The Sun.
London, England, 1855-10-27 00:00:00

received ?

Baron Alderson said the admission of this evidence
was more a question for the consideration of the court
than the jury. The question was whether they should
tell the jury this was or was not evidence in this case,
upon wl,ich they (the jury) were to act.
Mr. Baron Martin said the judges had given the
point great consideration.
Mr. Abrahall, examined by Mr. Serjeant Byles, pro-
duced the fiat in Bankruptcy, dated 11th June, 1855.
Mr. M. J. Tatham was the petitioning creditor. They
surrendered on the 12th. Their first examination was
on the 25th. There was a joint declaration of the bank-
rupts, but no examination.
The declaration, dated 25th June, 1855, was put in
and read. It stated that the bankrupts had made a full
disclosure of all and every security deposited with them,
which they had sold, pledged, or otherwise converted,
or had been done at their direction. In the schedule of
securities was entered 5,000 Danish 5 per Cent. Bonds,
belonging to Dr. Gvillths, bought by Strahan and Co.
No date given when the purchase was made, but that
they had been deposited with Overend, Gurney, and
Co., and sold by Foster arid Co.
_

The separate statement of Sir Jahn Paul was put in
and read. It was dated on the 18th June, and stated
that the accounts filed in the Bankruptcy Court con-
tained a true account of all the securities of my cut°•
mere, at any time pledged or converted by me, the par-
_ _

titulars of which will be found in the banking books,
the green stock-book, and the ledger.
Mr. Parry called their lordships' attention to the state-
ment of Mr. Bates being a little different from theirs.
It did not state the securities were pledged by him.

Baron Alderson—Then it is not a disclosure.

Mr. Parry said whatever the effect of it was he con-
sidered'hinaself bound to direct their lordships' attention
to it.

Mr. Lewis, attorney for two of the prisoners, was ex•
amined by Mr. Serjeant Byles. He stated that under
the advice of counsel he advised the prisoaer to make
the statements in question, with a ♦iew, amongst
others, to making a disclosure within the statute.
The statements were produced to the Commissioner
in Bankruptcy, and the bankrupts requested to hand it
in, as their statement with regard to the securities which
they had received from their customers, and the manner
in which they were disposed. Upon that the Commis.
sioner stated that no creditor had asked for it, but they
were at liberty to hand it in, if they thought fit, to the
official assignee. The statement was then handed in,
and the Commissioner signed them. After that it was
given to the official assignee, and then to the solicitor
to the fiat, who examined them on the truth of the
statements which the bankrupts signed.

Cross-examined by the Attorney-General—At the
Bankruptcy Court Mr. Parry, who attended for the
bankrupts, asked if they might be examined with
reference to the statement of the securities to be de-
livered in. The Commissioner said if some creditor
wished it, they might be examined, but on their own ap•
plication he refused it. Mr. Parry said, then I formeoy
tendered this declaration of bankruptcy, and his Honour
might accept it or not, but under the bankrupt statute
they bad a right to do it. His Honour said they might put
in what they liked if they signed. Witness did not hear Mr.
Parry ask Mr. Lawrence if he wished to ask the bank-
rupt any questions. He had had no previous communi-
cation with Mr. Lawrence, other than ask him to bring
up the bankrupts for examination, but he refused, and
witness had to pay the expenses and bring them before
another commissioner than the commissioner to the fiat
for the first examination. At that time they were in cus-
tody on criminal warrants. On the morning of
22d June there had been an examination of
the prisoners ; in the afternoon of that day he ap-
plied to the Commissioner for a warrant to bring the
bankrupts before him to make a disclosure with reference

,o those securities.
By Sergeant Byles—There was no understanding be.

tween witness and Mr. Lawrence.
By Baron Alderson—Dr. Griffiths' attorney was pre-
sent at the Bankruptcy-court, but did not interfere.
Mr. Sergeant Byles asked for the production of the
green stock-book and ledger. The grew' stock-book
contained no statement relative to Dr. Griffiths' secu-
rities.

The Attorney-General said that was the reason why
he wished to have the green stock-book produced.
The books were produced and examined. The ledger
contained two entries in Sir J. D. Paul's private account
to which attention was called.

Mr. Baron Alderson said, the green stock-book did
not affect the case at all. It appeared to be a book of
stocks on which they received the dividends.
Mr. Sergeant Byles asked the Attorney-General if it
was intended it should affect the case ?

