The Sun.
London, England, 1852-04-08 00:00:00

SUN,

he -ter Guardian of the 7th April.) 1
BURY ELECTION.
(From the Manchester
Teainllieesd, toc
eau long article
s a (t)uarrd
ay attention
s xaini bras
e r
bZdn
who are supporting Mr. Frederick Peel, at Bury, of an
in
nert
abandonment of their principles and of deliberate scl2-
stultification and treachery.
Every true Reformer must lament the unhappy dial-
Sion of the Liberal party in Bury; but let us inquire
into the facts, and see whether the supporters of Mr.
Peel, or those who brought out Lord Duncan, are really
chargeable with producing it; in short, whether it Is
not Lord Duncan who is brought forward to oppose Mr.
Peel—a member of that Liberal Government of which
his Lordship has been a supporter—and not Mr. Peel
who comes to oppose Lord Duncan.
Our readers are, no doubt, aware that the present
Member, Mr. Walker, has baen for some years unable,
through illness, to take his seat in the House of Com-
mons; and that, during the past year, several maetings
of Liberal electors have been hold to fix upon his sue-
cessor. Communications were received from Sir James
P. Kay Shuttleworth, Mr. Fort, cf Reed Hall; and Mr.
Sergeant Wilkins; and afterwards from Mr. Ashton, of
Limefield; Mr. Henry Viacont, and Mr. R. N. Philips.
Nothing further was then done; but when the recent
Ministerial changes rendered a general election probable,
another meeting of Liberals was called, at which it was
positively stated that neither Mr. Ashton nor Mr. Phi-
lips would stand. It is to be lamented that neither of
these gentlemen could be induced to come forward; for
most probably either of them would have been returned
without opposition.
On Wednesday, the 3d nitimo, another meeting took
place, at which Mr. John Grundy, of Outwood, presided.
Inasmuch as both Mr. Ashton and Mr. Philips declined
tho honour of representing Bury, it was proposed by ono
party that Mr. Peel should be written to; by another,
that Lord Goderich; and by a third, that Lord Duncan,
should be communicated with.. Each of these proposi-
' tions was negatived; some of the most active of Lord
Duncan's present supporters actually then voting against
him. As it was evident that no proposal whatever could
be catried, the meeting broke up abruptly; Mr. Grundy
stating that if another meeting were held, the parties
must provide another chairman.
It being manifest that, whoever was proposed he
would be objected to by a certain section, a portion of the
liberal electors, who had always been firm supporters
of Mr. Walker, considering that it was desirable, if pos-
sible, to name a candidate likely to unite all parties,
after due deliberation fixed upon Mr. Peel, a known
Free-trader, and one who, by accepting office under
Lord John Russell, had proved himself a progressive
Reformer. On the Friday after they prepared a requi-
sition, of which the following is a copy:—
" To FREDERICK PEEL, ESQ., M.P.
" We, the undersigned electors of the borcugh of
Bury, in the county i f Lancaster, do requeat you to be-
come a candidate at the next general election, for the
representaLica of this borough in Parliament, on free-
trade principles; and we pledge ourselves to use our
utmost exsrtions to secure your return.
" March sth, 1852."
This was immediately signed by a large number of
influential members of the Liberal party, and by the
Tuesday following had received the signatures of 258
electors of all shades of opinion.
In the meantime, two or three individuals calling
themselves a deputation (although authorised by no
meeting and bearinet no requisition), set to work to find
a candidate to oppose Mr. Peel. They applied succes-
sively to Mr. John Grundy, of Outwood, Mr. Alderman
Watkins, and Mr. Bazley, all of whom declined to
stand. In their extremity they, on Tuesday, the 9th,
stumbled upon Lord Duncan; eilickly overcame the
strong objections which, less than a week before, they
had entertained to his Lordship; and that
levenin pub-
lished his address. Subsequently, the reou • •t-°g to
Mr. Peel seas signed by 416 electors, comprising a
numerous and very influential section of the Liberal
party, and including the two brothers of Mr. Walker,
the present Member, the chairman, and several lea;ling
members of his committee,
It is thus raanifesd that although Lord Dutcan's ad-
dress was first published, Mr. Peel was, to all intents 1
and purposes,
brought out by the Liberals several days
previously, on free trade principles, and had, befsre
Lord Darien was waited upon, secured such an amount
of support as to render any opposition utterly hopeless.
