The Sun.
London, England, 1864-12-01 00:00:00

Mr. Bazley, M,13 , and his Constituents,

Mr Bazley, M.P., for Manchester, met his cone
stituents in the Free.trade-hall on Tuesday even..
ing. It has not been customary for the members
for Manchester to give an annual address to their
lecal friends and supporters on the prominent gees-
tioas of the time, as is done in many towns ; but
in the years prior to the election of 1857, when
Mr Milner Gibson and Mr Bright were unseated,
the practice was subetantially observed by their
attendance at great political gatherings held each
winter at the Freeetrade-hall, the Corn Exchange,
or the Albion Hotel. If any dissatisfaction might
be supposed to hare existed at the absence of many
opportunities since then of receiving from the
members. for the city a review of Parliamentary
affairs in the form of a speech, the idea would
hardly be borne out by the limited attendance on
Tuesday evening. Up to within a few minutes of
the time of commencing the proceedings not more
than 200 persons were present, The number after•
wards increased to upwards of 1,500, but the hall
was at no period of the evening half filled. The
spacious platform was quite empty until the chair was
taken by Sir E.Armitage. Mr Be zley on his entrance
was very cordially received. Among the gentle-
men who then and subsequently made their appear•
ance on the platform were Mr George Wilson, Mr
Alderman Mackie, Mr Alderman Nicholls, Mr Alder-
man Re Neill, Mr M. Ross, Mr T. Mosley, Mr F.
Taylor, Dr. Watts, Mr S. Giles, Mr Alderman
Goadsby, Mr S, Pope, Mr T. Clegg, Mr R. Rumney,
and Mr Councillor Thompson,
Mr BAILEY, who was much cheered, addressed
the meeting at great length. He said he had en.
deavoured since his return to Parliament to give
effect to those Liberal principles which he had en.
gaged to support. After speaking of his vote for the
abolition of church rates, he referred to the reduction
of taxation. He had voted with the Chancellor of
the Exchequer for the repeal of taxation to the
amount of £10,000,000, without detriment to the
national revenue. He objected both to an intermed•
dling foreign policy and to a system of levying upon
the mother country the expenses of our colonies,
which were rich enough to support themselves. In
our dependencies abroad there had been aggressions
from time to time which had received his condem-
nation. He feared, as in the case of New Zealand,
that some of our countrymen were not altogether
free from the charge of an attempt to abstract
the inheritance of the aborigines. He regretted that
eve did not so direct oar national councils as to de-
velope more effectually the resources of the East In-
dies. We sent Europeans to:manage that great des
pendency, where the people were quite capable of
managing themselves, and he had no doubt the time
would come when they would direct their own men.
tal powers to the government of their own country.
Happily we had given to our colonies the means of
self-government; they had Constitutions freer than
our own ; they had a- franchise more extensive than
our own ; and in many of them vote by ballot had
been constitutionally established. (Applause.) But in
connexion with the East Indies in particular there
was a very grave and lamentable feature. We were
holding that vast possession at the present time
more by the power of the English army than by
the cordial support of the people, although he was
happy to acknowledge that by a wiser course of
government pursued during the last few years the
affections of the native Hindoos were more attached
to us than they have been in former times. Still
there remained the lamentable fact that we were
holding India chiefly by the support of a European
army, and the 80,000 men we had there, sent from
the United Ringdom, were diminishing in numbers
year by year fall 10 per cent. They might rely
upon it this year the 80,000 men have diminished
by 8,000 men. They had to be replenished by re.
mita from this country, and next year, by deaths
and other causes, another diminution of 8,000 men
would take place, and so on year by year. This
was a sacrifice of human life not needed. He be-
lieved if we governed India wisely and well there
would be found to be a force there capable of de-
fending its own shores and everything that was
valuable within its territory. The hon. member
then proceeded to enumerate some of the fruits of
our free-trade policy, showing the enormous
increase in our exports and imports in the last 20
yearn. He pointed to this as a triumph for industry
which had been emancipated. At the present mo-
ment our foreign trade might be represented by an
export of manufactures, and by other products, the
result, of labour, amounting to £150,000,000 ster-
ling. In that sum he was excluding the exports of
colonial produce, arid of course of gold aed silver
and other extraneous things that left the country.
lle was only referring now to the employment of
the people in this country, who had contributed by
their labour and productions to the extent of 150
millions sterling in value that had left our shores in
the form of exports. Ho wished to give a very prac•
tic-al application to this subject, because we- had
among us many people who said that perhaps the
mere transference of colonial produce did not come
strictly within the reward that industry ought to
obtain for labour. Therefore, he was bringing be.-
fore them prominently the mere result of labour. in
the various manufactured articles that left us. He
did not hesitate to declare his conviction that our
exports of foreign comforts now were contributing
to the subsistence of one-third of her Majesty's po-
pulation in the United Kingdom. To do our colo-
nies justice, he must tell them that they took from
us about one-half of our exports, and in return they.
gave us about one-third of our imports. Of course
the baiancee were paid for in bullion by other
means, but it was gratifying to find that of the
labour expended on our foreign trade our colonies
took one-half the produce, and sent in return one-
third the useful products we received into the
country. (Cheers.) After a reference to the well-
known figures of the increased trade with France
consequent on the commercial treaty (which elicited
cheers for Mr Cobden), the hon. member said there
was no doubt national prosperity had greatly in-
creased since the remissions by Sir R. Peel and Mr
Gladstone of 1,163 articles of customs' duty, but
unfortunately the increase of prosperity had been
accompanied by increased extravagance. In per-
sonal expenditure the rich might do very much
what they liked with their own, and the governing
classes of this country were chiefly the rich people
among us; but the poor contributed to an immense
extent towards the revenue of the ccuntry, and
therefore, dealing with the income that we derived
we should be careful that we did not lavishly spend
the earnings of those who could well and perhaps
more profitably employ them than we could by ab-
stracting them for public extravagance. (Cheers.)
He considered the increase of 15 millions a year in
the coat of our national defences since 1833-4 as
unnecessary, and he characterised it as a source of
almost wilful waste. We had positively been pour-
lug our treasure into the sea. We had been raising
fortifications upon some points of our coast,
and enlightened engineers said that those fortifica-
tions would be comparatively useless, because no
wise or cautious enemy would, if ever it should be
contemplated to invade this country, enter under
powerful batteries and attack us at our strong
points. If we were to continue this system of de-
fence,
we must come back to Bishop Berkeley's sug-
gestion of having a brass wall (laughter) round the
whole shores of the kingdom (cheers and laughter),
and we knew well that would be a practical impos-
sibility. It was quite true that we had been lavish-
ing money Very extravagantly through the agency
of various engineers, He had seen often enough by
the Manchester papers that a "long firm" came to
their city occasionally, cropping
out here and there,
and abstracting sums of money that would be very
much better left at home. Well, he very much
feared that we had had a " long firm," that he should
designate as Armstrong and Company—
(laughter)
—who-had been abstracting from the public tree.
Bury large sums of money which had very much
better have been left to fructify for the advantage
of the people. It was not his intention to calum-
niate or to injure the reputation of Sir W. Arm-
strong, or those immediately connected with him,
in reference to his labours upon his great gun and
other mechanical contrivances; bat in London the
other day he was told by a very high naval autho-
rity that in all probability the engineering services
—the gunnery—of Sir W. Armstrong would prove
ultimately to be perfectly useless to the country.