The Attorney-General said he was net aware it did.
The ledger was examined, and in the private account.
of Sir Jobn Paul was entered on the credit side, 12,2841
ss. Od., the proceeds of the sale of the 5 per Cent, and 3
per Cent. Danish Bonds, sold by Foster and Co., and on
the debit side was entered the cost price of the substi-
tuted securities pledged with Orerend, Gurney, and Co.
Mr. Sergeant Byles then called evidence as to the
pledging of these bonds, to prove the truth of the bank-
rupts' statements that the securities were pledged.
Mr. Bois, clerk to Overend, Gurney,and Co., examined
by Mr. Sergeant Byles, said that the bonds re-purchased
by Mr. Hill were the same numbers as those deposited
with them by Mr. Young, solicitor for Sir John Paul,
on SOth April, 1855.
Mr. Savery proved the payment of the coupons on the
above bonds to the prisoners.
This was the case for the defence.
The Attorney-General said it now became his duty to
address the jury on the evidence that had been adduced
for the defence, and in doing so he had no desire nor
wish to do anything but discharge faithfully and honour-
ably a public duty that had been confided to him. As he
said at the commencement of the trial, it was not the
desire of the prosecution, nor those who represented
them, to act harshly or vindictively towards the de-
fendants in this case ; but they had a public duty to

discharge which must be faithfully and earnestly dis-
charged. The case divided itself into two parts, one
of which was more immediately for their consi-
deration, the other for that of their lordship. In
the first place, had the prosecution made out its case
against the defendants that would bring them within the
terms of this indictment ? The second part was that,
supposing the first was proved, had the defence set up
by the defendants brought them within the protecting
provisions of that clause of the statute which enabled
persons who had committed an offence to evade the penal
consequences by making a disclosure under circumstan-
ces required by that statute ? In the first place, had it
been proved that the defendants, or either of
them, had made away with, contrary to the form
of the statute, securities entrusted to them by
Dr. Griffiths ? It was not, nor could it be de-
nied, securities belonging to Dr. Grlffiths had been
entrusted to them for safe custody, and amongst them
were 5,000 Danish 5 per Cent. Bonds, which was the
subject matter of this trial. Now, with regard to Sir
John Paul, it could not be denied nor for a single mo-
ment disputed that he did make away with those secu-
rities in contravention of the terms of the statute. But
his learned counsel relied on the defence he had set up,
which, if that failed him, he must be found guilty of the
charge. He (the learned Attorney-General) admitted
there was a distinction in the case between Sir John Paul
and the defendants Strahan and Bates—there was more
difficulty about the case as regarded them. It was true
that Strahan bad made a clear and explicit confession of
having made'away with the securities belonging, as he
said, to Dr. Griffiths, by depositing them with Overend,
Gurney, and Co., in 1855 ; but it was said, however,
that, inasmuch as this charge, as preferred on the part
of the prosecution, related more immediately to the se•
curities disposed of by Sir John Paul—the original
securities of Dr. Griffiths in March, 1854 —the con-
fession of Strahan did not affect the case as regarded
the present charge in the indictment. Sir F. Thesiger,
on the part of Strahan, put it to them that
that admission must be taken to the full extent to which
it was made, and to lead them fairly and reasonably to
the conclusion that Strahan knew nothing whatever of
the transaction in which Sir John Paul was the leading
actor in March, 1854, and the learned counsel had also
put it to them that they were bound to take the whole
of Strahan's statement, in his interview with Dr. Grif-
fiths, as entirely true to the full extent of the letter.
That, however, was a proposition to which he
(fll,‘ Att.rne: -G ee-al) could no! nt,TcrlP. He could not
go with him in saying that everything a man said in
extenuation when a criminal prosecution was hanging
OYU him, and when he "as endeavotuiog to mitigate

the feeling and resentment of a man wro aged by him,
was to be implicitly believed. Strahan sa v Dr. Griffiths
in order to appease his feelings and ave 0, that prosecu-
lion which was impending over him, a nel he naturally
put the case to Dr. Griffiths in a mantle r least calculated
to irritate and offend him. In conciliating his friend
he was not likely to inform him the ban k had been tam-
pering for two years with the snenrities lodged
with them for security—that they sold the se-
curities in 1854, repurclia.-ied tb em, "veil again
disposed of them to Overend and Co. in April, 1855,
but to put the case to him that it was cbm e tit a moment
of temporary depression, and that it Ave s the first time
he had ever embarked in such a tranwiction. They
knew, however, too well, by the expari trim: of every-day
life, that when once the boundaries, of honesty and
honeur were overstepped, those of trutl a were very soon
lost sight of. He must ask them to loi )k at all the cir-
cumstances, and not bo bound by -the statement
of Strahan. What, he would as'k, was the case
against Strahan I Why, not merely his declaration
of having made away with securities in April, 1855, but
the fact that the fiern had been embarki ti,g in those trans-
actions to an extent perfectly appalling, and which had
been made stronger evidence against th e prisoners by the
production of the bankrupts' proceedi Jigs than at the
commencement of the case. By the se proceedings it
bad been shown that securities to the amount of

