The Sun.
London, England, 1864-03-28 00:00:00

EXTRAORDINARY CASE.

At the Clerkenwell Police-court, on Saturday,
Maria Read and Henry Read, mother and son,
residing at No. 2, Union-court, Stoke Newington,
appeared before Mr. D'Eyncourt, to answer the
complaint of Mary Ann Vickers, for having stolen
a Bank of England note of the value of £2OO, and
other moneys, belonging to the complainant.
Mr. Lewis, jun., of Ely-place, attended for the
prosecution, and Mr. Beard, of Basinghall-street,
for the defence.

Miss Msry Ann Vickers, of 16, London-road
North. Delston, said,—l am unmarried. I hst.l a
relation Joseph Hankin. I was the nearest blood
relation. He was my eeisond cousin, and was a
widower with ne family. Ho was formerly a
builder and conttactor, and before his death he
resided at 2, Union-court, Stoke Newington. Teat
was a house kept by the prisoner, Maria Rsad, and
her husband. The prisoner, Henry Read, is her
son. The husband of the female prisoner is a
scavenger. The deceased had lodged with the
prisoners about a year and a half, and had paid the
female prisoner 12s, per week for his board and
lodging. I had visited him very frequently while
he was there. The deceased was on very intimate
terms with me, and we never had any unkind words,
He made statements to me with reference to his
money. He was paralyzed for some months before
his death, and partly kept his bed, He was a man
of very reserved habits. On the 231 of July, 1863,
I was in the prisoner's house, when Mr. Rankin
expressed a desire to make a will. He made a
statement to me which I put on paper, and after-
wards had put in the form of a will. On that day
I was in his bedroom with the will before him. I
went down stairs and said to the female prisoner,
" Mrs. Read, my cousin wishes me to take all lee pos-
sesses, and to attend to his affairs in the event of his
death.
_Will you and your husband have any objec-
tion to sign that will vs witnesses She said, "No,
not_ any. My husband and I will come up and do it."
They did come up stairs and signed the hill as
witnesses. I have since proved the will at Doctors'
Commons, and the probate of the will is dated 10th
ot March, 1851. I had seen him in possession ot
money some time before the making of the will. In
June, 1859, he gave into my possession a £2OO note,
two £lOO notes, six £lO notes, and £lOO in gold. I
returned him the money in November, 1859.- Mr.
Rankin died on the 2Gth of November last. I then
went to take possession of his property. I had seen
the above money in March. 1862. He said to me,
"Life is very uncertain. You have not done any •
thing with my money; take it away as soon as I
die." I went to take possession of the money, but I
could not find it is his room. Ith n spoke to the
female prisoner, and I believe the younger prisoner
was present. I said, " Mrs. Read, you must be
aware that Mr. Hankin had money. Ali he pos-
sessed was in this house. Where is it, and do you
know anything about it? He had money to a large
amount, Bank of England notes. It was in a small
box inside a large one." She said, " I know no-
thing about it. I never knew he had any money
beyond what he paid me for his board and lodging
every week, You know Mrs. French has been here
and staved with him until seven in the evening,
and she left him in a state of stupor, and ho re-
mained so to: some days afterwards. An old friend,
a gentleman, has also been to see him." She said,
"Perhaps Mrs. French knows something about the
money." The male prisoner was preseet at that,
interview. That nay she stoutly denied knowing
anything about the money. Ido not remember the
male prisoner juicing in the conversation. The next
day I found Mrs. French and made sonic inquiries,
and then went tack and saw the two prisoners
together. The male prisoner said, " Have you
found out Mrs. French ?" and I said, " Yes, I have,
end se will come here." Oc, the Monday follow-
ing the death of tho deceased I were again with
some friends. My mother asked Mrs. Read if Mr.
Hankin had ever at any time made her a present
in money, jewelry, or clothing. She said, " Ne,
never, or to any of her family to her knowledge."
The male prisoner was present. He said, " Mother,
don't say another word, but let them go to law
with us." I went again sometime afterwards on
