The Sun.
London, England, 1864-03-03 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY EVE:NIN

fractional portion of the smallest imaginable par-
ticle of injustice shall reach any one of them, nor
shall they be subjected to anything of an objection-
able nature. Neither the authorities net sty one
else shall do the Jews wrong', whether to their
persons or to their property ; nor shall any trades-
man among them, or artisan, be compelled to work
against his will. The work of every one shall be
duly recompensed, for injustice here is injustice in
Heaven, 'and we cannot countenance it in any
matter affecting either the Jews' rights or the
rights of others, our own dignity being itself op-
posed to such a course ; all persenn in our regard
have an equal claim to fastice ; and if any person
should wrong or insure one of the Jews, we will,
with the help of God, punish him.
" 'The commands heralnbefore set forth
have been given and made known before now, but II
we repeat them and add force to them, in order that
they may be more clearly understood and more
strictly carried into effect, as well as serve for a
warning to such at may b© evilly disposed towards
the Jew!, and that the Jews shall thus enjoy for
thu future more security than heretofore, while the
fear to injure them shall be greatly increased.
" This deertt, blessed by God, is promulgated
on this 26th of Shahan, of the year 1280 (sth of
February, 1864).—Peace!'
"It will be seen by the Sultan's formal injunction
to his Governors that he fully recognises the claims
of his Jewish subjects to protection against all li
oppression and injustice. The Sultan has shown in
this that he possesses a spirit of liberality and tole•
ration and an enlightened knowledge of the duties
of a Governor towards the governed far in advance
of that possessed by his officers or •the Mahomme-
dan portion of his subjects. It is hardly to be ex-
pected, perhaps, that after a long course of tyranny
and oppression, springing from religious fanaticism
every act of cruelty and injustice should at once
cease ; but the authoritative declaration of the Sul.
tan's will, backed as it will be by the influence of
the representatives of Christian Powers in the coun
try, cannot fail to prove for the future a most valu-
able bulwark to the Jews of Morocco. Sir Moses
Montefiore will, therefore return to the comforts of
his English home attended by the prayers of a
grateful population, and with the satisfaction that
must spring from the consciousness that this last
work, which has crowned the labours of his life for
the benefit of his race, promises to be so fruitful i❑
good results. Sir Moses Montefiore and his party
speak in the warmest and most grateful terms of
the kindness and hospitality they met with from
Captain Armytage and the officers of her Majesty's
ship Magicienne, and also of the valuable aid
they received in accomplishing the object of their
mission, from Sir John Drummond Hay, her Mjes-
ty,s Minister in Morocco, and from Mr. Iteade, her
Majesty's Consul at Tangier. The latter accom-
panied the expedition, and his knowledge both of
the habits of the people and of their language en-
abled him to render services of the utmost value."

Mr. Cobden on the Malt Tax,

The following letter has recently been addressed
by Mr. Cobden, M,P., to Mr. E. T. Simpson, of
Wakefield :

Dear Sir,—You ask mein your capacity of chairman
of the Wakefield Farmers' Club, to give you any in-
formation which may be useful in obtaining the re-
peal
of the malt tax. There is really but one way
of succeeding in any public agitation—take the
ground of:principle and pressure. When I speak
of principle in connection with the malt tax, I mean
that the Anti-malt-tax League, if you form one,
should, as the Anti-corn-law League did, pledge
itself to the total and immediate repeal of the tax,
and then allow no discussion within its own body
upon any other subject. You have a stronger argu-
ment for taking this ground than we had, inas-
much as you are dealing with an excise tax, and
we were opposing a customs duty; for it has
been laid down as a rule by Chancellors of the
Exchequer, and invariably acted on, that when-
ever an excise duty is reduced it should be
totally abolished, because one of the greatest ob-
jections to such taxes—the interference of the ex-
ciseman with the processes of production, —applies
equally whether the duty be great or small. The
agriculturists have a peculiar claim to the obser-
vance of this rule in the present case, inasmuch as
the best farmers have protested against the duty, on
the ground that it interferes with the free applica•
tion of their capital to the fattening of stock upon
malt, and thus prevents the profitable growth of
barley un heavy soils. It has often occurred to me
to compare the case of the British agriculturist,
who, after raising a bushel of barley, is compelled
to pay a tax of CO per cent, before he is permitted
to convert it into a beverage for his own consump-
tion, with what I have seen in foreign countries,
and I can really call to mind nothing so hard and
unreasonable, lam quite sure that the cultivators
of vineyards in France, or the growers of olives in
Spain and Italy would never tolerate such treat-
ment of their wine and oil. And the extraordinary
feature of your case is that it has been made, as I
will, in a few words, show you, the flagrant ex-
ception to an otherwise universal rule. In
_ _ _ _