(Hear, bear.) We hod been spending, through Sir
W. Armstrong, probably something like .£3,e00,000
sterling, and in all probability we had to begin
de novo. Well, we had a number of ti ese con-
jurors—(laughter)—competing with ez ch other,
telling us they had sundry contrivan that would
make us invulnerable. Their contrivances were,
in fact, to take money out of the national Treasury
—(hear)--and he hoped that there would be some
corrective influence exerted that would stem the tor-
rent that seemed to have set in. He would do justice
to two of our own eminent citizens—Mr. Whitworth
and Mr Fairbairn ; and he believed that if these
distinguished engineers had been called into cone
fidence some years ago, and had given wise sug-
gestions, such as they were capable of, many
millions might have been spared to the Exchequer.
(Cheers.) Let them not understand him as being
unfavourable to the reasonable defence of the coun-
try ; on the contrary, he was favourable to the
maintenance of the safety of the empire, but he
was decidedly opposed to all wilful waste and ex-
travagance. (Hear, hear, and cheers.) With the
increase of the prosperity of the United Kingdom,
there, no doubt, had been a vast increase in trade,
commerce, and industry in every possible form, and
he was exceedingly happy in being able to express
his conviction that the cotton trade had partaken,
in common with other trades, in the amazing pros-
perity consequent upon the changes that had been
effected in our fiscal system and the repeal of the
corn laws. Twenty years ago we were consuming
about 28,000 bags of cotton per week. We had
gone on increasing until at the present moment, if
we had a supply of the raw material of good quality
such as the United States formerly supplied, he be.
lieved our power of consumption would be quite
equal to 56,000 bags per week. It was quite true
that in 1860 we only consumed about 48,500 bags
per week, but such had been the confidence of men
of capital in the resources of the country, that new
mills had been building, old mills had been im-
proved, and all in the hope that a better time was
coming, and that ample supplies of cotton would be
brought to fill those vast fabrics of industry, and
lead to the increasing prosperity of the country. He
deplored with them that the great calamity had oca
curred in America that had intercepted the supply
of cotton. But we were now dependent on our own
resources, and unless we did look at th© cultivation
of cotton in our own colonies and vast posses-
sions he feared that this industry would have to
suffer very considerable inconvenience for a great
length of time. He was sure he had no occasion to
repeat to them what he had often stated—that the
possessions of Great Britain contained more land
capable of producing excellent cotton than any other
territory on the face of the earth, (Hear.) There•
fore if our colonial exertions were wisely directed,
we should be enabled to obtain from the colonies
cotton in abundance, and of a quality equal to any
that was ever grown. He defended himself and his
colleague (Mr J. A. Turner) from accusations of
neglect of the question of cotton supply, not only
by reference to the part they had taken in public
agitation on the subject for many years, but by the
fact that they were both personally interested in
undertakings for the production of cotton in India
or elsewhere. He (Mr Bazley) stood before them
not with the golden prospects in return for these
exertions, but with losses in various forms, for the
originators of many schemes, however sound and
excellent they might be, were frequently the first
to suffer until the new industry was fairly esta-
blished. (Hear; hear.) In the storming of a citadel
there was always a forlorn hope that led the way,
but we know this t the men who first plunge into
the citadel frequently become the victims of their
bravery, and of their absolute determination to be
victors. And so it was frequently enough with
those who led on the career of social improvement
—that while they were sacrificing their own ims
mediate interests they ware promoting the ultimate
good of those by whom they were surrounded. (Ap-
plause.) He should give his attention'to this sub-
ject, and it would be his endeavour, so far as in his
power, to contribute to the independent and abun-
dant supply of cotton for this very great industry in
which they were all interested. (Hear.) The next
subject to which he referred was one too much over-
looked—the necessity of legal reforms_ He spoke of
the absurdity of passing separate sets of laws for
the three portions of a " united kingdom"— (hear)
—ho referred to local discrepancies, such as those
between the municipal government of the city of
London and that of the Weeteind; also to the non-
reception of living evidence in cases of business
contracts. As the matter stood, the inej3rity of
transactions on the Manchester I?,xchange were
illegal, and could not be sustained in a court of law,
because there was no written contract. We also
needed common standards of weights and measures
throughout the country. (Applause.) Adverting
to the Parliamentary proceedings of last session, he
was glad the Government had kept out of war on
the Danish question, although no doubt aggres-
sions had been committed which we all regretted
and condemned. We could not in this country
undertake the police of Europe. (Applause.) Nor
would it be right to interfere in any way in Ame-
rica. (Applause.) He preferred the retention of
power by a Government inclined to a peaceful
policy, because a peaceful policy is most consistent
with- economy. In spite of our difficulties or de-
ficiences our people had much improved in social
position during the last 20 years, and especially in
respect of education. He maintained very strongly
the conviction that nothing less than municipal
education—by local rates—would meet the wants
of our time. (Applause.) During the last few
months there had been a cry that middle-class educa-
tion ought to receive more attention. He confessed
himself very much surprised by the clamour that
was raised, for when we recollect that judges who
adorned our bench, that bishops who sat in the
House of Lords, and that some of the most eminent
men in the country had sprung from the middle
class, he did not think that that class need excite
the sympathy either of the Legislature or the
public. The middle class had been the means of
paying for their education, and, as a body,
he believed they were obtaining the beat
education of the kind for their children.
He next came to the most important subject on
which he had to speak—that of Parliamentary re-
form. (Cheers.) Both the great rival parties of the
State, the Conservatives and the Liberals, were
pledged to a reform in the representation of the
people. Their promises, he regretted to say, were
unfulfilled, and he thought that the non-faifiment
of those promises had produced a corrupting influ-
ence on the minds of the people, and were destroy-
ing to a great extent public confidence. (Hear.) He
very much feared that there was design in the with-
holding of these promises, for it had been discovered
that promises retarded more than denials did. He
quoted some of the statistics of anomalies in the re-
presentation, as shown by the numbers of Popula-
tion in places returning- members. There were 77
boroughs in England—not in the entire United
Kingdom—containing 535,388 inhabitants, and
which returned 'llB -members to Parliament. The
average number of inhabitants contained in these
75 boroughs were 7,165. Now, there were 59places
with 782,545 people, or an average of 13,263 inhae
bitanta, that did not send to Parliament a single
member. (Shame.) Just look at Manchester and
Liverpool. There were 801,917 inhabitants in these
two great cities, and we sent four members to Par-
liament. Those four members were met by the 118
members sent up by the 537,388 inhabitants from
the 75 places to which he had referred. He did not
know how such an inconsistency could be for a mo-
ment defended or maintained. To put the thing
in extreme contrast, let him remind them that there
was one borough io this England of ours—Honiton
—which contained only 3,301 inhabitants, that posi-
tively sent two members to Parliament, so that the
two members for Honiton had the power with
their 3,301 people, of negativing the votes and the
voices of the two members for Manchester, who had
nearly half a million of people to represent. We
must have this state of things amended. (Cheers.)
There were all sorts of contrivances made for the
purpose of diverting the attention of the people
from their main interests, and now there was a
clamour raised that " interests" in this country
should be represented, and not the people. What
a mystification was that! What interest had we in
this country, but such as are identified with the