the Bth of January with Inspector Lengdon. I
had then received some information with respect
to the money. There was a coroner's inquest
held on the body of Joseph Hankin, the deceased,
three months after his death, and the verdict
was that ha died of congestion of the lungs caused
by privation. The prisoners were present at the
inquest. I heard Mrs. Read say that she changed
the £lOO note on the 10th or 11th of December,
1863. The male prisoner was present, but was not
examined. I made a search, but found nothing. On
my mother making a further search we found a few
old clothes and rags, a pair of silver spoons, and
about £l2 in gold inn tea caddy. There were also
a few old coins and two silver watches. About Sep-
tember, 1850, I saw £l2O paid to deceased on the
sale of a house. It was his habit to keep his boxes
locked, and his keys were clutched in his hands
when he died.
Cross-examined by Mr. Beard.—When I had
possession of the money it was in a box, and he
showed it to me and counted it out. I did not see
the money after I gave it to him back. Ho only told
me he had the money. He left my house because I
kept my business. That caused tie unpleasantness
or ill feeling. There was no breach of good feeling,
for WO never hed a word. When I spoke to Mrs.
Read about the money I did not say it was all gold.
The deceased was of very miserly habits. Mr. Lane.
don said to Mrs. Read, " Have you auy witnesses ?"
And she said, " Only my own family." 1 don't re-
collect that she said that deceased told her not to
tell any of the Vickers's family about it, as he did
not want them to know.
Re-examined.--She did not say when be gave
her the money, either before or after the making of
the will. The deceased was very communicative to
me about his money. My mother and myself were
the only persons who visited him. The little box
that contained his money was unlocked.
Inspector Lenfeelon, N division, said.'--On the Bth
of January I accompanied Miss Vickers to a small
cottage up a court in Stoke Newington. Mrs. Read
was there, and I said, "I am a police officer. I
have come to make some inquiries respecting a Mr.
Hankin, who died here a short time ago. I want to
ask you a few questions in reference to
,ius "
Did he before he died give you any money or
pro-
perty ; careful before you answer the: In, I said,
money's worth, or property." Her words were—
" Oh! dear no, poor man. He had no money for
himself. He would have died for want had it not
been for me, as friends have taken no notice of him."
I then said " He gave you no money whatever ?"
and she said "No." About this time the male pri-
soner came down stairs, and I said, " How do you
account for the £2OO note you changed at the Bank
of England for gold ?t' At that time I
information
'Phis piece of paper, and said, " is my
s said,"Mother,
T
I have obtained from the Bank of England." As
soon as I said that the male prisoner
don't you answer another question. "The woman,
however, said, " I changed that note. Mr. Hankin
gave it me prior to his death, as well as the whole
of the property. His friends had not behaved well
to him, and therefore he wished me to have the
whole of the property."
Cross-examined—l have known the prisoners as
respectable persons.
The husband of the female
prisoner in a scraper on the road.
Mr. Richard Bally
said—l am a clerk in the
which was changed for gold on
EBnangklaonfdEtnagrlain2do.o produce a note of the Bank of
June 29, 1663. It was endorsed the note " Mariaßead,
nßoetaeds,fo2r, noi oena-ephl, all dated Feb. 8, 1858. Two on
ce, Dalston." I produce seven
of them are endorsed in the name of Henry Reed.
Two others were paid in December, and were en-
dorsed in the same manner, and a third had on it
"H. Read," but no address. They were changed
for gold.
Mr. Lewis here asked for a remand, and said he
should be Male to trace all the stolen notes to the
possession of the prisoners.
Mr. Beard said ho had no objection to a remand,
but hoped that bail might be taken for both the pri-
soners. He had a complete answer to the charge
when the proper time arrived.
Mr. D'Ey neeurt remanded the prisoners and con-
sented to take bail, the woman in £l2O and two
sureties in the sum of £6l) each, and the scn in £6O
and two sureties in the sum of £3O each.

