The Sun.
London, England, 1864-10-24 00:00:00

Mr. Bernal Osborne on Public Affairs.

Mr B. Osborne, M.P., addressed his constituents in the
Guildhall at Liskeard at eight on Friday evening; Mr H.
Caunter, Mayor of the borough, occupied the chair.
Mr OSBORNE, who was received with great cheering,
said,—This, gentlemen, is the season for societies' meet-
ings and congresses of all sorts. You have social science
meetings, political meetings, scientific meetings, and eccle-
siastical congresses all assembling. You have addresses, ex-
plainings, lecturings, and.mystifyings upon all the subjects.
Let me hope that my speech will not be of the latter class.
(A laugh.) I am here to give, as far as in me lies, a straight..
forward account of my Parliamentary career and conduct
in the last session—to explain, if 1 am able, the speeches
that I have made, and to defend, if you require it, the votes
which I have not given. You will all remember that this
last session of Parliament in this year of grace,; 1864,
opened with most stormy prognostications. There were
very dangerous winds and from very opposite quarters. To
be sure, nobody can deny that the climate has been some-
what dull at home—bat at the same time the tempest in the
north of Europe was very violent, and, though very many
ill •natured people observed that her Majesty's Government
had no domestic policy, it could not be denied that from
their great experience it was expected they would have
peculiar abilities for managing our foreign affaira. I think
they have shown that they have peculiar abilities for
entangling us in foreign embroilments. Well, there
were many people who consoled themselves for the
Government not undertaking to bring in a Reform Bill
for home consumption with the idea that they wore about
to advise his Majesty the Emperor of Russia, and suggest
a Reform Bill for his subjects in Poland, or rather the
Duchy of Warsaw. Well, it was then regarded as a great
consolation for not having a Reform Bill for England
that we should have one for Poland—and, although we
hive had no very great measures brought into Parlia-
ment for England, Ireland, or Scotland, there are many
people who console themselves for that by the consideration
that we have lectured Germany, bombarded Japan, defied
the Ashantees, and bullied the Brazils. (Laughter.) That
may be a very great consolation to some people, but I con-
fess I am not one of those ardent spirits who look upon
those things either with sympathy or approval. Let us see
what the results of the session were ? I cannot do it
from a more favourable point of view for the Government
than by taking the Government's own account of the matter
given in the Queen's speech. I observe that the present
speech was read by commissioners, and not by her Majesty.
I have no doubt she was rather disgusted with tho Eng-
lish, because people don't like to have such speeches and
things put into their mouths. I would not like to have de-
livered it to my Constituents. These speeches are made, I
may tell you, in this manner —One man puts forward one
sentence, and another man another, and when they are all got
together it is then put to the vote, and one unfortunate being
has to put this conglomerate English together and make
what he can out of it. (Laughter.) Let us see now what
portion of this speech is devoted to our domestic policy. We
(the members of Parliament) were thanked for the zeal and
assiduity with which we had applied ourselves to the dis-
charge of our duties in Parliament. Let me tell you, as an
old member of Parliament, what this zeal and assiduity is.
Whenever there is anything really doing, when the esti-
mates are moved, and whenever great sums of money are
voted, there are 50 people in the house. And I must say
this, that those people with whom I act—although I never
was a financial reformer—that those financial reformers who
some three years ago presented a fine flaming document to
the Prime Minister for retrenchment are never there. That
is the first sentence, and when we come to the remainder, it
is really quite curious. It is not like a speech of an Eng-
lish Government,but reminds us of what old Johnson says—
" Let observation with extensive view,
Survey mankind from China to Peru."
Every country is spoken of except England, and England
is omitted. Well that may be very satisfactory to some
people, but I dont think it is a satisfactory state of things
for this country that the whole of the working power of the