1848 I published a financial programme under the
title of "The National Budget," in which I recom-
mended the repeal or reduction of a great many
duties and taxes, involving a very large amount of
revenue. Your letter has induced me to refer to

that document, and it is a suggestive fact that every
change then recommended has been effected, with
the notable exception of that item in which the
farmers are interested. In my projected budget I
suggested that the tea duty, which was then 2s. 2d.
a lb., should be reduced to ls. ; that the coffee
duties should be equalised, the wine duties revised,
and the legacy duty applied to real estate. I pro-
posed that the excise duties on malt, hops, soap,
paper, and bricks, should be abolished ; and that the
window tax and the taxes on knowledge, the timber
duties, and the duties on butter, cheese, and upwards
of 100 smaller items of the tariff, should be abolished.
These were all the recommendations contained in
my budget; and it is, I repeat, a very suggestive
fact that all these changes have been carried out to
the minutest particular, with the sole exception of
malt, the duty on which remains precisely the same
as it was in 1848—namely, 2s 7d a bushel and 5 per
cent. Ido not allude to this for the purpose of
claiming merit for myself, for really I had but little
personal share in the good work, but merely that I
may remark, for your information and guidance,
that these reforms have been effected only because
they have had their earnest and persevering advo-
cates. Now I confess that Ido not entertain very
sanguine hopes that the agriculturists will be more
fortunate during the next fifteen years than
they have been in the past. The truth is, the
county members and the farmers do not, in
their hearts, seem to pull very cordially together
in this business. The moment the repeal of the
malt tax is mentioned, hints are thrown out by the
minister of the day that, if repealed, the amount
must be made good from a tax on property, and
the question is dropped. Now, be assured that

the House of Commons will never vote any
substitute for the malt tax. The reason why I
should hail a bone fide movement of the country
constituencies for the repeal of the tax is, that I
believe it must bo accompanied by a reduction of
our present wasteful government expenditure. We
have for several succeeding sessions seen the Chan-
cellor of the Exehequer literally raising signals of
distresq, and inviting the country to his aid in re-
sisting the expenditure forced upon him. Every
experienced member of the house knows that the
extravagance in certain government departments
increases just in proportion to the amount of money
they can obtain from the treasury. IVithhold from
the government four or five millions of income, and
still the revenue will exceed by five or six millions
the amount which sufficed for the average expen-
diture of Slr Robert Peel's administration from
1841 to 1846 ; and after long observation and
reflection, I believe this to be the only pro-
cess by which we can ever put a check
to that reckless waste of public money,
especially in obsolete and useless naval construc-
tions, and gigantic and abortive experiments in
manufacturing establishments, which, without any
gain of efficiency, has swollen our budgets to their
recent enormous dimensions; and by this process
alone can we hope to see an early curtailment of
our colonial expenditure, by which we fool away
millions yearly for the defence of communities who
are twice us competent to pay for their own protec-
tion as we are for ours. I will only add that should
this movement assume the character of an honest
and earnest effort to abolish an unjust act, and not
of a mere plaything for politicians, it shall have my
sympathy and support.--I remain, truly yours,
E, T. Simpson, Esq.

RICHARD COBDEN.