WHO IS MR. PATER ? asks the London Review.
Where and how was be " raised ?" Who h.d the
correcting of his manners in early youth, and the licking of
him generally into shape from that period upwards till he
was considered • ble to be responsible for himself ? Above
all, how on earth did he come to be called to the bar ? We
ask these questions because of a " scene in court" which
took place en Tuesday at the Middlesex Sessions, in which
this gentleman conducted himself in a manner we should
have thought impossible to any man belonging to a liberal
profession, In reading the report, one is almost tempted to
fancy that some costormonger, who was to be tried at the
sessions, had contrived to get into the barrister's robing-
room, dress himself in a wig and gown, and pass himself
off as a member of the bar.

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

PECTATOII.-It needs little political wit to dis-
cover that the Ministry is shaking, and not much

political arithmetic. There is mo. need to count
heads, that most deceptive of all Conserva-
tiVe amusements, or eireti to v7.4tch the drift of the
local constituencies, for the House of Commons is
in that temper which always presages a Change, it
is as fretful and nervous as a man who knows he

must quarrel with his colleagues, and is making up
his mind how to commence the disagreeable task.
Under those circumstances be is nsilally over polite
to his true antagonists, as though hoping by some
lucky chance to avoid the approaching contention,
and relieves his inward annoyance by snubbing his
wife, disappointing his children, and roaring at his
dependents. The majority of the House of Com-
mons is just in that stage, secretly angry with the
Ministry, at least irritated with the Cabinet, but
still unwilling to break with it, and venting its
spleen upon everybody whom it thinks decently
safe to attack. It is fretted inwardly with the

management of the greatest affairs, but as yet it
has not attacked any one of the great departments.
Lord Palmerston is never heard without apparent
deference, and Lord Clarence Paget carries his esti-
mates with a rapidity which is almost a triumph,
the War Office has been, let off without a division,

and even Sir U3orge Grey has not been accused of
vacillation mora than twice in one night. Tncre

is a nervous reluctance to vote whenever a vote may

prove important, and the way in which Tories slip
out before a division must be a daily heartbreak
to Colonel Taylor. But watch the house when it
can fume without producing the inevitable collie
sion. See how it springs at any member of the
Ministry who has laid himself open to attack,
how it welcomes a personal charge, how hungry it
is for occasions which may jastify the throwing of
eggs, how loth it is to let any plausible quarrel drop!
The sharp snub administered to Mr. Lowe only
whetted the appetite of the majority, and the last
days of the sitting before taster were almost one
continued "row." Crowds don't pelt their favourites
or their favourites' friends, and all this stone-throw-
ing indicates the internal unpopularity of the Cabi-
net. The " ugly ruse may be deferred, but the mob
is in the temper to make it, and when it is made, no
constable's baton will avail to defend the hustings.
This Ministry has to go, and it is a tittle curious to
trace the causes which have undermined its hold
over the house. The Ministry will, we believe, fall
for too many causes combine against it. Earl
Russell's European policy has annoyed the country
naarly as much as his American policy has satisfied
it, and Englishmen, even when humiliation is una-
voidable, never endure it patiently. Even if peace
is maintained, still, as a London verse-maker is
now singing, Few on earth are the nations who
never will be slaves," and the country sees with
pained discontent that one of the few is, in spite of
Earl Russell, getting its throat slowly cut. After
men have been talked into argumentative coma
about Sehles wig-liolstein, the fact remains that one
of the three Protestant States left on earth is being
dismembered, arra that the English Cabinet has not
prevented it, and anybody who fancies that English-
men in their hearts like that does not understand
his countrymen. Then the Liberals have been in
power with a rare and short interval for 17 years,
and have accumulated upon them the mass of indi-
vidual, clique, and sectional hatreds which slowly
accrete round every free government. The Tories
suffer too from their long opposirion, for they
have now such a mass of people about them
who have been hungering for years, that the
cake will be too small, aid they will be driven
to job audaciously; but then that is all in
the future. The inevitable hatreds are further
increased by special personal animosities. That
curious vein of hauteur, not to say insolence, which
underlies Lord Palmerston's bonhommie, and has
twice helped to defeat him, crops out in his special
subordinates, and of his immediate " men," Mr.
Lowe, Mr. F. Peel, Mr. Cowper, Sir R. Peel, and
Mr. Layard, not one conciliates and section of the
house to the Administration. A whole party
despises Sir George Grey, a whole section frets at
Mr. Gladstone's determined will, and except Lord
Palmerston himself, and sometimes Lord C. Paget,
there is not a Minister who can soothe the house
out of a fit of irritation. All that, of course, tells
very little upon the nation—which is net pinched
by anybody except by Mr. Lowe, and does not even
know that Mr. Gladstone has no following, and
that Sir C. Wood's ability is obscured by a Stuart-
like capacity for irritating everybody about him.
But it does tell very heavily in the house, and when
a Ministry only lives by drawing over votes from
the oppoeite side, and carries economical votes by