nation in Parliament should have had nothing to do but to
discuss foreign affairs, leaning our own affairs in stale quo.
Now, I don't stand hero to tell you that Parliament has
been utterly useless, and have passed acts which have been
of no value, because I am not of that opinion. The budgets
of Mr Gladstone would form the financial backbone of any
Administration, and Mr Gladstone deserves the greatest
credit and the greatest assistance from the people of this
country for devoting his power and his intellect in prepar-
ing these budgets and lightening the taxation of this coun-
try. Now, what has been the fact with regard to Mr Glad-
stone ? Up to the year 1859 the expenditure of this country
was increasing at a monstrous rate, but since Mr Gladstone
has been Chancellor of the Exchequer—since the y, ar 1359
—he has cut down the taxation from £72,000,000 in the
former year to £67,000,000 in 1864. (Hear, hear,) That is a
beginning, and a very good beginning, I think. Mr Glad-
stone has reduced your income tax; he has in part reduced
that monstrous and unjust tax called the duty on fire in-
surances; he has reduced your duty upon sugar; he has
given you—l am speaking now to the industrial working
classes—he has given, you a bill, upon which I had very
great doubts as to its propriety at first—l mean the Govern-
ment Annuities, but which, Noon further examination, I
was convinced was a most beneficial measure to the indus-
trial working classes. (Hear, hear.) I was in some doubt
about it at first, I tell you candidly, for I have always
thought that it was not the duty of the Government to in-
terfere with the :business of the private speculator. But
the case was so strongly made out as to the way in which
the poor men wore spoiled and deceived by many companies
which were composed of schemers—as I may call them—l
could not resist the case which was brought before me, and
I gave nay entire and hearty support to the bill. That,
I think, was a good and sound measure, and I must give my
raced of approbation to the financial policy which has dis-
tinguished her Majesty's Government, for I am not always
disposed to act with the Government, and to support it at
any rate. I will never keep back the expression of my ap-
proval where I think it is duo. I have drawn your atten-
tion—and I thank you for the attention—to the Queen's
Speech. Now what is the reason why home politics are not
attended to ? What is the reason there is such apathy over
the whole country, I think I can account for it. Gentle-
men, so long as it is the pride of the people of England to
have what is called a spirited foreign policy, so long will
you have no domestic policy. What is the effect—just look
at the effect—of concentrating all the attention and all the
energies of the country upon foreign politics ? What is the
effect but to blind you as to what is going on at home, Now
just look at our treatment of the Emperor of tho French.
Sometimes ho is exhibited as a friend—sometimes he is
held up as a bugbear. My own belief is that the Emperor
of the French, who has been brought up in a different man-
ner to other sovereigns—who has known adversity, and is
well acquainted with the ways of the world—knows what
the English people are;
and that the Emperor of the French,
not perhaps out of any romantic love for this country, but
from motives of self-interest, is one of the best friends of
our nation. (Applause.) And I must protest against his
name be'.ng made use of to work upon the people of this
country, at ono time for the purpose of altering the laws for
his protection, and at another time to load us with taxation
to protect ourselves from him. The two are incompatible.
I have said something about foreign politics, and let me in
the first place direct your attention to Poland. Few ques-
tions were so popular in England as this Polish question,
and I may say that I think that really moral courage is
shown as much in resisting the people when they are
wrong as in going with them when they are right. (Hear.)
Let us look at this Polish question, which I have taken
some pains to inquire into from the beginning. In the year
1831 the constitution of Poland was suppressed altogether.
What did we know ? In that year Louis Philippe was upon
the throne of France, Earl Grey was at the head of the Mi.
nistry of this country, and Lord Palmerston was Secretary
fur Foreign Affairs. Lucia Philippe proposed that the Eng-