113,000/. had been dealt with in this way by the pri-
soners, of which 12,000/., including the 5,000/. of
Danish Bonds now under investigation, belonged
to Dr. Griffiths. Was it possible in. the face of that
that his learned friend could ask t' ae jury to believe
that those transactions were entered int) and carried
on by a single individual of the firm v rithout the kno
ledge and concurrence of the other members of that
firm, except in the last instance that had occurred
because that was the proposition of the learned counsel
who appeared on behalf of Bates, who called their atten-
tion to the fact that this was the only joint proceeds of
their transactions. He the (Attorney-General) found
that there was a private account of Sir J. Paul's, and
that therefore Bates must have in the most perfect
simplicity and honesty believed that Sir J. Paul was
paying into his private account moneys which he had
obtained from securities sold or deposited by him with-
out the knowledge of Bates. Ho must have been in
perfect ignorance of all these transactions, on the part
of Sir J. Paul, to make his learned friend's point good,
and who, with a certain show of triumph, appealed to
that account in establishment of the proposition. But
that account, it appeared to him (the Attorney-General),
was not only fraught with the greatest suspicion, but
produced the cogent, if not conclusive, guilt of those
parties. That was plain to his mind ; and he submitted
there was conclusive proof on the face of the private ac-
count of Sir J. Paul that the dealings in securities de-
posited with the bank was known to all the members
of that firm, and that they were co-operative parties to
the transactions. If they turned to the account, it was
plain and. palpable on the face of it that it was a colour-
able account —an account called the private account of
Sir J. Paul, but, in fact, an account into which all those
transactions, involving the disposal of securities, were
entered. What, he would ask, became of t'l,3 thousands
of pounds raised by this firm on the securities deposited
with them ? Why that they found their way into the
private account of Sir J. Paul, which bore no resem-
blance to the banking account of an individual gentleman.
It dealt not with items such as men in their daily re-
quirements needed, but large sums of money, none of
which, excepting in two instances, were under 5001. This
private account, it should be recollected, the other
partners were conversant and familiar with, and there
was no other form in which the proceeds of those secu-
rities, when disposed of, could be carried to the benefit of
the bank than that of putting them to the account of one
of the partners. Of course it was most desirable that the
clerks in the banking-house should have no notion that
the principals of the firm were dealing with the securi-
ties of the customers, and raising money by sale or ne-
gotiation of them. And how could that be done ?
Only by carrying the proceeds of such sales or negotia-
tions to the private account of one or other of the part-
ners, when it would find its way into the tills and drawers
of the bank, available as much for the purposes of the
house as if it had been put to the joint account of the
three partners. That being so, how does the account
stand 3 He (the Attorney-General) found that, for 1854,
the sums drawn by Sir J. Paul evidently had reference
to large monetary transactions, and not those of the
ordinary transactions of a gentleman who draws on his
banker for his daily requirements. The first charge he
found entered was 10,0201. to Sims and Co., brokers ;
May 3d, " self," 30,0001. (a sum which a gentleman did
not often draw for) ; and on the Bth of May a sum of
3,000/. Against that he found was entered on the credit
side a balance, to start with, of 9,978/. 13s. sd. On the
16th March, 30,000/., corresponding with the sem with
which he was debited on the 3d May. On the 16th
March, 12,281/. is., which corresponded in amount
with the cheques received from Messrs. Foster and
Braithwaite, the proceeds of the Danish Three per Cents.,
and the 5,000/. worth of Danish Five per Cents., the
property of Dr. Griffiths. The Attorney-General then
referred to several other entries for large amounts to
Sir J. Paul's private account, one of which, to his credit,
was dated the 22d of August, 1854, for 6,137/. 10s.,
which was admitted to have been received from