Boiler Explosion and Loss of Seven Lives,

-
On Tuesday afternoon an accident of a frightful
and fatal character occurred at the ironworks of Mr.
Thomas Johnson, sem, Church-lane, Hall-end,
West Bromwich, by which seven persons were
killed and 13 shockingly injured. It appears that
Mr. Johnson's works, which are known as the Old
Works, are connected with what are called the New
Works, in the occupation of Johnson and Co. There
are 10 furnaces in the old works, and 11 in the new,
together with shopping for milimen, rollers, bun-
dlers, stocktakers, bolters-down, and all the appa-
ratus and machinery requisite for cart ying on an
extensive trade. There were about 40 men em-
ployed at the works of Mr. Thomas Johnson in the
day turn, and a similar number of men in the night
turn. Yesterday afternoon, at about a quarter past
3, after the men had returned from dinner, when
each one was busy with his work, and all seemed
going on as usual, a loud hissing sound was heard,
evidently proceeding from the direction of the en-
gine and machinery, and this waa immediately
followed by a deafening report. In a moment
engine and boiler, machinery, furnaces, and human
beings were confounded in a heterogenous mass.
The boiler, a very large one of the kind, commonly
termed «e gg-ended," was situated about the
middle of the premises, and the effest of the ex-
plosion was to blow the two sides of the boiler apart
nearly at right eagles, one part being projected a
distance of sixty or seventy yards into Church-lane,
and the other about twenty yards in another direc-
tion. The remaininfur the 'tar g portion of the boiler, and by
largest, was hurled almost perpendicularly
into the air, and descended not far from the place
where it was originally fixed. The explosion was
heard at a great distance, and immediately after
the report hundreds of mechanics from the neigh-
bouring
works for miles around rushed to the
scene of the catastrophe. Those in the immediate
vicinity describe the effects of the explosion as
darkening the air. Tons upon tons of bricks
and mortar Were thrown into the streets. The shop-
ping was blown from its foundation, the roofs of
the various buildings in which the work was car-
ried on were literally riddled by tho faE:ng material,
Three only out of the eleven furnaces were left
standing after the explosion, and beneath that telaes
of mingled iron, brickwork, and debris lay the
unfortunate men and boys who, but a few minutes
before, were cheerfully labouring, without dreaming
of the fate that was to ovr:rwhelm them,

MARCH 3, 1864.

ASSIZE IXTELLIGENCE,

NORTHERN CIRCUIT—DURHAM, March I.
(Before Mr. Justice Shoe.)
NORRIE V. NEWBY.
This was an action for an assault. The defendant pleaded
not guilty, and son assault demesne.
Mr, Davidson appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. C. Foster
for the defendant,
The case for the plaintiff Was that he was a butcher in
Durham, and on Saturday, 22d November last, after stand.
ing in the market all day, he went, tired with his day's
work, to get a glass at Bowes's Hotel, in Durham. There
the defendant, a plumber in Durham, who was described
by the learned counsel for the plaintiff as a boating, run-
ning, jumping, boxing man, came up to him, and Without
speaking a word took him by oue of his whiskers and gave
him a pull. The plaintiff complained Gf this, and then the
defendant took hold of the other whisker and gave it a pull,
pulling the hair out of his whiskers, hurting him very
much, and finally the defendant pulled the plaintiff down
on the ground by his whiskers, for, as the learned counsel
put it, go he must, or leave his whiskers. The plaintiff, ir-
ritated, said " the defendant was a blackguard for pulling
the whiskers of a man he did not know," when defendant
immediately challenged him to fight, pulled off his coat,
and, as the plaintiff would not fight, struck him a blow on
the mouth, which cut it and made it bleed. and so hurt
him that he was obliged to go to his doctor on the following
Tuesday to get his face doctored. Two witnesses were
called, who in the main corroborated this statement, but
admitted on cross-examination that there had been a good
a good deal of chaff between the parties before the assault,
and that in the course of it the company laughed at the
plaintiff, and he got angry.
The plaintiff denied that he was only a butcher's
slaughterman at 9s. a week. He did slaughter cattle, and
use the poleaxe to knock them down, but he was not given
to knocking down men, and had never been fined for thrash-
ing a policeman and tearing his clothes, nor for fighting.
The learned counsel in his opening said for the injuries
and affront his client had received he would be satisfied with
a proper apology.
The case for the defendant was that the defendant had
long known the plaintiff, and on the night in question on
going into this publichouse he good humouredly accosted
the plaintiff, and, touching his whiskers, admired them, and
asked him if he was cultivating his whiskers in the Lord
Dundreary style ? The plaintiff replied also good humour-
edly that the defendant was only vexed that he could grow
none, and said he would give him some of the seed, and that
thereupon the plaintiff got hold of him and scrubbed him
with his beard. The company laughed at this, and the de-
fendent said they were beautiful whiskers. The learned
counsel for the defendant noticing that he had now a
short beard growing, asked him if it had grown since the
plaintiff had scrubbed him. The defendant said it had.
(Laughter.) He had no beard before—not a hair. (Loud
laughter.) As the company kept laughing at the plaintiff
and his whiskers, the plaintiff got angry, and seizing the de-
fendant by his coat collar dragged him down backwards on
the floor and jolted his head on the hearthstone. As soon
as the defendant could get up he pulled off his coat and
said he would be even with the plaintiff, and then said to
him if he were a man he would stand up and have it out.
The plaintiff, however, said if defendant touched him he
would " Bench him for it." The defendant then admitted
;hat he struck him, being in a passion at the way in which
hehad been jolted. Three witnesses present were
called, who corroborated this version of the fracas,and who
stated that the plaintiff appeared to be no worse after it,
and, except a slight scratch on his lip, they saw nothing
amiss with him, but whether he got that scratch in his
struggle with the defendant, or from the subsequent
blow of the defendant, they could not tell. The plaintiff
was at his work on the Monday, and nothing seemed the
matter with him. For the defendant his learned counsel
ridiculed the idea of an apology from a journeyman plumber
to a butcher's slaughterman, and contended that the badin-
age about the plaintiff's whiskers had been taken at first
goodhumouredly, and the touching his whiskers was treated
as a joke by the plaintiff, who had scrubbed the defendant
with his beard in return, and it was only when laughed at
by the company and beaten in chaff that he got angry. Up
to that time therefore it was ridiculous to say that there had
been any assault, and after that time the plaintiff had com-
mitted the first assault, and had received the blow in the
mouth in the course of the quarrel he had himself provoked.
Even if the jury should be of opinion that the defendant
was in fault in striking the blow he had done, he had been
greatly provoked, the plaintiff was no worse for it, and a
farthing damages would be ample compensation.
His Lordship, in summing up, said if the plaintiff's case
were true, it was scarcely possible to conceive a greater out-
rage than that spoken to by the plaintiff and his witnesses,
and left it to the jury to say whether they were satisfied
with his version of the affair, which was in part confirmed
by the defendant's evidence. If so, they must find for the
plaintiff, with such reasonable damages as they thought the
defendant ought to pay.
The jury retired,and after being absent some time returned
with a verdict for she plaintiff—damages, one farthing.