lish Government should interfere by arms and go to war
against Russia for Poland. The English Government, how-
ever, most sensibly refused, but they also did as they hive
generally done when they have done nothing else—they
protested. By some papers published in 1861 it has now
come out that in the former year Lord Palmerston gave as
his reason for not interfering on behalf of Poland that Eng-
land was not disposed to go to war for Poland against her
faithful ally the Emperor of Russia. These were Lord Pal-
merston's reasons for declining to act with Louis Philippe,
and very good reasons indeed they are; but I want to know
why, if these reasons were good in 1831, we have altered
our opinion now? because it is very much to our interfer-
ence in this Polish question that I trace all the evils that
have lately arisen. The Government proposed six points to
Russia—a sort of Russian Reform Bill—and no doubt it was
very consoling to some people, that as there was to be no
Reform Bill for England, one was proposed for Russia. In
July, 19, 1863, there was great excitement in the House of
Commons. Articles had appeared in the papers, and it was
supposed that we were really going to be mad enough and
foolish enough to go to war for Poland. Meetings were
held in London in support of it, and were attended by
people whose cry was " Liberty to Poland and death to
Russia," and who did not have any anticipations of having
to pay alO per cent. income tax. (Hear, hear.) Of course
they were excellent points to propose if you had an army
at your back and intended business ; but what business
had you to excite those men to revolt, as they were by this
means making themselves obnoxious to Russia, and then
quietly to say you meant nothing, and cover yourselves with
contusion when you had plunged Poland into blood ? I
will say that this policy is a policy which makes this coun-
try ridiculous, and adds misery to all the unfortunate people
who are led away by this foolish, this unmeaning, this
criminal swagger. That is my opinion on the national ques•
tion. Then why did Lord Palmerston hold one language to
America and another to Russia ? What so foolish and so
wrong as his interference with Poland ; what so wise and so
right as his conduct with regard to America ? You know
America is a very good customer, and won't stand any non.
sense, and that is the reason why you do not interfere with
her. (Hear, hear.) So anxious am I not to interfere that I
would not express an opinion upon the question ; for a man
may do some mischief who could not do any good. I say,
however, that we have pursued a right course towards
_ _