the disposal of these securities, and which went
to make up a balance in his favour of 27,3301.;
and this is the gentleman whom his learned friend
asserted was in such circumstances of personal embar-
rassment as to render it necessary to resort to tie con-
trivance of supplying the house with funds. When they
looked at these transactions, to the amount of thousands
involved, it was impossible to entertain the least doubt
or hesitation that this was not the private account of
Sir J. Paul, but was an account of the disposal of se-
curities to meet the emergencies of the day. Was it
possible for a moment to doubt that Strahan and Bates,
who were actively engaged in the management of the firm
and its affairs, must not have known well the state of
this private account of Sir John Dean Paul's I Was
it for a moment to bo doubted by men of ordinary in-
telligence and apprehension in those things, that
Strahan and Bates must have known of the disposal of
these securities, and if they know of Wm they must of
necessity been a party to the transactions. He had no
wish to strain the case unjustly against the prisoners,
or to put it to the jury higher than they thought the
case he had submitted to them warranted on the evi-
dence produced—and he asked them if it did not bring
home to their minds the conviction that Strahan and
Bates were parties to and privy to the transactions in
which Sir J. Paul was personally concerned. If they had
any doubts on the matter they would of course give them
the benefit of them, but if not, after coupling the other
circumstances of the case with those to which he had
directed their attention, it would be their duty to find
the prisoners guilty. He now came to the other part of
the case, that of the evidence that had been produced
on the other side, whereby it had been shown that the
whole of the prisoners had disposed of certain securities
which were not the original securities of Dr.
Griffiths, but securities substituted after the originals
bad been sold, and it would appear to stand thus—that
Dr. Griffiths' securities were sold in March, 1854,
which were substituted by the firm by others purchased
in Juno of that year. They knew from the evidence of
the broker that he received orders from the firm of
Strahan, Paul, and Co. to purchase for Dr. Griffiths
5,000/. Danish 5 per cent. bonds, which was a
circumstance not unworthy of consideration to deter-
mine the question whether Strahan and Bates were
concerned. with Sir John Paul in the sale of the
original securities, because if those securities had been
sold by Sir J. Panl, without the knowledge of Strahan
and Bates, for his private purpose, and placed to his
private account, he could have understood Sir J. Paul's
going into the market and purchasing new securities
with which to replace the old ones ; but he was totally
at a loss to understand why the firm should have sent an
order for the purchase of securities to replace those pre-
viously sold if they had not all of them been privy to the
making away with the original securities. They, how-
ever, did so, and Sir F. Thesiger bad contended the new
bonds were the property of Dr. Griffiths, and that he
would have been enabled to maintain his right to them
as against the claims of the assignees under the bank-
ruptcy for the benefit of the general body of creditors.
These were the securities deposited with Overend, Gut.
ney, and Co., and the defence relied upon was, that al-
guilty of an offence under the
though they had been
statute in so disposing of the new securities, they
had not been indicted for that offence, end therefore
they sought to get rid of the charge for which they were
called on to answer by showing they had been guilty of
another misdemeanour. That brought him to the con-
sideration of the question of the bankruptcy proceedings,
and which the learned Attorney-General considered did
not apply in this case. They.sought to get rid of the
original transaction by making a disclosure of the second
transaction. This, he contended, was no answer to the
first transaction.
Mr. Baron Alderson said he was entirely of opinion
with the learned Attorney-General on that point. The
disclosure was no statement with regard to the first
offence, but an answer to that which was.
The ;earned Attorney-General said, the
admis-
sion must be a bona fide one, and not put in to
defeat the ends of justice. Tho di,sglosures were made