a majority of one, the house becomes as
important as the constituencies. Finally the
Ministry suffers bitterly from the want of zeal in
its supporters. Except the Annuities Bill, what
have they begun, or proposed to begin, or promised
that if permitted they will consider how to begin of
which the Liberal rank and file care to see the end ?
Simply nothing at all, and though students may
perceive the vast difference between them and their
opponents, and the majority of constituencies may
be languidly willing to see them hold power till the
lull is over, still the mass of voters cannot be excited
into enthusiastic voting for nothing at all, and when
parties are pretty equal and enthusiasm is dead the
attack has all the advantage of its momentum. An
appeal to the country will not, under such circum-
stances, modify matters much, and unless Mr.
Disraeli delights his enemies by an Ultramontane
speech, or Lord Derby proclaims the moral duty of
always following Napoleon's lead, or some wholly
unexpected incident occurs in foreign politics, it is
hard to see what is to keep the assailants from

carrying the fortress.
SATURDAY REVIEW.—The nation heard with
heartfelt satisfaction, a short time ago, that there
was a probability that the Sovereign, who has been
so long, for all practical purposes, withdrawn from
her subjects, would soon return to them again. The
public reception which her Majesty accorded to the
deputations of certain municipal bodies who ap-
proached her for the purpose of presenting addresses
of congratulation upon the birth of a Prince, seemed
to confirm this hope. But later incidents would
appear to show that it was premature. The con-
tinued delegation to the Prince and Princess of Wales
of those duties which hitherto have always been
fulfilled, when possible, by a Sovereign—and that,
too, at a juncture which to the Princess must be one
of terrible anxiety—indicates that the Queen's long
retirement has not yet come to a close ; and, indeed,
arrangements have been formally announced within
the last few, days which are obviously incompatible
with the residence of her Majesty in London during
any part of the present season. Rumours are even
in circulation that she will never hold her Court in
her capital again. Such a resolution, if it exists, is
a matter of grave political moment and may well
cause serious uneasiness: It is upon her Msjesty's
Ministers, however, the responsibility must rest.
Cut off by her rank from unrestrained intercourse
with any section of society in this country, the
Queen cannot know what people are thinking or
saying in the busy world outside. She does not
enjoy the opportunities which fall to the lot of most
of us, knowing that the disposal and the duties of
life are regarded by others from a point of view very
different from that to which our own feelings or cir-
cumstances might incline us. But this want her
Ministers should supply. It is their duty to speak
to their Mistress with loyal frankness, and to ten-
der advice which her whole past life assures us
would not be disregarded; for a sovereign who has
in so many ways made the Court of England
synonymous with all that is of good report can only
need to be told of an unfulfilled duty. If the course
of events indicates that that frankness has not been
displayed, her Mjesty's advisers are incurring the
heaviest responsibility which could possibly fall
upon them. Seclusion is one of the few luxuries in
which Royal personages may not indulge. The
power which is derived „from affection or from
loyalty needs a life of almost unintermitted pub-
licity to sustain it. Human affections will not fasten
upon abstractions, and a Sovereign, however be-
loved, too long shut up from the public eye, may
become too much of an abstract idea. In England,
moreover, there is another reason which would
powerfully contribute to impair the influence of a
Sovereign who lived in perpetual retirement. In
this country, all classes, from the Prime Minister
down to the poorest petty juryman, do a great deal
of what is, practically, gratuitous labour for the
benefit of the State. The general consciousness of
self-sacrifice which is the result of this national
habit produces a very exacting popular opinion on
the subject of public duty. People usually fix the
merit which they expect in others at a point several
degrees higher in the moral scale than that which
satisfies their personal sense of obligation ; and if
their own standard is tolerably high, the standard
which they impose upon others rises in proportion.
Just as the most unsparing ascetics are also the most
pitiless persecutors, so a nation of which all the
more important classes are accustomed to
make many sacrifices in doing their public
duties hears with regret of sentiments
or feelings, amiable in themselves, which are
regarded as demanding the postponement of social
or official obligations. A tradesman who will take
no part in the charities of his borough, a country
gentleman who ignores his local duties, a large pro-
prietor who spends' his time in Paris instead of
looking after his estates, are tried by a measure very
different from that which would be applied to them
in:any other country. Both from the classes below
them and the class to which they belong they in-
cur, if not disapprobation, something at least of
waning confidence. Kings and Queens are not
exempt from the same kind of criticism. The chiet
duty of English Sovereigns, even in times when
they directed the policy of the country more openly