welfare and the happiness of the people of every
land ? (Cheers.) 'Why, our forefat e'b, they knew,
wore shoe-buckles and keee.buck,ie Would they
resuscitate the buckle interest ? (Laughter.) Would
they reward the descendants of those- who made
buckles? The thing was absurd. We must change
our labour and our pursuits according to the wants
of the age in which we lived. Why, he had passed
the little village of Bolsover, which was a little
ruined place, where once the sound of the hammer
resounded in the making of those buckles. It was
a deserted village ; we could not think of calling
into existence such a place as that. how absurd it
would be if we were to say to the crinoline interest
that, when the ladies abandoned those absurdities,
the crinoline interests should be perpetuated in this
country. (Laughter.) Well, he was sure that those
who would separate the interests of the people from
the people themselves had not given consideration
to the practical results that would arise out of such
a distinction. We existed as a nation, and when we
spoke of ourselves we did not speak of our buil s
ings, towns, or cities, but of the people who inha-
bited this great and free country; and it was for
the people we must legislate, and legislate wisely
and well. (Applause.) They contended not for in•
terest in any form, but contended for justice for all,
from the peer down to the lowest peasant. Very
much to the honour of Manchester and Lancashire,
when we were engaged in contending for fiscal re-
form and repeal of the Corn laws, there was a public
declaration made in the Chamber of Commerce in
this city that if manufacturers had any protection
whatever before they sought the repeal of the Corn•
?.aws, they were prepared to tell the Legislature that
they would surrender protection to the extent it
might exist, and that they would seek from the
Legislature, with clean hands, the repeal of those
obnoxious laws, Now, he did wish that their aris■
tocratic fellow-subjects would say to them and the
great body of the people, "We have no interest in
this exclusive position in the election of members to
the House of Commons ; we surrender to the people
the rights of the people, and henceforth we will
cease to nominate members of Parliament who
shall make laws for the great mass of the people."
Let the masses of the people elect their own mem•
bars, and then there would be something of fitness,
something of harmony, existing among all classes
of the community. (Loud cheers.)
A vote of confidence in Mr Bazley was passed
unanimously.