without any desire 1 wing expressed upon the part of any

creditor.

Mr. Baron Alder. ion said the question for the jury
would be upon the 1 ids establishing the misdemeanour.

Mr. Baron Marti. e said that he was clearly of opinion
hat the disclosure is ado was not a disclosure within
the meaning of the apt `;.

Mr. Baron Aldersoq ' said it would be monstrous if the
disclosure made by the bankrupts was to defeat the pro-
visions for which it was enacted, and he did not think
any act could be so fool ish as to contemplate anything
of the kind.

The Attorney-General', in conclusion, said that the
question was, whether the disclosures made were of a
bona fldc character, n r only made by the prisoners to
escape the penal cone luences of their conduct. It had
been admitted by the: '‘r attorney that this was only a
screen to go before the thankrupt commissioner, and there
make a statement to el ear themselves. This they had
done unsolicited by any one of the creditors. The learned
Attorney-General then told the jury that the question
which they would have • to decide was, whether they
thought the prisoner Sir John Dean Paul bad, in 1854,
disposed of the securities which had been intrusted to
him by the Rev. Dr. G,riffiths, and if the other two pri-
soners were parties to :that act of which he was a prin-
cipal.

Mr. Baron Alderson then summed up, and told the

jury that if they thought the prisoners, being the
agents of the Rev. D. r. Griffiths, had sold certain
securities entrusted to tl iem, then they would clearly be
guilty of the misdemeas tour charged against the three
prisoners, and the jury •svould have to say how much
the parties were seven :11y implicated. Against Sir
John Dean Paul it cert ainly pressed the heaviest,
against Strahan the nest, and perhaps against
the prisoner Bates the least. The learned Judge then
proceeded to read over the evidence of the prosecutor
(Dr. Griffiths), commenting- upon the fact that Dr.
Griffiths had, at the interview about the payment of the
dividend upon Danish Bonds, been with the prisoner
Bates. His lordship then went through the evidence re-
lating to the securities, and then went into the question of
the complicity of the prisoners with the act of Sir John
D. Paul, and upon the question of partnership. It stood
thus: a partner was liable for the deeds of his copartners
by the deeds of his partnership. A partner was clearly
responsible civilly for any act of the other members of
the firm, but not criminally, unless he took an active
material part in such criminal transaction. For in-
stance, if a man was a sleeping partner in a firm, and
lived in the country, one, who merely had his name put
up and took the'profits:of the firm, but no part in the actual
trausactions.of the firm, G od forbid that such men should
he held }personally liable for the criminal acts of any
other. But then they the juasy must look into the actual
acts of these men. For this purpose they would have
to take into their consideration the statements made in
the disclosure upon the bankruptcy, and then con-
sidering the prisoners Bates and Strahan in the
disclosures they made had not proved that they
had not clearly established their knowledge of the acts
of their other partner. That was the main question
upon which they had to decide. With regard to the
question of the disclosures, he (the learned Judge) did
not think they had made full disclosures of their acts ;
and even if they had, did any one ever suppose
that persons were to commit a misdemeanour, ren-
dering them liable to transportation, and then
to go and volunteer a disclosure to clear them-
selves of the act, to make a disclosure in one place and
then bring it here as a full bona fiche disclosure, and if it
was as if a mere play were acting? Could the jury suppose
that it was ever intended that persons should play fast
and loose with the criminal laws like that ? It was not
a disclosure ever contemplated by the act—it was a
sham, a farce. He (the learned Judge) would wish
to take the opinion of the jury even upon that point,
even though it would not have the effect of settling that
part of the question, which would go elsewhere. The
main question they would have to decide was, did
Sir John Paul part with the securities, and did
they, the other prisoners, give their authority to do so,
with their approval and consent t If any doubt existed
upon their minds as to the part the other two prisoners
took in the matter they would give the prisoners the
benefit of that doubt.

The jury then retired, and having been absent about
half an hour returned, and found all three prisoners
guilty.

Mr. Baron Alderson, in passing sentence, said it was
a most painful duty for him to have to perform, to pass
sentence upon men who bad held the high position which
they had, and one of whom he had known and sat beside,
when holding high office, and he would to God it had fell
to another's lot to pass the sentence ; still a publio duty
demanded that he should do so, and he would not shrink
from such duty. He could not contend a worse offence,
and should, therefore, pass the severest sentence the law
allowed him, and that was transportationlor fourteen
years.

The learned judge seemed deeply moved whilst pass-
ng the sentence, but the prisoners, who each drew
themselves up to their full height upon being called upon
for sentence, and remained so during the whole of the
learned judge's address, received their sentence with the
utmost apparent indifference.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE—(This Day.)

THAMES.

DEMAND FOR WAGES BY THE ASIATIC CREW OF THE
PRINCE ARTHUR.—Captain Chas. Campbell Sutherland,
the master of the ship Prince Arthur, of Liverpool, ap-
peared before Mr. Yardley to answer the claims of 43
Lasca.rs, who assisted in navigating the ship from Singa-
pore to London. The Asiatic crew mustered long before
the magistrate arrived, and formed a picturesque group.
They were dressed in every variety of costume, the tur-
ban prevailing for head-dress, and were attended by their
Serang or chief, and the Burra Tuidal or boatswain, and
there were among them Bengalese, Cingalese, Malays,
and Calcutta men. Captain Sutherland attended before
the magistrate, with his European seamen, 11 in num-
ber, a few days ago, and said, as the ship had changed
hands since she sailed from England, he could only pay
their wages under a compulsory process, and asked the .
magistrate to grant summonses to the Europeans, which
was done, and Captain Sutherland appeared to the sum-
monses against himself two days afterwards, and,
•rders having beea made, he paid the Europeans
all their wages in the court, with 10s. costs in each
case, at the same time expressing his regret that the
state of affairs connected with the ship had compelled
them to come' before a magistrate. The Lascars now
complained that they were about to be sent back to India
in another ship, and without their wages.
Captain Sutherland said the Lascars had entered into
a contract to navigate the ship to England and back to
India, but if the vessel did not return to go to the East
Indies, they would be sent home in another vessel. It
was not yet arranged whether the Prince Arthur would
return to India or not. If she did return to India, the
Lascars were bound to go back in her.
Mr. Yardley—Certainly, that is the contract. Ex-
plain that to them, interpreter. The Lascars are under
a contract to serve in the ship Prince Arthur from Sin-
gapore to England and back, and they are not entitled
to any wages until the voyage is terminated in India.
Mr. Levy, the interpreter, having explained what
th• captain and the magistrate said, the Lascars ex-
pressed their fears they were to be sent back to
India in another vessel without their wages.
Mr. Yardley said there was uo fear of that. Captain
Sutherland had met the crew in a most fair and gentle-
manly spirit, and would pay all the wages due to them
here if the Prince Arthur did not return to India.
Mr. Levy said the Lascars wanted a little money to
purchase a few necessaries.