Indeed, the fearful haste with which, without meeting,
without requisition, without authority, in fact, without
any of lhe usual formalities, Lord Duncan was brought
down by parties who, only the week before, had been
instrumental in rejec:ing him, sufficiently proves that
his Lordship was brought, not for his own sake, but
olely to oppose Mr. Peel.
_____-......m.....tra...

IRON VESSELS AS MEN OF WAR.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE MORNING HERALD.
Sir,—Mr. Engledue, late an officer in her Majesty's
navy, has, in as letter to you, stated his opinion that
iron vessels have been prematurely condemned ; that
iron vessels are better qualified to stand the brunt of
an action than wooden ones ; that the results of the
experiments at Portsmouth have been decided by
amateur artillerymen, firing from the Excellent at
iron butts, representing sections of iron vessels simi-
lar to the Simoom and Greenock, &c., and that these

decisions were faulty.
I am sorry to find that a gentleman, whose name
formerly stood so honourably known amongst gun-
nery officers, should have declared his conviction that
the repeated trials carried, at great expense, on board
the Excellent, by his late brother officers, have only
amounted to a failure, and impressed them with
erronecus convictions, fur it only proves how lament-
ably deficient his information must of late years be.
Captain Chads and the officers of the Excellent
cannot reply to his censures in the papers, as the
rules of the service forbid them. I am not so cir-
cumstanced, and as the theories of an able and goosi
seaman, as Mr. Engledue undoubtedly is, may pre-
judice men ignorant of the subject, and lead them to
reflect that all has not been done to test the efficacy
of iron versus wood, I beg to write, for their informa-
tion, that the trials undertaken by Captain Chads,
and superintended by himself and officers of the
Artillery and Engineers, included every ingenious
device, and every plan of protection and defence that
the constructive talent of gunnery officers could con-
template as likely to answer in resisting the effects of
shell and shot on iron vessels were successively tried
and proved-utterly futile, whilst the impression at the
conclusion of the trials on the minds of those expe-
rienced artillerymen employed in carrying out the
details was, that absolute destruction to crew and
vessel would ensue to the iron vessel from the well-
directed fire of a wooden one—all combative arrange-
ments being equal on both sides, save , the structure
of the ships.
Toe results of these numerous and satisfactory ex-
periments are not published for general information,
but they would have been communicated to Mr. En-
gledue had he continued in the service, and followed
up a career so well commenced. I cannot publish in
a public paper the results of a series of trials, under-
taken for wise purposes, at a great expense, and for
secret information ; but this I can tell ironmasters,
builders, and shipowner:;, and all others, who are par-
tial to the ewenaente of Mr. Engledue, that wooden
butts of good, bad, and indifferent timber, and all
sizes of scantling, have been fired at under all cir-
cumstances, with shells, shot, and small arras, with
hi ~h end low ioitial velocities, and the result was
in favour of wooden vessels, built with any timber,
as compared with iron ones, of all sizes, and any
workmanship. That shots penetrated easier, made
larger holes, drove whole plates, in, started rivets,
and in breaking distributed a shower of small lang-
to give a black fellowa tesdach e
that
he would
ridge over the decks, any one of them enough
That shell
not recover from in a hurry.
is still more destructive than shot, ccteris paribus,
and a that, with reference to canvas screens being hung
ue must have a poor opinion of his brother gun-
ners
of
they will inform
if he fancies they never
take the applied them. Let him
trouble before he next writes to ask the ques-
tionhirn that the.