than they do now, was to show themselves, and to
be the centre alike of the pomp of the State and of
the gaieties of the well-to-do world ; and the hearti-
ness with which they perfoimed this duty deter-
mined their popularity far more powerfully than
their moral qualities, or even than their political
tendencies. William 111. was greatly superior in
almost every moral quality to Charles 11., but there
is no question which was the mare popular of the
two. George IV.'s unpopularity when he was gay
and fashionable was undoubtedly great, but it did
not approach in intensity to the odium which he
incurred in later years, when a growing taste for
luxury, combined with a dread ot exhibiting his
faded charms, drove him to become a gastronomic
hermit. And the public instinct is right in this-
matter. A Sovereign may neglect the administra-
tive part of his duties, and if he be served by com-
petent Ministers, the commonwealth will suffer no
damage. But no one can supply his place for the
purposes of representation. Hereditary monarchy
is upheld, in spite of many inconveniences which
attach to it, because the emotion of loyalty has been
ascertained by experience to be not only a cheap
defence of order, but one for which no substitute,
even tolerably effective, can be found. But loyalty
needs to be stimulated by external display, by the
pomp and circumstance of power, by all
the kindly feelings which personal intercourse
creates between Sovereign and subject. If a
Sovereign omits to keep it alive by such means, he
leaves unfulfilled that one function which no one else
can perform in his stead. To say that the advisers
who fail to guard him against such an error are
only allowing him to prejudice his own position is
to speak of the matter much too lightly. They de
far more than this. They are not so much risking
the personal popularity of the Sovereign as bring-
ing into disrepute the institutions of which his office
is the keystone, and the permanence of which is in-
fluenced by the personal life of every occupant of
the throne.
EXAMINEIL—To make up for the brevity of his
note on eternities, the Archbishop of Canterbury
has written a long pastoral letter to his flock, lay
and clerical, upon the theological questions mooted,
Perhaps it is not the fault of the Primate that he
does not make clear the knotty questions he dis-
cusses, but certain it is that his explanations im-
mensely increase perplexity. For example,. what
can be made of this passage, a maze of woras and
phrases, in which the reader is bewildered and
lost P
Lastly, if the Bible be " before all things," and no more
than the "Written voice of the congregation," even though
that congregation shall have prayed to God that " by his
holy inspiration" they "may think those things that be
good," it will be at the utmost no more than the voice of
the Church, which cannot be adduced to establish doctrine
if that voice shall utter or " ordain anything contrary to
God's word written"—of the Church, which may not "so
expound one place of Scripture that it be repugnant to an-
other."
There is a break of light in this view of Mr. Wil-
son's opinions :
The sum and substance of that which he labours re•
psatedly to establish I cannot but consider as conveyed in
the following sentence:—" It may," he says, "be expressed
thus—the Word of G id is contained in Scripture, whence
it does not follow that it is co-extensive with it." The
meaning fairly to be put upon those words I hold to be that
there are parts of H, ly Scripture which are not i
the Word
of God, and this assertion I conceive to be entirely nco.n•
sistent with the articles, which identify the Holy Scrip-
tures and the canonical hocks of the Old arid New Testa-
ment, with God's Word written, and thus mike the one
co-extensive with the other.
But the main point is the Archbishop's advice
and direction as to what is and what is not permis-
sible in the way of inquiry, and the results :
You may be induced to ask what is the degree of liberty
allowed to each of you, according to the mind of the
Church, in dealing with the Bible. The view I have taken
of the claim which the whose of the Holy Scriptures hss to
be treated as:the Word of God cannot interfere with the right
of discussing questions as to various readings or the ge-
nuineness of a disputei text ; for this is no more than to
argue that a given text or reading is not a part of any ca-
nonical book. But such an argument on the part of a
c'ergyman is a widely different thing from his assertion
that a portion ot the Bible which he has acknowledged to
belong to a canonical book is not the Word of God.
There is surely something contradictory here.
The whole is to be accepted as the Word of God,
though parts of the whole may be questioned and
the authority denied! The Primate admits that
there are disputed texts, the genuineness of which
is allowable, nay, proper matter of discussion ; but
it the conclusion fairly arrived at be that those
texts are not the Word of God, parts are thereby
rejected of the whole for whica acceptance and im-
plicit faith is claimed ! How is this to be recone
cited with reason and logic? If there are any parts
of the w hole that may be regarded as not genuine,
and the Primate admits there are texts open to
this doubt, is not Mr. Wilson's proposition
borne out, that the Werd of God is
contained in Scripture, but that Scripture
may not be co-extensive with the Word