Mr, Leveson Gower, 111.1)„ and his
Constituents,

REIGATE, Wednesday:
Mr. Gower, the member for this borough, last
night addressed a large body of his constituents in
the public hall—the Mayor presiding. The hon.
gentleman said he appeared before his constituents
for the purpose of showing how far he had acted in
accordance with the promises made by him during
his canvass, and how far he deserved the confidence
which they had been pleased to repose in him. It
had been frequently said that the last two sessions
had been unproductive and barren—that members
of Parliament had had an easy, time of it. If the
meaning of that assertion was, that no great
organic changes had taken place, and that the
country had not been involved in any war, it was
fair and true. But if they looked at the gradual
but steady remission of taxation which had taken
place during that period—if they looked at the wise
and salutary measures which had been adopted to
mitigate the distress in the north—if they looked
at the changes which bad been made in the educa-
tional system of the country—if they looked to such
measures as the Government Annuities Bill, the
Penal Servitude Act, and other measures of the
kind, they could not say that the last two sessions
had not been productive of any wise and useful
measures. (Hear, hear.) The hon. gentleman then
proceeded to state the part which he had taken in
various measures which had been submitted to the
consideration of Parliament. He was returned to
Parliament unfettered, generally speaking, not as a
delegate but as a representative. His friends were
good enough not to require pledges from him, but
he pledged himself to support the Liberal party and
Liberal measures in the House of Commons. He
was pledged to vote for the abolition of Church-
rates, and bound himself to vote against the
introduction of the Ballot, and proposed to show
how far he had carried out his promises. Soon
after he had taken his seat in February, 1803,
Mr Hat': fi :Id introduced the Qualification for Offices
Abolition Bill, by which it was proposed to abolish
certain declarations required by persons holding
civil offices. That was a liberal measure which he
felt bound to support. (Hear hear.) He also sup-
ported the Affirmations Bill, the object of which
was to substitute deel,aWions for oaths in certain
cases—and another liberal measure, by which Mr
Bouverie proposed to amend the Act of Uniformity.
(Hear.) When a proposition was made for an in.
quiry into the game laws, he voted for that proposi-
tion. But there were some other measures which he
thought wrongly associated with the Liberal party
—which he thought his duty to oppose. Among
these was the Burials Bill, proposed by Sir Morton
Pete, and his (Mr Gower's) opinion was confirmed
by the house, for the bill was rejected by a majoa
rity of 272, against 92. Ile did not at all deny the
right of Dissenters to be buried in churchyards,
but he did not think it right to require that other
services than the Burial Service of the Church
should be read in the churchyard, and the great
fault of the bill was whether a discretion with re-
spect to such burials was to be left to the clergyman
of the Church. If an act was required to be done
by law it ought to be ordered by law, and not left
to the discretion of a person who by the exercise of
that discretion might incur odium and aversion.
(Hear, bear.) Another measure, introduced by Mr
Gregory, the member for Galway, for opening the
National Garden in Edinburgh on Sundays, was in
opposition to the wishes of a great majority of the
inhabitants of that borough. Although that measure
might have been a harmless measure, yet, as it might
have tended towards the opening of other places of
amusement on Sundays, he voted against it, and it
also was rejected by the house. He now came to the
question of church-rates, the total abolition of which
he had pledged himself to vote. The numbers in
favour of Sir I. Trelawny's bill were 273, and
against it 283. True to the promise which he had
given, he voted with the minority. Two other mesa
sures on the same subject were subsequently intro-
duced—one by Mr Newdegate, for the commutation
of church rates, and the other by Mr Alcoa, tor the
redemption of church rates. Neither of these bills
appeared to him to meet the exigencies of the case,
and he voted against them. The bill for the comm.
tation of church rates had been revived this year,
and met with the same fate as it had experienced on
a former occasion. Sir J. Trelawny had declined
to introduce his bill again. Whether any other
champion could be found to introduce such a mea.
sure he knew not, but if one should be introduced
he should adopt the same course which he followed
on the previous occasion. (Cheers.) With respect
to the ballot, he divided against it, object-
ing to it, as he did, on principle. The number
of votes in favour of Mr. Berkeley's measure was
102, and the number against it 122. These num.
bars formed a striking contrast to the division on
the:church-rate question, and showed the little prac-
tical importance that was attached to the ballot in
the country. He was not present at the division,
but the next best thing to voting against a bill was
to pair against it, and he paired with Mr. Langton,
the colleague of Mr. Berkeley. When a bill was
proposed for the purpose of introducing the ballot
into municipal elections he voted against the
measure as he had done against the larger one.
Passing from the session of 1863 to that of 1864 (the
events of which were fresh in the memory of all pre•
sent) they would recollect that it was wound up by
one of
taken
ofthe most exciting and eloquent debates which
place of late years._Having:referred to the
American and Danish questions, the hon.gentleman
went on to notice a measure, his conduct with respect
to which had excited some dissatisfaction. It was
impossible for any member to please all his consti-
tuents on every vote he might give. Some hon.
members,when they could not please their constitue
cuts, adopted the plan of not voting at all. Now,
that was a coarse which he never could adopt.
(Hear, hear.) The question to which he had just
referred was the Oxford Teats Abolition Bill, and ,