Captains Chads Hrvlitt, or Wiseman, and
—good honest wr splinter of iron plates
fates, without a particle
ought-iron p
of rust on them screens like small
shot, but each small piece
through
piece big enough to satisfy the
appetite of a giant i
With reference azi.)t swallowing them.he states that amateurthat portion
of his letter
have premat artillerymen from the Ex-
cellentfor war purposes, iiirel7 condemned iron vessels
good taste on his part, think it simply a want of
his brother officers ; he was an unjust reflection on
and by no means desirou f himself one of them,
pro-
fessional man, of " amateur the name, as a
am happy to say, certainly' does
the country, I
ability and zeal of Captain Chasds not consider the
old war officer, likely to be ranged
' distinguished
amatuer engagement next war on the side of an
Mr. Engledue would be very sorry
to have one
r
of his 'fine iron-steamers a target fO
and I can assure him that the • 5-eumer
an "tricky
Phlegethon, when I was on board of her,on-
on shore to prevent her sinking, whilst operating
was
run
operating
under Sir T. Cochrane, against an enemy in
Whilst, vessel, had she been a wooden v Borneo.
, the damage
would have been repaired without being forced to
that last resource of a man-of-war.
I beg to remain your very obedient servant,
JAMES AYLMER. PAYNTER,
Commander, RN.

April.

SCOTTISH CENTRAL RAILWAY..--Traffie for the Week
ending April 4, 1852 :
Passengers (7,052), parcels, horses,
and carriages ... £BO5 5 5
Goods, cattle, &C. 1,079 10 3

Total .. ... .. 1,884 15 8
Corresponding week in last year... 1,689 6 6
Perth, April 6, 1852.

LUNACY PROCEEDINGS EXPENSES BILL.—Lord
been
proceedings Lord
Lyndhurst's Bill to diminish the expense of
tinier commissions " de lunatico inquirendo"
printed. By it, the orders of the Masters will have the
same force as those of the Lord Chancellor, except in
special cases. The costs of proceedings will be at the this_
cretion and paid only under au order of the Lord Chancellor
and the Master, as the case may be. The Master will be
r,Auired to frame rules and orders
the Lor for the d
for
Chanm of
cellor, the who
-
ceedint44, subject to the approval of
will make the recessary general orders; all rules and orders,
however, will have to be submitted to Parliament. There is
also an indemnity clause for the Bank of England and other
societies fur all acts and things done or permitted to be done
by this Act.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
OLD COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice TALFOURD, Mr. Baron MARTIN,
and Mr. Justice CRoMPTON).
Thomas Robert illellish, 46, and James Douglas,
26 (the latter pleaded guilty), were jointly indicted
for forgery and uttering a receipt for the payment of
11. 15s. 4d., with intent to defraud.
Mr. Clarkson and Mr. Ballantine were Counsel for
the prosecution ; Mr. Chambers, Q.C., Mr. Bodkin,
and Mr. Iluddlestone defended the prisoner Mellish ;
Mr. Parry was also instructed to watch the case on
behalf of Douglas.
At the commencement of the case all the witnesses
were ordered out of court, and upon Mr. CLARKsoN
observing that, from the nature of the proceedings,
Douglas, who had pleaded guilty, might possibly be
called as a witness for the defence, it would he better
that he should nut hear the evidence for the prosecu-
tion, he was removed from the bar.
This trial occupied the attention of the Court for a
considerable time, but from the nature of the case,
and the circumstances under which the present charge
was preferred, it will only be necessary to give a nar-
rative of the facts upon which accusation was sought
to be established against the prisoner. It will be re-
membered that in October, 1851, both the prisoners
were tried in this Court upon a charge of the same
kind—namely, forging a receipt, and after a very
long inquiry they were both found guilty, and Mr.