of God ; in other words, that Scripture may contain
passages not of Divine authority, or, as the Arch-
bishop would express it, not genuine ?
LONDON REVIEW.—Turf quarrels and Turf scan-
dals have been rather frequent of late. It is not
very long ago since we had the great " Roindeer"
case; and now we are called upon to witness a
grand struggle between the Jockey Club and the
Morning Post. There is something, we fear, in the
influences or associations of sporting calculated to
develop a spirit of contention in its followers and
devotees. The perpetual excitement of matches
impending or in course of settlement—the stimulus
of betting—the constant atmosphere of rivalry,
flavoured not seldom with a amatch of fraud—ap-
pear to put the minds of racing gentlemen into a
favourable frame for wrangling and litigation.
With such large sums of money at issue, this is
scarcely to be wondered at. A man who may lose
his thousands if the horse on which he has betted
heavily comes in second, or recedes into the vacuum
described by sporting reporters as "nowhere," can-
not be expected to be very amiable in temper, or
constitutionally inclined to play the part of peace-
maker. But in the case of " The Earl of Coventry
and Others v. Willes," tried on Tuesday before Mr.
Justice Crompton on the Norfolk Circuit, the Jockey
Club appears to have exhibited an amount of petty
spite more characteristic of a set of angry old women
than of a body of English gentlemen. The com-
mencement of the quarrel dates back to the autumn
of 1862. At the First October Meeting of that year,
a match was run between Cept. Burnaby's Tarragona
and a horse named Michel Grove. The latter was the
victor, buta very general impression was entertained
that a fraudulent bet had been made by Captains
Burnaby and Annesley, by which the public haa
been induced to back Tarragona, and that Captain
Burnaby, the owner of that horse, had instructed the
jockey, Nightingale, tolose the race. The stewards
of the Jockey Club accordingly commenced an in-
quiry into the allegation; but it appears somewhat
to have hung fire, and on Oct. 20 Mr. Willes, the
sporting reporter of the Morning Post, published in
that journal, under his usual signature of " Argus,"
some comments on the delay of the stewards ot the
Jockey Club in giving their decision, the parties in-
volved being naturally desirous of having the impu
tation removed if it had been unjustly fastened on
them. This criticism on the stewards was endorsed
by a leading article in the same day's paper. The
Jockey Club fired up into red-hot indignation. It
&mended an apology of Mr. Willes. Mr. Willes
refused. It then came to a resolution that Mr.
Willes "be warned off the land and property of the
Jockey Club at Newmarket." Subsequently Mr.
on April 20, 1863, wrote a letter to the
secretary of the club, stating that his remarks "wore
penned solely trom a sense of duty as a public
writer, and without the slightest intention to give
pain or annoyance to any single member of the
club." This was not held to be sufficient apology,
and Mr. Wines was formally warned off the course
—an act which in effect classified him with swindlers
and blacklegs, since the ground is open to any one
who chooses to subscribe, and is only denied to
persons of notoriously or obviously bad character.
The victim of this act of petty tyranny, feeling con-
siderable doubt as to the power of the stewards to
exclude respectable people at their will and pleasure,
gave notice that, on a certain day, he should com-
mit a trespass on the course, not in any spirit of
bravado, but simply that the issue might be raised
in a court of law. This was accordingly done, and
the action tried on Tuesday was the result. Some
of the main points, however, had already been de-
cidedin the Court of Queen's Bench. Mr. Willes,
as the defendant, had pleaded the prescriptive
right of the public to go upon the race-course during
the races ; but this, upon demurrer, bad been disal-
lowed by theQueen'sßench,which held that the occn-
pation of the land was with the Jockey Club, as
represented by the stewards for the time being, and
that they possess the right of exclusion. The only
issue for trial, therefore, was involved in the defen-
dant's additional plea that he had " leave and
licence" from the plaintiffs to go upon the ground.
'That the stewards, jointly with the other members
of the Club, are the occupiers of the land, seems to
have been proved beyond a doubt. The portion of
heath so used has been conveyed by the Crown to
the Jockey Club, which cherges for training horses
and using the betting-ring, and deputes to its various
servants the several regulations of the course. The
annual subscribers' ticket to the betting ring bear
on their back the words, " The holder of this ticket
shalt be compelled to resign the same, and to leave
the inclosure, on the order of any one or more of
the stewards of the Jockey Club, and shall have no
claim to a return of the money, &e. ;" and it an-
pears to have been generally understood that the
stewards, for the sake of preserving order, are
vested with the right to remove objectionable per-
sons. But then comes the plea of " leave and
licence." This was based on the fact that, since the
defendant had been warned off the course, a new
set of stewards had come into office, and, as
h "leavehad
received no warning from them, the original