he hoped to be able to show he had acted honestly,
tied according to "his convictions. The bill'conteined
two provisions, totally and essentially distinct. The
first prov:sion watild have admitted persons not be-
longing to the Church o► England to the degree of
Master of Arts without taking the declaration BOW
required. The provision :was not limited to Dissen..
ters, but would have admitted Roman Catholics,
Jews, and any other class. The government of the
University of Oxford was carried on by Convoca-
tion, consisting of Masters of Arts, residents and
nonresidents, by whom the rules and orders go■
verning the University were framed. The teaching
of the University was strictly a religious teaching,
and if the measure had been passed, persons who
were not members of the Church of England would
have been admitted into the governing body. The
Chancellor of the Exchequer made a long speech
on the second reading of the bill, stating that it
proposed to do with respect to Oxford what had
been done with respect to Cambridge; but that was
a false assumption, for the bill went a great deal
farther than the measure with respect to Cambridge.
The right hon. gentleman, however, contended that
the governing body must be kept in the hands of the
Church. Sir George Grey in voting for the second
reading disavowed doing so on the ground that its
principle was a severance between the Church and
the University. Mr Dodson declined making any al.
teration in the bill,and on the third reading the Chan•
cellor of the Exchequer voted against it, and Sir G.
Grey walked out of the house without voting at all.
He (Mr Gower) objected to the bill, and
voted against the second reading. Ho was of
opinion that some relief was required with respect
to the University of Oxford. The members, of
that University, by opposing all just and wise con..
cessions, had brought these difficulties upon them-
selves. The University of Cambridge had' origi.
nated a measure for the relief of Dissehters. A
Dissenter was allowed to become a Master of Arts,
but he was not allowed to become one of the go-
verning body. He would concede to every one—
Roman Catholics as well as others—the right to
vote for members of the University of Oxford, and
believed that such a measure would be satisfac-
tory to the Nonconformists throughout the country.
(Hear, hear.) The Chancellor of the Exchequer
had suggested that there might be separate halls
and colleges. Perhaps the plan might be adopted,
but he did not think it would be proper to in-
terfere with the just rights snd privileges of
the Church of England. (Hear, heir.) He
now came to a measure on which he had been mis•
understood, and respecting which he desired to give
some explanation. Two measures had been intro-
duced for closing public-houses on Sundays. They
had been rejected by the House, and very wisely so.
On both occasions he voted in favour of the intros
duction of the measure, but on both occasions he
voted against the second reading. He voted for the
introduction of the measure because he thought that
any person who could deal effectually with drunken-
ness would deserve well of his country. That was
the great source of crime, and there was no height
in social position or intelligence to which the work-
ing classes might not arise if they were not kept
back by its deadly influence. At the same time he
did not think that the remedy was to be found in
legislation, but in the working classes themselves.
(Hear.) His reason for voting for the introduction of
the measure was that he wished to challenge a furl
discussion of the subject. He thought it would be
useful in turning the attention of the working
classes to its great importance ; and more than
that, he could not be indifferent to the number of
petitions from the working classes praying that the
temptation might be removed from their path.
But the measure proposed was practical, because
the subject could not be dealt with by law, and
because the bill presented the anomaly of refusing
the poor man his glass of beer while the rich man
was left to act just as he pleased. (Hear, hear.)
With respect tosthe questiOn of reform, he believed
that it excited some interest among the working
classes, although there was no great manifestation
of feeling at the present moment. (Hear, hear.)
Daring the last Session two measures were
introduced, one of them by Mr. Locke King,
to lower the county franchise to £lO, the
other, by Mr Baines, to lower the borough
franchise to £6. He thought it would be wrong to
infer, from these measures having been rejected by
the House, that the working men were indifferent
to the question of reform. He believed they were
alive to the difficulties with which it was surrounded,
but it appeared to him that the advance of know•
ledge and intelligence in the country required a
further extension of the franchise. (Hear, hear.) It
was not reasonable to suppose that a system which
held good in 1832 ciuld be equally good in 1864.
(Hear, hear.) He was not prepared to say what
exact measure of reform should be proposed—at
what limit the county or borough franchise should
stop. But ho thought that before long the Govern-
ment would have to deal with the question of re-
form, and he was clearly of opinion that the conduct
of the working men in the north of England had
given them a title to the enjoyment of the franchise
which they had never possessed before. (Cheers.)