America, and that we have no business to interfere. That
war was to be lamented for the sake of our common hu-
manity; but at the same time as Englishmen we cannot
help remembering that those people upon both sides, who
are showing this indomitable perseverance, and making this
stupendous struggle—that those people are descended from
ourselves. We must feel a pride in that. The reason they
have to fight is great; for if the Southern States are sepa-
rated from the North, the greatness of America is Lat for
ever. I can give no opinion as to the result. Looking as a
sensible man at all the circumstances, I cannot help think•
ing that however long the contest may be, it must be like
that of two gladiators in the arena, with whom, science being
equal, weight will tell, and I believe the North will eventu-
ally make a solitude and eall it peace. It is not for us to
vindicate either party ; it is not for us to stand by and be as
little offensive to either as we are capable of being. There-
fore, if I decry the conduct of the Government for inter-
ference in Poland, I give them every credit for the neutral
attitude they have assumed with regard to America. There
was a question that came before the House of Commons on
which I will now speak. It arose on June 17. The ques-
tion caused great excitement, and what are termed the
" whips," but who, I think, might more properly be desig-
nated the fishermen, were especially active that evening,
their best flies being thrown over the most doubtful fish.
(Laughter.) I don't know how they looked upon me, as I
am rather in disgrace at Westminster, and, I fear, also a
little with you. (No, no 1) Sir John Hay, a very distin-
guished and gallant officer, who is upon the Conservative
side of the house, brought forward a vote of censure on the
Government for not making war on the King of Ashantee.
The Government only escaped with a majority of six. I was
in that majority, not because I had any love for the question,
but because I thought that the Government were ill-treated.
I examined and saw that they were being made responsible
for the sins of other people, for the measure they were to

enforce was that of the " Cape Coast Protectorate," which
was brought in by my Lord Derby, and pledged us.to pro
tect the natives on the Cape Coast. It was, in my opinion,
an impolitic act, as I think that we have no business what-
ever in interfering in such a matter. But the Government
were not responsible for this. When the debate was brought
on, the Duke of Newcastle—a man whose name should
not be mentioned by any Englishman without justice
being done to him as a man and a statesman—the Duke of
Newcastle was at that time smitten by the hand of Pro-
deuce, and was not able to make the defence which I know