Captain Sutherland said he had no objection to ad-
vance the Lascare a little money ; and the magistrate,
in dismissing the two summonses which had been taken
out to try the case, said he was quite sure the Lascars
might rely on the honour and integrity of the captain.
Some time afterwards Mr. Levy said the captain had
offered to divide 201. only among the Lascars.
Mr. Yardley—That is a small sum. There are 43
men, and he can't offer them less than 1.1. each.
The magistrate's suggestion was immediately adopted.
The Lascars received 20s. each, and retired apparently
quite satisfied.

REPRESENTATION or WELLS.—Mr. Serjeant Binglake
(Liberal) will contest Wells on the Liberal interest, in
opposition to Captain Joliffe (Conservative).
HER MAJESTY'S JUDGES IN THE RURAL DISTRICTS.—
The anniversary of the Broadhembury Agricultural As-
sociation was celebrated on Monday, and the interest
of the proceedings was enhanced by the presence of Mr.
Baron Alderson (who is spending the vacation with his
relative, Mr. Drewe, of the Grange), and Mr. Justice
Patteson, who resides in the locality. The learned baron
had the toast of " The Judges of Ploughing " confided
to him, and he proposed it in a facetious speech, in the
course of which he alluded to a portly agriculturist
named Pyle, who was one of the judges, and said that
that worthy gentleman had a particular claim on him,
inasmuch as he bad told him (the learned baron) that he
had become a " judge of the land " 25 years ago, at the
same time that Mr. Baron Alderson had commenced
his official duties. Farmer Pyle, in responding, rejoiced
at tee fraternising spirit of the learned baron, but said
there was a difference between the two, " and that dif-
ference," exclaimed the sturdy farmer, slapping his
breeches' pocket, "is here." This amusing retort ex-
cited considerable laughter.

Spirit of the Public Journals•

(From the Morx,ing Post of this day.)
Rumours of a coalition fly about on ail sides, and
politicians who affect great insight into the back
scenery of public affairs talk oracular mysteries to
their friends and admirers touching. things that are
to be when next the great council of the nation as-
sembles for the despatch of business. Lovely peace
is said to be at hand, and Lord J. Russel!, Mr.
Bright, Mr. Disraeli, and Mr. Gladstone are the
four outriders. Garlanded with olive, and inex-
pressibly amiable, they join hands and embrace
like lasses and their swains beneath the mistletoe
on Christmas-eve. 'They have been bitterly op-
posed, they have impugned each other's public
spirit and political morality, they have bearded one
another, and quarrelled over crotchets lilee dogs
over the same bone. But the alarm of war has
scared them out of their own identity, and seeing
nothing but one another's virtues, and held by a
curious coincidence of interest and similarity of
prospects, they declaim against the very thing that
erewhile they agreed was indispensable to the vin-
dication
of international morality and the best in- I
terests of the human race. So says Rumour. But
Rumour may be true or false, and we do not pre-
sume to endorse what. she says. There is much to
be said both ways. If we look at the names of
die parties who are to head this coalition, and re-
fer to their antecedents, the chances are certainly
against their working amicably together in the ser-
vice of the country. But they may perhaps risk the
experiment.. Lord J. Russell is so uncertain that
his best friencle never know when they have him.
His eccentricities are more undeterminable the
longer ho lives. No public man or public writer
would bo so rash as to predict, even remotely,
what course Lord Jilahn would pursue in any great
crisis of public affairs. Let the past suffice. We
do not wish to rake up old grievances, but it is
possible not to be guided and influenced by the
general convictions that ha previous conduct has
left upon the mind. The chances, then, are about
equal that he will or will not unite with an anti-
war and pro-Austrian coalition. Then there is
Mr. Gladstone. After all he has said and done,
this way and that, who will certify what course he
will steer, or that he will be able to keep the point
towards which he professes to advance . Nobody
doubts the manly integrity of his purpose, but
who has a moment's confidence in his a,tability ?
Until he has been swung at Greenhithe in'id had
Ills compasses adjusted, there is no chance Of his
answering Io the helm, and no proper ground of
confidence in him as an administrator of the func-
tions of Government. Mr. Disraeli, again, has
many brilliant qualities, but a very limited follow-
ing. The identical men who are content to assist I
him by their vo.:es in his attempts to get his
party "in," would. decline to follow his leading
when that object was accomplished. The
great Conservative party is for the war. Mr.
Disraeli does not, however, represent that
party, and would probably be glad to exchange
the somewhat cold support he at present re-
ceives for the more exciting and noisy applause
which his appearance in a new character might win
for him from the disjecta menvbra of former Minis-
:ries. The only man of the four whose course has
been uniformly consistent, and whose " line" may
be safely calculated, is our old friend, the pacifico-
pugnacious John Bright. And it is just because
we can well forecast his course of action, his views,
and his speeches, that we doubt the possibility of
their amalgamation with those of the three other
names now before the reader.