Charge against a Gentleman of Obtaining
Jewellery by False Pretences.

Arthur Bootle Wilbraham, holding the commission of
ensign in the Coldstream Guards, was summoned to the
Marlborough-street Police-court before Mr Tyrwhitt on
two charges—one for having obtained jewellery of the value
of £3,100 from Mr Harry Emanuel, jewellcr, of Bond-street,
and jewellery of the value of £1,1.00 from Mr Hancock,
jeweller, of Bond-street, by false and fraudulent pretences,

Mr Giffard was for the prosecution; Mt Metcalfe for the
defendant; and Mr Sleigh, instructed by Mr E. Lawrence,
of Waterloo-place, watched the cas3 on behalf of Mr Itobt.
Morris.

Mr Giffard said the history of the case was this. On the
4th of February of this year Mr H. Emanuel received a note
from the defendant requesting that diamond bracelets, ear-
rings, &c., to the value of about £2,000, :might be sent to
him for inspection at the officers' guard room at the Horse
Guards, One of Mr Emanuel's assistants, named Streeter,
was sent with jewellery corresponding inquality and amount
to that ordered by the defendant. The defendant made a
statement to Streeter during that interview, which was
that he was engaged to be married to a rich heiress, that
the articles of jewellery were for her, and that he was going
down by the three o'clock train the next day for the
purpose of presenting the jewellery to ;her. The de-
fendant obtained,--goods to the extent of £3,140, and in
considering the question of fraud it was material to see
what it was the defendant intended to do with the jewels—
give them to his assertekbride, or apply them to the relief
of his own neopesities by raising money upon them. When
the defendant,obtained Hee jewels, on the same day or within
a very short time afterither444-Mr Emanuel's possession,
the defendant executed an, agreement with Mr Morris,
making the bill of parcels of Mr Emanuel the schedule of
the agreement for money advanced to him on the goods.
This fact spoke more emphatically as to the character of
the transaction than anything ho could possibly say,
Since the original transaction the defendant had been
made a bankrupt, and this Would perhaps help to convince
the court that when the defendant obtained the jewels he
had not the means of paying for them, nor intended to pay
for them, but that he from the first, in case he got• them,
purposed to apply them to his necessities.
Mr E. W. Streeter, manager to Mr Emanuel, then kayo
evidence, stating that he waited upon the defendant, and
supplied him with the jewellery, which he stated was for a
lady he was about to be married to.
By Mr Metcalfe—lf we did not think the transaction
quite correct we should not let a young gentleman have
goods unless he was going to be married. Mr Emanuel
said, "I would rather not serve you if you are not going to
be married." A bill was drawn for the amount, and three
months after the defendant renewed the bill. I was present
when the defendant renewed it, a day or two before it came
to maturity. There has been, more than one renewal. On
the first renewal two bills were given, one for £1,500, and
the other for £1,650, The defendant said his father was
going to pay the £1,600 bill as a present to the young lady.
The first bill was for £3,100, and before it became due the
defendant called to have it put into two. The defendant
did not say that he had told his father that he owed £1,500
for jewellery, and that was the reason why he wanted the
bill for £1,500 to show his father. He had no recollection
of it. He said his father would come and take up the bill
for £1,500. Mr Emanuel went to the defendant's father. I
have not seen the bills given on renewal. (Some bills were
produced.) I believe thosenre the bills. The amount is
increased £6O for interest, but defendant had also bought an
emerald ring in the meantime—the ri.,g was bought for the
wedding also. It is usual to give three rings in the upper
circles in cases of matrimony—a ruby, emerald, and a dia-
mond. I believe the defendant gave one bill for the whole
for £3,500. I did not tell the defendant, but I believed he
had been having bills oat. Defendant asked me if I could
tell him where he could borrow some money. I cannot say
when that was, as he used to,come in occasionally. It did
not concern me. I said, "Don't go to money lenders—an
insurance office is the best thing." I will not swear that I

did not mention the name of Davis. Messrs Lawrence,
Flews, and Boyer are the solicitors for the prosecution.
I know Mr Davis, of Clifford-street. I don't know that
he is an attorney. • I don't know that he is a money
lender. I should not know you were a coun-
sel if you called, without you said so. I will
swear I told the defendant to go to an insurance office, but
I have no recollection of sending him to Mr Davis. I have
not sent young men to Mr Davis to borrow money. To the
best of ray recollection I sent defendant to an insurance
office. I have never taken goods round to persons, volun-
teering to let them have them. I never take them until they
are sent for. I have not left goods with servants to show
their mistresses without being sent for. I took an assort-
ment of goods consisting of jewellery, to defendant, and I
sold him £3,000 worth. if he thought proper to give the
lady £2,000 more than his note stated that was nothing to
me. We had done a little business before with him. We
knew hie family, and we knew that his father lived in
Brook-at roe t.