MIDLAND CIRCUIT—WARWICK, March I.
Nisi PEIUS COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice Blackburn,)
JORDAN V. WATSON,

This was an action for seduction.

Mr. Sergeant O'Brien and Mr. Stephen appeared for the
plaintiff, and Mr. Macaulay, Q.C., and Mr. Merewether for
the defendant,

The plaintiff is a farmer and innkeeper, living at Pailton,
near Rugby, and the defendant is a farmer occupying a
considerable quantity of land in the same parish, of which
about 100 acres are his own property. The plaintiff lived
with his wife and only child, Ellen, at the White Lion Inn,
and his case was that in 1860 the defendant became a fre-
quent visitor at the; White Lion, and began to pay marked
attention to the plaintiff's daughter, who was then 18 years
of age. At Whitsuntide, 1861, a feast of the Odd Fellows'
Club was held at the White Lion. On that occasion, about
11 o'clock at night, the defendant fetched the plaintiff from
an adjoining room into the bar, and there, in the presence of
several members of the family, asked for permission to marry
his daughter, The father made no reply, but the intimacy
between his daughter and the defendant continued. In the
early part of 1862, Ellen Jordan and the defendant were in
the habit of walking out together in the evening, and con-
tinued to do so until the girl found out that she was pregnant.
In August her mother discovered the girl's condition, and
informed the father of it in the same month. The father
was very angry, threatened to send the girl to the Union,
and ultimately became so violent that the daughter in Octo-
ber went out of his way to London for a few days. After
her return she remained at home till December, when she
again went up to London, whore she stayed till after her con-
finement in February, 1863.