But indeterminate as the chances are, we must
contemplate the possibility of the rumour being a
true one. But what a contemplation is it ! There
have been extraordinary coalitions in the world.
Fortes" (or, as a printer once facetiously put it,
Foxes), " vixerunt ante Agamemnon." And Dis-
raeli and Gladstone, after all their past bitterness,
may yet come together on the same side, and flank
' 'he same side of the Speaker in the House of Com-
mons. Precedents of such combinations are not
wanting, though, unfortunately, the instances of
their over effecting much public good are few
and far between. Certainly the last coalition was
not the least incongruous, as it certainly was
one of the most unfruitful of anything good. It
was the Aberdeen Government that let us in
for the war, and was demolished because it could
❑either carry it on nor got us out of it. Yet the pro-
posed coalition is even more incongruous and un-
promising. There is Mr. Bright, opposed to all
war, under any circumstances ; Mr. Gladstone
opposed to this particular war, or at least to its
continuance Lord John Russell, opposed to every-
thing in general, and nothing in particular, sup-
porting to-day what he opposed yesterday., with
the fullest likelihood that he will overthrow to-
morrow what he maintains to-day—a statest.laß
who is never sure of himself, and has an incolayse-
nient habit of letting his friends down at the very
moment that they have most right to count upon
his help. Last of the quadruplato comes Mr.
Disraeli, who, last Whitsuntide, went through a
martyrdom of misery lest Lord Palmerson's Go-
vernment should conclude an ignominious peace
during the recess, and whose spasmodic grief and
misgiving choked his utterance, and spoiled that
beautiful speech which was to have overthrown the
Ministry, and installed the Opposition in the confi-
dence of her Majesty.
It is impossible not to ask what have these men
in common ? How can they govern together 7 One
only common object can animate them—peace.
Peace at once—peace at any price. But what would
be the first effect of peace ? Supposing this incon-
gruous coalition to obtain peace at some price, what
must follow ? Their own dissolution as a Ministry.
Peace obtained, the only principle that held them
together would be gone. No single bond of unity
would remain. On every other point they are
wide as the poles asunder, and the conclusion of
peace abroad would be but the signal for the
commencement of the bitterest strife at home.
Such a Ministry could not exist a week without
danger to the country. Their miserable efforts
for peace would bat end in smoke, and the last
state of the country be worse than the first.

MARKET NEWS.—(This Day).

COVENT GARDEN.

