The Sun.
London, England, 1864-01-27 00:00:00

of Southern independence as "the atrocious object
of the leaders of this accursed insurrection." As the
saying is, "abuse is not argument," but when argu-
ments fail too often abuse is a favourite resource.
Very different was the dignified tone adopted by
Mr. SCIIOLEFIELD, who boldly advocated, in
that meeting, a somewhat unpopular course.
" He differed from a large number of his best and
warmest friends, and from his hon. colleague, with
whom he differed on no other subject." Adding
"he had not changed his opinion, however un-
popular that opinion might be." That opinion is the
same, indeed, which he had expressed in 1862—" I
am not for intervention because that means war. I
am not for mediation because that means failure,
but I am for simple recognition"—recognition that
is of Southern independence. Mr. SCHOLEFIELD,
in fact, very boldly and emphatically, once more
claimed his right to his own opinions. " He was told
that in consequence of the course he had taken he
would lose his seat. Deeply as he valued the
honour they had conferred upon him, there was
something he valued still more highly than a seat
in Parliament, and that was the right to speak and
act freely and independently within the scope of
powers with which they themselves had intrusted
him. If for the course he had taken they deemed
him no longer worthy of representing them, he
should bow to their decision without a murmur."
This is the frank and manly language of one confi-
dent in his own integrity of purpose, and claiming
from others the same forbearance that he himself is
willing to concede. It is in this respect that Mr.
BRIGHT is so deplorably wanting. We do not so
much find fault with his opinions. Right or wrong
he is free to entertain them. But what we do find
fault with is his manner of expressing them. What
in his instance is so especially repugnant to us, are
his dogmatic and most dictatorial manner of asser-
ting his own individual views and his arrogant de-
nunciation of all who presume to differ from them.
Such intemperance of opinion is not always an evi-
dence either of the stability of a cause or of the
soundness of a principle.

Englishmen have long prided themselves upon
their commercial honesty, and the high spirit and
fairness of English trade has often been favourably

noticed by foreigners, as well as by their own

countrymen. It is certain, however, that in every
community there will be very many exceptions to
such a rule; and the varied ramifications of our
social life afford only too many opportunities to the

crafty and designing. There will always be a suffi.

cient number of dupes forthcoming to make the

speculation worth the risk, which, indeed, is often
merely nominal, for it is difficult to reclaim the
money paid for a bad bargain, as it would have

been for MOSES PRIMROSE to exchange the famous

spectacles and their shagreen cases, after he had
once displayed them to the wondering eyes of the

gentle old Vicar. Our laws are stringent—our
judges and juries generally incline to the side of the

plaintiff in these cases—our public prints are always
ready to expose fraud and to publish cautions; yet

for all this an immense amount of undetected, or, ii

detected, unconvicted roguery, goes on in all direc-
tions. We have recently seen a very bard case

brought before one of our metropolitan magistrates

in which some persons had been deprived of all
their small earninga by means of a sham insurance
company. In this instance the loss was the harder,
as the money was paid with the view of obtaining
assistance in. case of prolonged illness, which
actually took place. In instances like these,

of course, the offence amounts to a serious
misdemeanour, but it is a very common thing to I
hear complaints of impositions of a different sort
being practiced upon tho unwary. The law of trade
marks was passed with a view of protecting the
public from a deception which is only too tempting
to unprincipled dealers. The substitution of the
name of a firm of standing and character fir one
insignificant and worthless is a very easy and con-
venient mode of trebling the value of an article. To
protect the public from this very common fraud the
Trade Marks Act was passed, whose infringement
we have lately been hearing so much about. Messrs.
COLLARD and Co. have very properly come forward
to defend their own interests as well as those of the
public. It must of course be a matter of annoyance
to those gentlemen to have inferior articles passed
off as of their manufacture, and it is certainly a
great annoyance to the purchaser to discover that
the fine, strong looking instrument with the name
of one of the first makers of the day staring conspi-
cuously on it, is worth about a quarter of what he
has given for it. Yet, thanks to an obscure name
being printed in very small letters above the more
prominent title, this deception was passed cif on
many without being brought under legal notice.
Messrs. COLLARD and Co. have, however, taken
it up, and have pushed the matter resolutely
Iforward, being apparently determined to

avail themselves of the full powers of the act to
protect the public from imposition and themselves
from discredit and damage. Another commercial
difficulty which has been just brought before Mr.
Justice SHEE, has been decided against the defen-
dants by a jury. A young attorney from the
country came to London last May, when his atten-
tion was attracted by an auction-room in St, Paul's
Churchyard, where persons were bidding for pic-
tures. Wishing to buy some, ho entered the mart
and commenced bidding for them. Part of those he
purchased were for himself, part for others—though
why he was appointed to an office which requires
some special aptitude and judgment is a question
that may very fairly be asked. He admittted that
he was no great lover of the fine arts, a fact that
was tolerably evident without that admission, yet
hs had come to London to buy pictures, which pur-
pose he accomplished in St. Paul's churchyard, by
laying out £l5B 7s. Various opinions were given
as to the real value of the pictures bought. It was
contended that some of them were not by the artists
of note whose names had been appended to them,
but the defendant had a most ingenious excuse
ready, asserting that they were the production of
other gentlemen of the same name—which was not
contradicted. It was admitted that the pictures
in the plaintiff's possession were worth £lOO, bat
the point that went against the defendant was
the assertion, not disproved, that the same people
were constantly in his shop bidding for picturee,
and having them knocked down to them, but
never removing them. It was further admitted
by the defendant and his son, who was a picture
dealer on his own account, and divided his time
and attention between the action-room in St.
Paul's Churchyard and a tavern in the Hay-
market, that the son had been compelled by threats
of proceedings to return 1;1,200 to a gentleman
who had purchased pictures of him. Under these
circumstances it is not surprising that the jury
should have given the plaintiff a verdict for £5B 75.,
being the balance of what he had paid, after
deducting the estimated value of the pictures in
his possession. The overcharge was not the worst
part of the business, since the purchaser was not
compelled to buy the pictures, and certainly brought
his troubles on himself, by entering on a business
he knew nothing about. So long as dupes are so
readily obtained there is little hope that persons
will not be found to take. advantage of their impru-
dence. It must be the work of the law to repress
such impositions as far as practicabl and the rely