he could otherwise have made, and therefore I gave
my vote for the Government, and I think materially con-
tributed to save it from defeat. I now come to what
I think I may term the question of the evening. I see some
of your faces sensibly becoming longer; and I don't wonder
at it when I know that you anticipate my mention of the
words Schleswig-Holstein, Or Denmark and her Duchies,
for if ever there was a puzzling question—a question
which bothered people's intelligence and art the world
astray, it is this question of S hleswig Holstein. I was the
first who mooted it in the Ise of Commons ; I have gone
through a course of reading upon it which almost made a
lunatic of me, and certainly did not contribute to my hap-
piness in any way. You will remember that there are papers
in London peculiarly open to Lord Palmerston's sugges-
tions, they were all sounding the war trumpet. The de-
&patches were not produced, as you know, for six weeks.
" Where are the despatches ?" was constantly the cry, The
reply was that there was something wrong in the printing
office of the Foreign-office. I shall never forgot it. Four
blue books were laid on the table, containing thousands of
pages, with upwards of 3,000 despatches, and, in fact, they
were noth?..ag short of a manual for the complete letter
writer. There were letters of all sorts and in all styles;
there were notes hectoring and lecturing—notes minatory
and monitory; despatches with a groat deal of blarney and
bluster ; and ultimatums which nobody could understand.
(Laughter.) Here let me say, however, that I have no in-
tention of blaming the Foreign Minister for what hap-
pened. He is like a young lady—sa little too fond of the
pen; but if the advice had been followed which was con-
tained in his proposition of 1862 to the Danish Government
there would have been no war with Denmark, and the
question would have been at rest. I give Lord John
Russell—l mean Lord Russell, I wish he wore Lord John
Russell—credit for having written that despatch, and I
must say that I think hie proper place was the leadership of
the Liberal party in the House of Commons. Unfortunately
in 1852 this country entered into a contract to give a
King to Denmark and the Duchies, and we gave a King
who had a right to be King of Denmark, but had no right to
sit in the Duchies. We bound ourselves to give an unwel-
come S,vereign to an unwilling people—and could I, as a
Liberal member of Parliament, taught to respect opinions
as expressed by legal organs, give my assent to that. I
could not, and as an honest man I opposed the Govern-
ment on that point. I brought the question forward early,
and Mr Disraeli then moved the previous question, which
meant that no opinion should be given on it at all. If,
however, the line I mooted had at first been taken, we
should have come to an end of the business, for, as
it was, the Treaty of 1852 was " kicked into the dust,"
and in spite of all our lecturing we put our hands coolly
into our pockets, and at last did the sensible thing we ought
to have done at first.. A long debate took place, which ex-
cited the Danes to make a resistance they never intended to
make ; and in fact the Ministry was greatly to be blamed for
the bloodshed and the treasure wasted by Denmark. It
should be understood that greater tyranny never existed
than that to which the Germans were subjected by the
Danes, who filled their public offices with Danish people'
and even prevented the Gorman language from being
spoken. An address protesting against the persecution by
the Danes was signed largely by Germans, and the pat ties
who presented it were put in prison and prosecuted—and
these are the people for whom all our sympathies were ex-
cited. We all like to see a little fellow standing up well for
himself in a fight, whether he 'be right or wrong, and the
Dane was a little fellow who stood up gallantly, but he was
quite wrong. Various as the opinions on the debate were,
and great as were the differences, every speaker unanimously
agreed upon one thing, that our policy of non-intervention
was unjustifiable, and at the height of Lord Palmerston's
popularity his foreign policy broke down, for you had no in-
tervention after that division on what was called a vote of
want of confidence in the Government, but which was really
a vote of want of confidence in the politicians on the other
side, who had no policy whatever to declare. Sir Robert
Collier, the most excellent representative of Plymouth, last
night said that the Government deserved credit for keeping
the peace. Now what did the Government do ? They ac-
tually proposed to the Emperor of France to go to war with
Germany, and now they are taking the credit of keeping the
peace. The Government were hindered from going to war
by the French Emperor, and by that section of the Cabinet
which considers that when war ceases to become a necessity
it:becomes a crime, There was a large division, and I did
not vote on it—you remember that. If a member does
not eat a full peck of dirt—if he stands up to make a
speech of strong and honest reprobation, is he to be told
that he is to lose the confidence of his constituents P lam
told that I have lost your confidence, lam here to ask, is
it so? (Cries of "No, no.") Well, I will tell you why I
did not vote. I could not vote what I thought was a lie—
that the Government had conducted the negotiations suc-
cessfully. You would have said, "Ho roars like any suck-
ing dove, but look how he votes ;" and you would have
been justified. Well, I could not vote for the other side,
for they had no policy. If they had declared policy of non-
intervention and reduction I would have voted with them,
bat they did not say so. I know that there are few cases in
which not voting at all upon an important question could
be excused, so as I could not vote I did the gallant thing—
I walked away. I know it will be said, " Oh, look at Mr
Osborne; he is letting in the Tories." Letting in the
Tories I Poor innocent individuals, I want to know where
they are. It that great Pagan philosopher, Diogenes, were
to descend into the impure and inflammable atmosphere of
the House of Commons provided with a patent Sir
Humphrey Davy's lamp, and were to endeavour to discover