Mr Harry Emanuel was then examined, and he stated
that he certainly should not have parted with his goods
had not defendant stated that ho was going to marry a rich
heiress.

Mr It Morris, Carlton-chambers, Regent-street—l know
the defendant. I saw him on Feb. sth at my then office in
Sackville-street. I give him a check for £1,700, defendant
owing me £1,300 at the time. This made the whole debt
£3,000. I took a memorandum and security of jewels. I
made a list of articles in the casket. (Agreement here put
in and read. It was to the effect that the defendant, in con-
sideration of a check of £1,700 and, his two bills for £650
each, agreed to secure the amount, £3,000, by the deposit of
jewels. and in default of payment Mr Morris was autho-
rised and,empowered to sell the jewels and convert the
amount to the repayment of the £3,000.) The whole of the
jewels in the casket were stated to be worth about £2,200.
Mt' Metcalfe—For which a charge of £4OOO was made.
Mr Morris—The £2,200 was tho value in the trade. I
offered them to Mr Attenborough, as I am no judge of these
things.

Mr Giffard—,That is my case,
Mi. Metcalfe, for the defence; denied that a misrepresent.
tation of existing facts had taken place.
Mr Tyrwhitt—The case stands on this foundation. Did
he or did he not state anything which in another court
would be held to be 'a pre-existing fact ? All the convic-
tions Which I can put my, finger upon contain what is a
clear falsehood as to fact. But as to this assertion about the
heiress, how can I say it is not so with the evidence before
me? The fact is, the parttes thought only about payment.
If the father would not pay some one else would—they did
not care who.

Mr Metcalfe—They feared the defendant going into the
Bankruptcy Court, and they wrote to put on the screw
somewhere.

Mr Tyrwhitt—l entertain strong doubts on the matter,
but this is not tbe court for the solution of those doubts. It
the bankruptcy had not intervened these proceedings would
never have been heard of. Bills having been given for the
amount due to the complainant, that very much alters the
complexion of the case so far as the moral aspect is con-
cerned. It is certain that the complainant, who was con-
tent to take bills, looked to the civil remedy as the means of
getting his money. I must send the case before a jury cer-
tainly.
The defendant was committed on bail in two sureties of
£3OO each.

The second charge of obtaining goods from Mr Hancock,
was adjourned till next week.

The Loss of the Brilliant Steamer.

OFFICIAL REPORT.

To the Lords of the Committee of Privy Council for Trado,
My Lords,— We the undersigned, two of her Majesty's
Justices of the Peace for the county of Edinburgh, have
held an official investigation into tha circumstances attend-
ing the loss of the steamer Brilliant, upon he South llenoit
Rock, off the Island of Inchkeith, on the evening of the Ist
inst. In this inquiry we have been assisted by Captains
Harris and Baker as Nautical AssessorS, and have now the
honour to report that the Brilliant was a paddle wheel
steamer, built at Glasgow in the year 1843, and registered
at Leith of the burthen of 349 tons gross, and 22.) tons net,
and of the combined high pressure of 250. She'was owned, as
appears from her certificate of registry, by the Hull and
Hamburg Steam-Shipping Company. The Brilliant left the
Tyne at 5 45 a.m. of the Ist inst.,bound to Leith, with a gene-
ral cargo, a portion of which, consisting of rod iron, was car-
ried on deck. She was commanded by Mr James M'Donald,
who holds a certificate of competency as master, dated Jan.
16, 1862, and had a crew of 17 hands all told,
and about 62 forecabin passengers. The Brilliant
passed inside the Bass Rock about 3 15 p.m.
the same day, and at 4 p.m. she is represented as being
abreast of the Fiddra, at a distance of one mile. The weather
at this time was very hazy, and increased in density as the
vessel approached Inchkeith. From Fiddra a west course
was steered for about an hour at the rate of 8 knots, when
it was altered to W by S far about half an hour, and the
engines were slowed to half speed,,or about 51 knots. At
5 45 p.m. Inchkeith Light was seen though the mist,which
by this time had becomo very dense, and which hung very
heavy on tho horizon, so that the light was only seen at
intervals. Some misgivings as to the position of the ship
seems at this time to have crossed the m tiger's mind, for
the helm was ordered to be starboarded in order to keep her
more off the island, when immediately the ship struck, and
the following morning became a total wreck. Such is the
brief narrative of the facts attending the loss of the vessel,
as collected from the evidence. In commenting upon them
it is only necessary to point out that the channel through
which the master intended to have passed is only one and
one-third of a mile in width, and consequently extremely
dangerous in thick weather, when the leading marks on
Leith Pier are not visible, In this case, as the weather
was moderate and calm, with a dense fog, very great cau-
tion became necessary, and the channel being so contracted,
a very slight error in estimating_the distance of the vessel
from the small island of Fiddra would be quite sufficient
in thick weather, without great attention to the lead;
which was in this case entirely neglected, to place the
vessel in jeopardy either on the north or south side of the
channel. It is much to be regretted that Mr M'Donald did
not anchor his vessel when the fog became so thick as to
prevent his seeing the leading marks. The neglect of these
precautions constrains us to say that the Brilliant was lost
by the default of her master; and we have therefore sen-
tenced Mr M'Donald, with the full concurrence of the
Assessors, to have biS certificate of competency suspended
for the space of six calendar months from this date.--We
have, &c.