Baron Parke, who tried the case, sentenced Mellish
to be transported for ten year, and Douglas for seven
years. In pursuance of the sentence the prisoners
were removed to the Penitentiary, and it appeared
that soon afterwards certain representations were made
to the Secretary of State on behalf of Mellish, which
induced him to communicate with the Learned Judge
who tried him, and after considering the matters that
were submitted to him, Mr. Baron Parke expressed an
opinion that it would be more satisfactory if another
case were to he tried, several distinct indictments hav-
ing been preferred on the former occasion against the
prisoners but not proceeded with, and accordingly the
prisoners were remitted to this ourt under the war-
rant of the Secretary of State, in order that another
charge might be inquired into. The evidence now
adduced was precisely of the same character as that
which was presented on the former occasion. It ap-
peared that the pewecutor of the indiement was a
gentleman named Thompson, who formerly was in
extensive practice as a surgeon, but who in the
autumn of 1849 gave up that profession in order to
carry out, in partnership with two gentlemen named
Varnish and Coakley, a patent which he had pur-
chased for a new
process of silvering glees. Pre-
mises were taken by the firm in Berners-street, and
as the prosecutor was ignorant of the nature of the
business of cutting and preparing the glass, he ob-
tained the services of the prisoner taellisb, who was
recommended to him as a very experienced person
in such matters, to superintend this branch of the
business. It appeared that an :Tree-merit vvas entered
into between him end the prosecutor, by which Mellish
was allowed to have the entire management of the
works, the payment of wages,
and disciand, in arge workmen, the power to engage
fact, Mr. Thompson
would appear to have had very little moreto don
with the concern but to provide the money which
was necessary to carry it or, and he was to
eNnAg7hagenedthine
i prsoner a -
receive amsa.liairi,,yiloill
adsitegellninaesshpoerrt vtliemeke.
this manner he took the other man Douglas into the
establishment, and he sat in his private office with
him and acted as his clerk, end it appeared that it was
his duty to examine the bills of the different work-
men for the work they performed, and after the exa-
mination Mellish put his initials to them and they
were then paid by the cashier. The offence imputed
to the prisoners was that they had altered the amount
of the bills that were sent in, and had
the particular
instance it appeared that on the 221 January, 1851, a
workman named Suttie had taken wag bill for 153. 4d.
and received that amount, and it proved that the
amount had been altered afterwards to 1/. 15s. 4d., and
that the larger amount was paid by the cashier. In
order to show that this could not have been the result
of any mistake, and to prove the guilty knowledge on
the pert of the prisoners, evidence:was given that a
great number of other bills had been treated in a similar
manner. In one instance a bill for 1/. 7s. had been
altered to 11. 17s , in another 13s. Bd. had been al-
tered to 21.135. Bd., in two instances a bill for 11. had
been altered to 41. 10s., a bill for 9s. had been altered
to 11.19 g., another for 11. 2s. Bd. had been altered to
1/. 12s. Bd., and several other similar frauds were
distinctly proved to have been committed, and nearly
the whole of the forged bills bore the initials of the
prisoner Mellish. It was elicited on cross-examina-
tion that the whole of these bills went in the first
instance into the hands of the prisoner Douglas, and
it appeared that upon some occasions he had told the
workmen that he bad lost their original bill, and
asked them to receipt fresh ones, which turned out to
be of the larger amount, and it was explained that
after Douglas came into the establishment the work-
men were required to bring two bills, in one of which
they stated at length all the items of work which
they claimed to be paid for, and in the other merely
a general account for the whole, and it appeared that
the latter was the instrument in which the alteration
was made. It appeared to be quite clearly esta-
blished that a very extensive and deliberate system of
fraud had been carried on against the prosecutor, and
the only question in the case was whether the evi-
dence made out that the prisoner Mellish was a party
concerned in it.