The case for the defendant was that he, although he had
been too intimate with the girl, yet that, as that intimacy
had not commenced till the latter end of July, 1862, he
could not have been the father of her child, which was born
in the early part of the following February. It was also sug-
gested that the girl had been too intimate witha grooranamed
William Lumbers, who had been staying at the White Lion
in the early part of 1862 in charge of his mastees horses. In
support of this case the defendant himself was called, and
swore that his intimacy with the girl had not assumed an im-
moral aspect till the end of the month of July. He did not,
however, deny that he had paid attention to the girl for some
time previously, or that he had proposed marriage to her
father in 1861. Several other witnesses were called, who de-
posed to having seen the girl and William Lumbers walking
together, and one in particular gave evidence of a scene he
had witnessed in a field near Pailton, in May, 1862, which,
if true, added great probability to the supposition that
Limbers was the lather of the girl's child. A Mrs. Bate-
man, who kept a haberdasher's shop in Pailton, stated that
in October the girl told her she was with child and was
going to London to marry Lumbers. This was before th
girl left for London on the first occasion, and the witness
added that on her return the girl begged her to keep the
secret as to Lumbers, and said that she should lay the child
to Mr. Watson, The girl herself upon her cross-examina-
tion denied all this, and also that she had ever been intimate
with Lumbers, or had permitted him or any other man to
take improper liberties with her. Lumbers also was called
in reply, snd denied that he had ever been in any way inti-
mate with the plaintiff's daughter.

Attention was called by the learned Judge to the fact that,
although the parents were aware of their daughter's con-
dition in August, yet nothing was said to the defendant on
the subject till the month of October. During the interval
between August and October the defendant was in the habit
of visiting the White Lion constantly. On being charged,
however, with being the father of the child with which the
girl was then pregnant, he denied it, and ceased to visit the
house. Nothing more was said to him about the matter
till the following September, a period of 10 or 11 months,
when he was served with the writ in the present action.
The jury found a verdict for tho plaintiff—Damages,
£l5O.

OXFORD CIRCUIT.—OXFORD, Feb. 29.
There was no civil business for these Assizes, and there
fOre both the learned Judges sat this morning to try pri
Boners.

CROWN COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice Keating.)
John Johnson and Charles Sherman wero indicted for
maliciously setting fire to a stack of hay at St. Giles's,
Oxford, the property of William Charles Higgins, on the
2d of February.

This case was made out by a confession of one of the
prisoners. The value of the rick destroyed was between
£lOO and £2OO, and one of the prisoners stated that he did
it in order to get into gaol.

The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and
The learned Judge, remarking that the crime of arson
was rife in this county, sentenced Sherman to seven, and
Johnson to six years' penal servitude.
Mr. J. G. Edwards was for the prosecution.
(Before Mr. Baron Pigott.)
Shadrach Brayne was indicted for maliciously and feloni-
,:,usly throwing a stone upon an engine passing along the
Web. •Midland Railway, with intent to endanger the safety
of Joshua. Hodges, then being on the said engine; and upon
a second
enutt,lfor a misderneanaur in endangering the safety

of the said Joehua Hodges, being on the railway, by throw-
ing a stone.

Mr. Godson was for the prosecution; Mr. Sawyer was for
the prisoner.

At about 8 o'clock in the evening of the Bth of August,
1863, the prisoner, with two of his brothers, and two other
boys named Pollett and Webber, were on the Combe rail-
way bridge over the West Midland Railway as a train was
approaching and about to pass underneath it. The prisoner
got a stone from the road, and as the train went under the
bridge, dropped the stone, though his companions had ad-
♦ised him not to do it. The engine was struck by the
falling stone, and a fraction of it fell on the railway, but
another fraction, weighing some 41b. or 51b., hit the fireman,
Joshua Hodges, on the shoulder. The fireman was rendered
nearly insensible, and the driver, by catching him in his
arms, prevented his falling from the engine. On their arrival
at Handborough information of the occurrence was given,
and at Oxford the fireman was placed under the care of Mr.
Symonds, surgeon, and is not yet able to follow his occupa-
tion. The prisoner was taken into custody on the 10th of
August, and said he had not intended to hit the engine
driver, At the close of the case,

The learned Judge suggested that the felony had not
been made out.

The prosecution did not press that part of the charge, and
The prisoner then withdrew his plea of not guilty to the
misdemeanour, and pleaded guilty thereto.
An acquittal was taken on the count for the felony, and
The learned Judge sentenced the prisoner to six months'
imprisonment with hard labour.