WM. STEEDMAN, J.P.
•
TILOS. DISILINGTON, J.P.
We concur in the above report,
} Nautical Assessors.
BAKER,
Council Chamber, Leith, Nov. 25, 1864.

Muller's Letter to his Parents,

It is well known ttat after the condemnation
of Franz Muller he wrote a letter to his pirents,
and it has often been affirmed that in this docu-
ment he made no allusion to his guilt or innocence ;
but a perusal of the annexed translation of the letter
will show that this assertion, like so many others
made for, by, and concerning him, is very wide of
the truth

Newgate, London, Nov. 1, 1861.
Dearest Parents, Brothers, and Sisters, Friends, and
Acquaintances•--With trembling hand and sorrowful heart
I take up the pen to give you further particulars of my
misfortune, which, in consequence of my disobedience
towards you, dearest parents, has followed me, and has
infinitely shortened the days of my life. I now plainly
comprehend the sentence which stands written in the
Bible—that whosoever does not honour his father and
mother will be followed by an early detith; but 'I only see
it now when it is too late. I hope, neverthelesss, you who
were so dear to me will not discard me if all the world re-
pulse me. For hope ushers us into life, floats arounds the
happy boy, animates youth with its magic light, and will
not be buried with the grey-headed man, for if he climes,
his weary career at the grave, yet at the grave he plants
hope; and on this account I also hope that you will for-
give me with all your hearts. I will now briefly tell you
how it happened that I am overtaken by an unexpected
death, which, nevertheless, I do not deserve, but God often-
times punishes man by judgments which he does not d e-
serve, and that is now the case with me, in order to punish
me for my evil deeds towards you, my dearest parents; for
had I listened to you. and not proceeded to England this
misfortune would not have befallen me, but it is now too
late, and therefore I will say no more on that subject but
will describe how it came about. I was at work with a per-
son called Louis Wild and became acquainted with his sis-
ter, Grace Mathews, and things proceeded so far that I
meditated marrying her. As I was acquainted with her
brother, John Mathews, it hOppened he bought a hat for
me. Through the purchase of this hat he brought me to
my unexpected death, as I had given up acquaintanceship
with IA sister. On July 9, 1864, a man was murdered in a
railway iarriage. From him a watch, chain, and hat were
taken at the same time, and another hat was left in the
carriage, which hat was similar to the one which John
Mathews had bought for me. A reward of 2,000 thalers was
now offered for those who could give information respecting
the murder. I had long previously resolved to go to Ame-
rica, as you yourselves know ; and therefore, on Monday,
July 11, 1864, I went towards the office to pay my passage
to America, and on the way a watch end chain were offered
me, and I bought them, and as it afterwards appeared they
were the watch and chain belonging to the gentleman who
was murdered in the railway carriage on July 9. 1864. I
left London for America on July 14, 1864, and reached New
York on Aug. 24, 1864, and was there arrested because John
Mathews had accused me of the murder, and consequently
I was brought back to London. I could not now bring
forward the man from whom I had bought the watch and
chain, and John Mathews swore that tho hat which was
left in the railway carriage was the hat he had bought for
me on October 24, 1863. I was now required to say where
I was on July 9, and also what I did ; yet the people said
they could not remember, which might easily be the case
after so long a time, and on this account I was found guilty

of the murder and sentenced to death ; but God the Al-
mighty knows I am innocent, and therefore I shall die in
peace. I have now said all upon the subject which I can
say, and will therefore end my letter, for I have nothing
more to say. We must now part from one another for this
world, therefore farewell for ever; nevertheless my fervent
blessing follows you. I shall see you no more in this world
and only in that world where there will be no more separa-
tion. Loving you sincerely here, I await with 1 urging heart
the moment when we shall see one another in that world.
In this hope I will conclude, but I pray, dearest parents,
and brothers and sisters, that you will not be sorrowful, for
I am tranquil and in peace, for what can give greater con-
solation than to be in affliction without guilt, and as it is
also said in the Holy Scripture—Fear not they who can kill
the body, fear rather much more who can destroy body and
soul, and therefore I shall atone for the sins towards you of
which I have been guilty, and then the Lord will also gra•
ciously receive me. Time has been left mu till November
14, and therefore I write you some lines and send them as
soon as possible in order that I may have peace, which I can
only receive when you forgive me from ycur hearts, and
that you will not refuse to me. In the hope that you wil
not let my request be uncomplied with, I remain, your
loving son and brother, FRAZ MurAnn, who was sold as
a slave in London by John Mathews for 2,000 thalers."