a Tory party, after eome difficulty he might find three pure
Tories—all most excellent, honest, energetic men. Diogenes

would say, " I think that the member for North Warwick-

shire, Mr. Newdegate, is one." He would say, " How are
you Newdegate r (Laughter.) Ile would also see in th©

member for West Norfolk, Mr. Bentinck, another Tory; and
as ha was a man of great judgment, he would recognise, I
think, as the third Tory the noble lord the member for
Tiverton. (Laughter.) There is no reason why the Tory
should not be popular. We have an idea that he is a horned,
winged, and tailed animal, who is out of date. (A. hiss by a
youth,) That young gentleman who is sibilating there does
not recollect that for 50 years Lord Palmerston was a Tory.
The first speech made by Lord Palmerston was in 1809, in
defence of seizing the Danish fleet at Copenhagen. He
was a violent Tory then, and voted against reforms of all
kinds, and it curiously happens that in his last speech
he resigned Denmark to her fate. (Hear.) The most
efficient support to Lord Palmerston is given by the ex
treme Tory section; else why are Church-rates still stand-
ing ? The names of Whigs and Tories are becoming by-
words. I cannot see why some new combination should
not be tried. Is there any statesman more liberal in voting,
speaking, and writing than Lord Stanley, who has nut only
voted and spoken for the abolition of Church-rates, but has
written an able pamphlet in favour of it, and supports Re-
form ? Why am I, then, to be deterred from voting for
Lord Stanley because he sits on the opposite benches ? Why
am Ito be bound simply by a party restriction. I hesitate
not to declare that the Liberal party has neither a flag nor
a leader, and we are in the slough of despond. Who would
have ever thought that we should have arrived at a time
when repose and thanksgiving are enjoined upon us by
Liberal Ministers as the euthanasia of the great Liberal
party ? However inclined to be thankful, we are not dis-
posed to rest. Ministers exist by the support of friends,
parties exist by the vivacity of their principles. The other
day Lord Palmerston said that his Ministty was composed
of the ablest men in the world. I don't dispute that, but
there are many people who hold high office, who are only
selected because of high connections, and whe, if they de-
pended on their own abilities, would be reduced to blowing
the bellows of their pariah organ. If they are able they
are rather indolent, for they don't produce much. They
remind me of a parrot who was sold thirty years ago
as being the cleverest parrot in Europe, for he was able,
to say "The Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the
Bill," which was a very popular cry at that time. A
most respectable old lady gave £5OO for the bird, but for a
whole year after it was bought it never uttered a cry. It
ate its food, it drank, and was in capital condition, but not
a word would it speak. The old lady remonstrated with
the man she bought it of, and he said to her, when
told that it would not speak, " Oh, no ; but it's a devil
to think," I think that is very much the case with our
domestic policy. Before the Government was in office
we shook our fingers at them ; we gave them a weary
time ; we derided them for not being reformers and ex-
communicated them for not retrenching. Well, we got in,
and e're devils to think. (Laughter.) The head of the pre-
sent Ministry is I grant a fine specimen of a fine old English
gentleman. I separate him as what he is privately from
what he is politically. I know of no measure from 1809
down to the present day which he has produced or put his
impress on. He is an acute, able man, and having been all
his life in office very naturally does not want to get out of
it, but he occupies very much the position of the Duke of
Wellington in his later years, who, we must candidly admit,
adhered to old systems, and, grateful for victories won by
the old Brown Bess, would not hear of the Enfield rifle. I
am proud to have stood in Parliament as your representative,
and I have been proud of my position solely as you sent me
to Parliament as a free, unfettered, independent man—not
obliged to register a compulsory vote, nor give way to offi-
cial influence, or to be tickled by Ministerial blandishments.
If it is your wish that Lord Palmerston should be sup-
ported, I shall not gainsay it; but I cannot vote that black
is white when I know it to be otherwise, and I cannot bo
reduced to a mere delegate, The infant lips of the present
Parliament were for reform and retrenchment ; when grown
up it ridiculed reform and despised retrenchment; but
when the throes that are approaching shall have arrived
you will have the old thing stammered out—reform and
retrenchment. Well, are you going to be taken in ? You
have no chance now; the principal people interested are
the lawyers, who for a consideration are baked in hot com-
mittee rooms. Railways are better represented than prin-
ciples. An independent man having a small fortune has
no chance against a railway contractor who promises to
bring a line into the town, and in fact the House of Com-
mons is now, as I have before declared it to be, a great,
rich, commercial man's club, and the narrow gauge
of private interests is made subservient to the great
broad gauge of public good. Lately we have had Mr
Gladstone making a tour through the country, but
he has not given any inking of what the Govern-
ment are going to do. He said that he looked with shame on
our treatment of Ireland. I think he should have remem-
bered that his Government have done nothing to ameliorate
in any way the condition of that country. We all remember
the exertions of my excellent friend Sir J, Trelawny in fa-
vour of the abolition of church rates. He has thrown up the
question in disgust—and why ? Because the Ministry do
not vote for him, and no private member can be expected to
settle such a question as this, which none but a Government
can settle, and which could not be disposed of except by the
proposal of measures palatable to both parties engaged in
the struggle. Then, too, the Government were pledged to the
extension of the franchise, and this great question has been
left to Mr Baines, the member for Leeds. lasi for opening
the portals of the Constitution gradually, so that I may ad-
mit the educated mechanic, who is as fit to exercise the
franchise as myself, or any man in this room. In times of
agitation the Government have said, " We will not yield to
fear." A. dead calm comes, and then they tell us nobody
cares about it. Now, if ever there was a time for the respect-
able settlement of that question it is now, and that it is due
is surely evident when w' have seen the millions of Lanca-
shire behaving in a way that would have done honour to
the philosophers of old. I say lam not one of those who
have ever bleated for universal suffrage, which I regard with
dread. I look to France and see there the effects of the des-
potism of one man, and I look to America and see the des-
potism of a mob ; and I am glad to find there is a middle
course, and lam persuaded that England would be prouder, '
stronger, and safer if a great portion of the mechanic class
were admitted to the franchise. Referring finally to myself,
I have to say that I am proud to represent this constituency
so long as it is your will that I should do so on the princi-
ples which I have endeavoured to enunciate; but if there be
any disappointment in regard to the action I have taken
and the views I have expressed, I am content to abide by
your decision and to retire into that private life which I do
not need the means for enjoying.

