The Sun.
London, England, 1864-12-22 00:00:00

TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.

Sin,—The disasters during the late gales cannot fail to
call attention to the great services rendered by the National
Lifeboat Institution, and should stir up not only individual
charity, but all great public communities to aid that insti•
tution in their noble work—the preservation of human life.
Why should not we bear our part ? A subscription of one
penny from each effective, if our good friend the Inspector-
General is right in his figures, would be amply sufficient
to build and equip a first-class liteboat, to be presented to
the institution, and stationed by them where most at pre-
sent needed. lam sure the commanding officers and cap'
tains of companies would willingly lend a hand in collect•
ing.—Yours, Ste.,
December 21, 1864. 3n LONDON.

Mr_ Fraser, Dr Maginn, and Miss Landon•

The Hon. Grantley Berkeley writes as follows to
our leading contemporary : _

_ -
Sir,—ln your review of my book in the Times of the 16th
December you call my reference to the late "Miss Landoll
an ex parte statement, and you say " that those who could
speak to the facts are all dead now." By this you assuredly
attempt to doubt my veracity. The chief witness, alas I is
dead ; she died, as we all know, by an act caused ty
broken heart, and with her the most terrible proof of all lies
buried in the grave. . _

When Dr Maginn died ho left a widow, and for the
benefit of his widow the Morning Post and other papers of
the day set on foot and warmly advocated a public sub-
scription, laying before the charitable her destitute condi-
tion, and lauding the virtues, public and private, of her de-
ceased husband. In this benevolent attempt the duel with
me was by some of the papers alluded to, and its origin as'
signed to every cause but the true oae. The last publication
whieh came to my notice in which this transaction was re*
ferred to was the Irish Quarterly, and there it was given 50
a "political quarrel."

While this subscription for the widow was ou foot, and
while the press were lavishing praise on a man whose entire
life was one of drunkenness and debauchery and anony-
mous detraction, for the sake of the widow I remained silent
and overlooked the false statements that were made in regard
to the duel ; but when the subscription had been attained,
then, on the appearance of the article respecting it in the
Irish Quarterly, I warned the editor that if again a fats©
colour was cast upon the transaction by the Quarterly, or
any other portion of the press, having no longer any reason
for withholding the truth, I would give to the public a cor-
rect version of the matter.

This is the first time, since I gave that warning, that the+
subject has been mooted.
In my book, and in my account of my
successful defence
of the gifted but terribly ill-used girl (a defence which, alas I
came all toe late), I have told just enough of the truth t°
make evident the sad fact. If I have trodden lightly over
her misfortunes, and it my publisher has spared them, that
surely should invite the approbation of a leading journal
and your praise, rather than an attempted insinuation
against my truthful narrative.
And now permit me a few word's as to my assault on the
late " Mr Fraser," which you say "you must characterise
as it deserves." I quote your words preoisely as you have
published them. "The chastisement inflicted on a poor,
feeble old man, such as Fraser was at that date, was $°
brutal and excessive that we regret that Mr Berkeley 10
exhibited no sense of contrition for his wanton exhibition
of his muscular superiority."
To this in all confidence I reply that by every appearance`
Mr Fraser seemed to me to be then and there in the prime
of life. He was neither a little man nor a "ie6blei' man.
He certainly had not a wig on or it must have come ot° ;
therefore if the outside of his head was his own it had 'lei.
ther a bald place nor a gray hair on it, nor had he a gray'
hair on his whiskers. He was nimble enough on his lege'
certainly, Moreover, such had been the nature of his scan-
dalous attacks on several gentlemen that they had contem-
plated a personal assault on him, but were advised to
abstain from it on account of a doubt as to whether or Or
they would successfully succeed in the administration e"
punishment.
When I sought the shop in Regent-street I neither la°
nor cared what sort of a man Mr Fraser was; had he bee:
a giant or a Tom Thumb, on his refusal to my fair dents%
I should have used the whip. I came forth to redress
wrong, and failing to obtain redress administered a punish'
went that, in the eyes of a jury, deserved no pecunierf
compensation. I know nothing of the date of Mr Fraser:
birth, but had he been the feeble old man you assert hint to.
have been, surely that fact would not have escaped I/
pleadings for excessive damage. en
I care not what you say of my book nor of me, save Nv tat
you attribute to me a deviation from the truth, or Wil,
actions. To those offences on your part, as you are a ger': deot
man as well as the owner of the Times newspaper, I d`r.
your attention, and request at the same time the publicatio
of this letter.—Yours,
GRANTLEY F 13BRAET
Alderney-cottage, Wimborne, Dec. 13.

A WORKMAN'S TICKET- OF- LEAYE.—On go
Dl als
at the police-office, Birmingham, before Messrs. D.
and T, Lloyd, William Gore, joiner, sued Mr Joseph 1-131."40
wick, builder, Bradford-street, for 12s lid, being 1"ge,,0
alleged to be due for a half-week's work done. Dir .Pll-
- for the complainant, and Mr Kennedy, of one
Midland Circuit, for the defendant. As the case Was °7l
which would decide a good many others of a similarof
some intereet was taken in it by a large numb". to
operatives who attended. Mr Jones said it was not jog
amount involved, but the point to be decided as airce,'
L,,DO
a body of joiners, that made the case iraportant.Dott
complainant was in the employment of defendant, on,
Tuesday week last, along with the others, he struck
fitwo
without notice, on account of a certain resof,•
agreed upon by the masters, and hung up in the 017:o
On the Saturday following the complainant
the defendant for the wages due for the SaturdaY' rsed,
day, and Tueeday that he had worked' but Nvdo
weak t
on the ground that he had not worked out lII°
and he now brought his action to recover the rd by
The question was whether the men were epOD 010
the week or by the hour. After the evidence
point had been heard, Mr Malins in announcing ft .bere
sion of till bench, said th'ry were sorry to bear th
frual:ter
should be these recurring differences hetweerA alwayG
and men on a large scale, because they
wenrc',
mutually injurious; but, however much the b.e oo''oPrdo
deplore them, they could of course do nothrtnegt.'_ gaga
adjusting them, and must confine them'
fora
12a
lion of whether the complainant's
wages ought to be allowed under the ciarch
njh
they 8610 not
bench thought it ought not; and, thong g
could not holP
always give reasons for their decisions,
stronthatgly.
ht be reasonablY
and a half was remitted on Saturday it might
_or rho
claim
utorstanclet criDe
was to be spree° v .liy
concluded that the sacrifice made
were
not 163
whole of the week, and that a week's wage
ones, were
to
due until the long days, as well as the short
conclusion
worked out. They had therefore come to the
dismiss the cornplainahVo claim,