and licence" to enter the inclosure, derived from ta
subscribers' ticket, had not been rescinded. Mr
Willes, in fact, sought to set up a distinction b!
tween the three plaintiffs, as stewards of the Club,l
and the Club generally. But this manifestly
not bold water. As Mr. Justice Crompton observed,
" The Jockey Club is not a corporation ; it. has no
common seal, but acts by its stewards,"
stewards, on this occasion, were as clearly sc.'•
ing on behalf of the body generally as the
man of a board acts tor the whole board, or
the President of a Republic issues his procla-
mations in name of the State. On the pUrelp
legal ground, therefore, we cannot but tit? th
that the verdict for the plaintiff, with
the action concluded, was correct; but the nonilaa'
damages—one shilling—showed how little the plc,
approved the spirit in which the Jockey Cato ha
acted towards Mr. Willes. That spirit was clearly'
one of malevolence. The great offender, aft.er sill
was the Morriing Post, Mr. Willes we.s only' t"
humble agent of that journal. What he had felt It
his duty to write, the paper he represented had al'
firmed and repeated in its leading columns. If the
comments complained of were unjust and libelioes,
the stewards might have brought an aclic,,a against
the conductors of the offending journal ; but toe
they omitted to do, and it is, therefore, to he pre'
slm(' that they were conscious of having no cis('
To have attacked the Morning Post would at loot
have been courageous ; to make a set upon Igf'
-Willes—to warn him off the ground, and clines
with gipsies, betters from the back-slum: ;, and
thimble-riggers—was a piece of angry spite which
puts the stewards and all who acted with them
an essentially false position, which the little trivalu
of a verdict upon mere points of law will not pia;
to help. It is greatly to be regretted that Lora
Stradbroke's amendment, "that it was not err
dient to take notice of anonymous writers in t"
public prints," was not carried. As it was, it re'
caived ten votes to twelve against it ; so that the
feeling in the club was far from unanimous. .Atip
what, after all, have these petty persecutors gained:
" The letters of Argus," says the Morning Post 01,
its leading article of Wednesday, "will be continued
by Mr. Willes, except from Newmarket, where he 16
forbidden to appear, and the letters of Argus will be
written as trustworthily and honestly from Newriser
ket by other gentlemen who will be deputed to act
in his place. This is but a sorry result for the Jockel
Club to obtain. It was the Morning Post
offended them—the Morning Post with whom they'
were angry, simply because they were in the wrong;
and against us they are powerless." This is always the
mistake of those who cannot understand that the
press, with right on its aide, is a power that canal
ultimately be withstood.

COUNTRY MARKETS.

A..
YORK-SATURDAY.

- - ---
There was a rather better show of wheat at market t
day, end late prices wero well maintained. In barley foo'
l:
mar quotations were made. Oats in slow request. °do'
articles as before.
Wheat, red 37s to 40s I Oats.... lBs to '2O
White do .40s to 44s Beans 38, to 0'
Barley .26s to 32s I Peas ....—s to -4
Malt, 5Ss to 60s per qr.; rye, 28s per qr ; flour, 284
to 30s per sack.