Mr OSBORNE, in reply to Mr Gaskin, said—l must apo-
logise for having been so taken up with foreign affairs that
I omitted to notice the bill brought in by Mr Lawson,
which is the bill of Mr Pope, of Manchester. Mr Lawson
asked me to support it, and I said, " Certainly not t" and
Mr Lawson's own speech convinced me that the measure
would be most tyrannical. To Mr Semes's bill for Sunday
closing I have a still stronger objection, as it would be
even more injurious. The most convincing speech against
it was made by a teetotaller, Mr Bright, who showed that
by its operation the poor man would be deprived of comforts
which the rich man would still be able to obtain. Ido not
believe in making people moral by act of Parliament—and
I can therefore hold out no hope that if again honoured:with
your confidence I would ever support these measures.

LONDON AND NORTH-WESTERN RAILWAY.—
On Saturday a special general meeting of this com-
pany was held at the Euston Station, to take into con-
sideration the property of raising further capital, under

the provisions of an act of the last session of Parlia-
ment. Mr Moon, chairman of the company, presided.
The chairman, in opening the proceedings, explained
that by the provisions .of the Lancashire Union Railways
Act of last session the London and North-Western Com-
pany were empowered, should the proprietors think fit, to
subscribe to and become partners in that undertaking to
the extent of £lOO,OOO. The present meeting was called to
authorise the directors to make such subscription, and to
raise for that purpose the requisite amount of capital.
The hon. gentleman concluded by moving a resolution in
the spirit of the foregoing observations. The capital to be
jailed by the creation of new ordinary shares or stock in
the undertaking of the company, to be disposed of in such
manner and to such persons as may. in the opinion of the
directors, be most advantageous to the interests of the
company. Mr Westhead seconded the motion, which was
unanimously agreed to, and the proceedings terminated in
the usual manner.

DEATH OF A WATERLOO VETERAN.—Major
Richard Weyland, one of the surviving heroes of
Waterloo, died at his family seat, Woodrising Hall, Nor-
folk, on the 14th inst. Major Weyland was a British soldier
of the finest type, entered the army at an early age, and
continued in the 16th Light Dragoons until after the Penin-
sular war, and subsequently settled down as a country gen-
tleman on his estate at Woodeaton, Oxfordshire. In 1854,
upon the death of his older brother (the late Mr John
Weyland), the major succeeded to the family estate
Norfolk, Woodrising Hall, and left to reside there, He
was member of Parliament for the county of Oxford from
1832 to 1837, having for his colleagues the late Mr Harcourt
and Lord Norreys (the present Earl of Abingdon), and
served the office of high sheriff in 1830. Major Weyland's
elder daughter is the present Countess of Verulam.

A SHOCKING CASE OF STABBING.—A serious ease
of possibly fatal stabbing took place on Saturday
morning at the workshops of Messrs Cubitt, in the Gray's •
inn-road. It appears that two youths—Henry Parsons,
aged 16 years, and Thomas Dudley, aged 14 years—were
employed in the turning department of those workshops,
and at about 11 o'clock Dudley amused himself by larking
about the shop and interrupting Parsons at his lathe. Par-
sons angrily told Dudley to desist, but the latter, instead of
doing so, ran against him and pushed him on one side ;
thereupon Parsons seized up a heavy tool, or chisel, the
blade of which was eight inches long, and hurled it at
Dudley with all his force, and it buried itself deep in his
right thigh. The poor boy fell, and the blood gushed out
in such a stream that it was apparent at once that his life
was in jeopardy, and the workmen carried him straight
to the Royal Free Hospital, Mr May, the house surgeon,
pronounced the wound to be of so dangerous a character
that it would be impossible to state whether the boy's life
could be saved. The lad Parsons was given into custody,
and was taken to the King's-cross-road station. Both boys
bad borne a good character.