Mr. CHAMBERS made a very earnest and eloquent
appeal to the jury on behalf of the prispner. He said
he had no hesitation in stating that he felt very great
interest in the inquiry, because he was instructed that
he was appearing for an entirely innocent man, who
had had the horror and misery of hearing a jury of
his countrymen pronounce the fatal verdict of guilty
against him, which had subjsch el him to a most
dreadful and degrading sentence, but who he hoped,
as a result of the present inquiry, would be released
from that dreadful position, and would be restored to
the one he formerly held, and was entitled, by his
character and conduct, to hold in society. It would
be useless for him to endrsvour to conceal from the
jury the fact that the prisoner and the man Douglas,
who had pleaded guilty, were convicted at a former
session, after a very long trial, of an offence of the same
description as the present ; and he would also state that
upon that occasion Douglas was defended, and a strenu-
ous attempt was made by his counsel to fix the glinted
the transaction upon Mr. Mellish. The jury, no doubt
most conscientiously, upon these facts returned a ver-
dict of guilty against both prisoners ; but the moment
Douglas went back to his cell, he felt the injustice
he had committed against his unfortunate companion,
and he sent for the ordinary of the prison, and to that
gentlemen he distinctly admitted that he alone was
the guilty party, and that Mr. Mellish was entirely
innocent. The facts were made known to the higher
authorities, and the result was that the present in-
quiry was directed to be instituted, and when the jury
had heard the evidence he should lay before them, and
had heard from the lips of Douglas himself, upon his
oath, that he alone was guilty, it would be for them
to say whether there was any doubt of the innocence
of his unfortunate client, and whether it would not be
their pleasing duty to return a verdict the effect of
which would be to restore him to his afflicted family.
The Learned Counsel then proceeded to call the
attention of the jury to the facts of the case as
they appeared on behalf of the prosecution,
and he urged that there was nothing whatever
to show that the whole of the frauds were not
committed by Douglas alone, or that the prisoner
had any share in them. It was true that it had been
stated that it was the duty of the prisoner to have
examined the accounts to see if they were correct,
but he submitted that it had not been positively shown
that this was his duty, and although his initials no
doubt appeared upon the greater portion of the forged
documents, still there was no evidence whatever to
show at what period those initials were placed there,
and for all that appeared to the contrary, the initials
were placed upon the bills at a time when they bore
the genuine amount of the bill, and that the figures
were altered afterwards by Douglas. He then con-
tended that all the facts of the case showed that the
d been prisoner had placed entire confidence in Douglas, and
that this confide abused. The result
nce ha
position, but he said he entertained a
unfortunate i
was that the prisoner had been phaced in his present
confidentthe effect of remedying
hope thattheavv eerdict thejury would de-
liver that day would h
in the good opinion of his
of reinstating the prisoner
had •
any inter-
friends and all those whohad ever
the unfortunate error that.had been committed, and
course with him.
Of the prisoner :--
the that he was formerly
Mr. Edward Varnish depo c
The following evidence was then given on behalf
recess. lle left the
carrying on the glass-silvering p
quantity of busi-
nessartnership last year. The great fi
the partner of Mr. Thompson and Mr. ookley in
the
Sligg"tion that he should have some assistance,
the prisoner had to perform for the rm. led to
and Douglas was
impression was engaged
after this Douglas had the charge
ofe paying the thatwa and kept the vvagee-book. In
Le course of the business he ascertained that the pri-
soner was for flint purpose, and his
in
tae
habit
bills on
the firm notice alone were stated.
the gross amounts .
Some of the other his possession.
Mellish left tile bills were also in
accord. He gave
whichh of retaining possession of those
Douglas
any frauds of
re-
mained in the sere us intention to quit.
their service of his own
lee He was unable to say whether
Mellish left the sere-
James Douglas was • ined—lie deposed
that he was 25 years
old.eu e"I
me
ac-
quainted with Mr. Mellish 14 v 1 fi, firs became a similar. kind were discovered after
acquainted with his fatal - ears Witness came from
ah .
Birmingham at the request or the prisoner, and en-
teredand he was to receive thirty
the service of the prosecutor. Mellish hired him,
.
ago, and he was
shillings a week at first,