law, and that he bad the
sanction of his father to the matriage. The next letter
alluded to in the course of the case was dated the 12th of
December last, in which the defendant expressed his affec-
tion for plaintiff in the same terms as he had to often done
previously ; but on the 15th of December, only three days
afterwards, the defendant changed his tone. On that day
he addressed the plaintiff as his dearest Jenny, and then
spoke of the bad weather, hoping that there would be a
seasonable Christmas. He next refer red to three dreadful
colliery explosions, remarking that it would be a sad
Christmas far the poor colliers' wive, and families, spoke
of the cattle plague, and the losses the farmers had sus-
tained, and concluded, " Believe me, yours affectionately,
W. W. Groom." Within • week after this, on the 20th of
December, 1866, the defendant wrote to the plaintiff
stating that he had asked his father to be absent at Christ-
mu, but that he had met with • flat refusal and an ex-
pression of entire disapproval of the • e engagement.
His father also declined to furnish him with means to en-
able him to maintain • wile, and the plaintiff knew full
well that he had not • shilling to bless himself with. It
therefore would not do for him to marry with
such hopeless prospects. He bad nothing to support •
wife, his father would not help him at all, and he could
not help himself. The reason why the marriage contract
was broken by the defendant, was that his father wished
him to marry • woman in a better position in life than
the plaintiff.
Mr. Wise, of Melton, who married the plaintiff's sister,
was called, and he stated that the plaintiff was staying
with him in August, 1866, and that the defendant came to
Molten to see her, and he told him. that he intended to
marry the plaintiff. The defendant informed him that his
father was an extensive tin and japan manufacturer in
Bond-street. London, and employed 200 men, and four
travellers, the latter of whom had from 200/. to 300/. per
year each as salary. The plaintiff was staying at his house
when the letter of the 20th December last arrived. She
was taken suddenly ill, and remained indisposed until she
de=a month afterwards.
xamined—The defendant never told him that he
was dependent upon his father.
The mother of the plaintiff stated that her daughter
came home in January last, when she was ill and de-
pressed. A doctor was consulted, and he found the
plaintiff labouring under nervous debility. He said
to her (witness) that he " could not minister to a mind
diseased." The plaintiff was now a little better, but she t
was still in very low spirits.

Kr. Cave, in addressing the jury for the defendant, said
that his client was a mere apprentice boy and, not having
sufficient to do in his business at •small place likekietford,
he spent his leisure time in sweethearting the plaintiff.
Because a foolish boy had rashly promised marriage to a
young girl, was the defendant's father to be called woe!
to pay heavy damages for a matter with which he had
nothiag to do. He contended that the plaintiff had es-
caped from the consequences of an ill-judged and un-
happy marriage which would have led to nothing but
misery, and the learned counsel submitted chat very small
damages would meet the justice of the case.
The learned judge, in summing up, mid it was clear that
a promise of marriage bad been made, and it was clear that
it had been broken. It therefore remained with the jury to
say what amount of damages would fairly compensate the
plaintiff for the injury she had sustained, so far as money
could eompensate her for the position she had lost in life,
and for the mortification she had experienced.
The jury consulted together for a few momenta, and then
found for the plaintiff, damags 7501.

OXFORD ClRClllT.—Seßzwasusy, Auo. 5.
czoint Courr.—(Before Mr. Julio, Mellor.)
Richard Yates, an elderly mane( respectable appearanoe,
surrendered on bail, charged with the manslaughtera
three men at the Old Park Company's Colliery, near
Shiffnal.

Mr. Bo hey appeared for the prosecution, and Mr.
Motteram for the defence.
On the 17th of May a band of eight men were descend-
ing the shaft of the Orange Pita, one of a number belong-
ing to the Old Park Colliery, of which the prisoner was
engineer, when the chain broke, precipitating the
men to the bottom of the pit, three of them being killed
on the spot.
From the evidence of Mr. Wynne, the government
inspector of mines for the district, it appeared
that the immediate cause of the accident was the
fracture of the brass in which the journal of the fly wheel
worked, and it was shown that this brass had been per-
mitted to wear away from an original thickness of three-
quarters of an inch to that of one-sixteenth of an inch, at
which stage it broke. It was alleged by the prosecution
that it was the duty of the prisoner to have known of and
renewed this old brass ; but it was proved that he was
dependent for information as to the condition of the
several engines upon the engine-men's reports, and no
report had been made to him with respect to the engine to
which the accident occurred. . . . .

Without waiting to he•r consume] the jury stated that
they were of opinion that there was no evidence to support
• charge of manslaughter agaisurt the prisoner, and he was
accordingly discharged.

NISI PRIUB COURT.—(Before Mr. Justice Shee.)

PLETCHER V. THZ GREAT WEOTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.
This was an action to recover 1,5001. damages alleged to
have been sustained through the negligence of the defen-
dents, whereby the plaintiff's husband had been killed.
The deceased was at the time of his death an engineer
employed at the Old Park Colliery, near Dawley, Shrop-
shire. His inoome averaged 3/. a week, in addition to
which be had a house rent free and other perquisite'. Oa
the 7th May he was returning home after seeing a friend
off by rail, and in passing along a road over a bridge built
by the defendants across their line, between Oakengates
and Dawley, be fell over the wall, and on the following
morning was found lying dead on the line. Evidence was
adduced showing that the road in Question was a publics
highway, and had been so used ever since the bridge was
built. When originally made, the parapet wall of
the bridge had been four feet high, but subse-
quently, by alterations made in the level of the
road, this had been reduced to 17 inches, in which
condition it was permitted to remain by the defendants.
The points of defence relied upon were—firstly, that the
road was not a public highway ; secondly, that it was not
proved that the plaintiff's husband had lost his life by
falling over the bridge ; and thirdly, that with the know-
ledge that the road was a dangerous one, it bad not been
shown on the plaintiff's behalf that her husband had
observed due precaution in passing over it.
His lordship summed up at great length, and
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—damages,
2001.