We had a steady demand for both fruit and vegetables
at full prices. The supplies were seasonably large.
FRuir.—Pine apples, English, 3s to Gs per lb; colonial
do., is to 3s each • hot-house grapes, is 6d to 4s Oil per lb ;
foreign ditto, Od to Os ; melons, is Od to 2s Gd each;
peaches, is 6d to 6s ; nectarines, is 63 to 4s per dozen ;
apples, is Od to 2s 6d per half sieve ; pears, 2s Od to
5s per half s'e.,e ; plums, 5s to 7s per sieve ; green gages, Os
per punnet; apricots, is Gd to :is Od per doz.; common plums,
5s 01 to 7s Od per sieve ; cherries, Od to Od per pound;
lemons, 4s to 8s Od per 100 ; oranges, 8s to lls per 100; fil-
berts, Gs to Os per doz. lbs ; cobnuts, Os to Os ' • almonds,
Os to Os per lb. ; walnuts, 8d to 10d per 100 ; figs, Os 9d
to is 6d per doz, ; strawberries, 0(1 to Od per pottle ; goose-
berries, is 6cl to 2s Od per half sieve i • currans, 3s Od to
Od per half seive ; raspberries, 2d to Gd per pottle.
VEGETABLVs.—Greens, is 6d to 3s Od per doz. bunches;
red ditto, 2s to 5s Od per dozen ; French beans, 2s Oil
'to 3s Od per half sieve • brocoli, Od per bund. ; potatoes, 60s
to 100 s per ton ; vegetable marrow, 4d to is per doz. ; peas,
3s to 5s Od per bushel ; broad beans, is Od to is 9d per half
sieve ; turnips, 2d to 4d per bunch ; carrots, 3d to 5d per
bunch ; cucumbers, Os 2d to Os 6d each ; garlic, 8d to
Os 8d per pound ; spinach, is Od to is 6d per sieve ;
old onions, Os to Os per bushel ; new ditto, 2s Gd to 4s per
doz. bunches; leeks, 14 to 2d per bunches ; shallots,
4d to 6d : horse-raddisi, 2s Od to 4s Od per bundle ; parsley,
2d to 3d per bunch ; celery, Os 9d to is 3d per
bunch ; endive, is 3d to 2s 3d per score ; beet, 1s Od to 2s
par doz. • parsnips, Os 6d to is Od per dozen ; small
salad, 2d to 3d per punnet ; mushrooms, le 3d to is 9d per
pottle; artichokes, 5s to Gs per doz. ; cabbage lettuces,
9d to is Od per score ; sorrel, Gd to is per half sieve ;
radishes, is to is 3d per dozen hands ' • tomatoes, 3s to 45
per half sieve; chillies, ls to is Gd per 100; Brussels
sprouts, is Od to 2s per half sieve ; capsicums, is 6d to 2s
per 100; walnuts pickling, 6d to is per 100; cauliflowers,
2s to 5s per doz.
NEWGATE AND LEADENH.A_LL.
Turkeys, Os Od to Os Od ; Geese, 5s Od to 6s 6d estop.;
Ducks, 2s 3d to 2s 9d ; tame Rabbits, Os
tOd tq 00..ct!d;
wild do., is to is 6d each; Pigeons,
6d
Vti Od lito
large Surrey Fowls, Os Od to Os Od ; middling, 33 6d
3s Od ; Chickens, is 9d to 2s 3d ; Cap°
to 4s 6d ; Hares 3s Od to 45 Od ; Grouse, 28 Od to
e ls 3d to 18 9d each ;
Pheasants, 3s Gd to 3s 9d ; zns.sd each
Guinea Fowls, 2s 6d. to 3s Odpeaarcthr7gOs'iend fresh butter, lis
oh ditto, 5s Od to 78 Od
6d to 12s 6d, and English lie Gd
to 148 6d per dozen lbs.
English Eggs, 8s Od to 9s Od ; Fran
per 120.
BILLINGSGATE.iIIB2s
6dto lOs each ; Salmon,
Turbots, 380 d to 15s ;Brod ills,
2s 6d to 15s each ; Soles,
le 6d to Os Od per lb
Eels,;
8d to is Od per lb; Lobsters, 1 s to
-whitings, 3s °cit. to
00218626:ds perppee rr doz,dbos ;;. 8d to 2s 6d per pai97s Od •
2s 6d ; Crabs, 6d to
. m;Smelts,Natives,ps s 508ds Common Oysters, 168
rto10020s;
is 6d to 2s 6d per gallon;
Mackerel, 60s to Os per
6d per dos. ; Fresh Herrings, 8. Od
Skate, 6d to Od
100 • Scotch do.,Sprats,Bs Od to Os Od
Bloaters, is Od to
•
6d;
to Os per is Od to 103 each;per
bushel ; Doreys,Haddocks, 4s to 12s per
doz.; Pike 6d ; Sturgeon, Gd per lb ; Prawns, 4s Od to Os;
Mullets, 6d to le 6d ; Plaice, 4d to is each ; Halibut, 6d per
i HD; Flounders, is 6d to Os per dozen.

BREAD.
The prices of wheaten bread in the metropolis are from
100 to ;of household ditto, 82d to 10d per 4lb loaf.

HIDES AND SKINS.
Market hides, 561 b to 641 b, 3id to 3id ; 641 b to 721 b, 3id
to Od ; 721 b to 801 b, 3cl to 4d ; 801 b to 881 b, 4d to 4id ;
881 b to 961 b, lid to 4jd ; 961 b to 1041 b, 4id to 5d ; 104
to 1121 b Od to Od ; upwards, Od to Od ; Horse hides, 6s.
6d to Os Od ; calf skins, tight, 2s Oct to 3s Od ; ditto, full,
6s 6d to Os ; Polled Sheep, 3s 10c1 to 5s 2d ; Seats, 3s
8d to 4s gd ; Half-brads, 3s 8d to 45 8d ; Downs, 3s Od
to 3s 6:1; Lambs, 2s 9d to 4s 6d ; Shearlings, Os Oct to Os Od.

HAY MARKETS.
timrrfirmr,D.—Meadow hay, 3/ 15s to 616 s ;`clover ditto,
4l Os to 6/ 15s ; and straw, 11 Ss Od to 11135' Od per iced.A
fair average supply and a steady demand.
CITLIBEIILAND.—Meadow hav, 3118,4 to 61104; clove! do.,
41 Os to 6/ ; and straw, 1/ 8s to 1/ 11s per load.
Supply tolerably good, and trade rather firm.
WHITECIIAPEL.—Meadow hay, 31 15s to 6s 6s; glover do.,
4/ Os to 61 18s ; and straw. 11 8s to 11 13s per load.
Both hay end oraw were is fag request, at full pricois