The Sun.
London, England, 1864-05-31 00:00:00

TRE SUN, LONDO :V, TUESDAY EVEINING„ MAY 31, 1864.

Government against their will to receive this gentleman and
his spirits. (Hear, hear, and a laugh.)
Mr HENNESSY said that Mr Home was a gentleman
who stated that he had intercourse with spirits, who fore-
told future and related past events, and he believed that he
accepted fees for his seances. [JIr Roebuck—Never.] Sup-
pose he had done so. [Mr Roebuck—Suppose he had not.]
(Laughter.) What, however, he wished to point out was
that in this country we now had very stringent laws against
conduct similar to that of Mr Home. Fortune-tellers and
persons attempting to foretel events were liable to be taken
up and punished by our laws. He would not discuss whether
our laws or the laws of Rome were sound or not. What he
asserted was that in each case they were founded on the
same principle. Thera were a great number of English
residents at Rome every year, and he had heard many of
them state that nothing could exceed the courtesy and at-
tention they always received from the Papal Government.
(Hear.) This was the only complaint he had ever heard of
against that Government, and ho was glad to learn that
her Majesty's Government thought it was not well
founded. (No.)

Mr SCULLY said the hon. member for Sheffield had
made a mistake in bringing that complaint against the
Roman Government. That Government and Mr Home
were quite agreed; the only difference between them was
as to these spirits—(laughter)—for whose good behaviour
that gentleman could not be answerable. The only persons
to blame were the obscene spirits in the habit of calling
occasionally on Mr Home. (Laughter.) The hon. member
for Sheffield said he had a great respect for " the old gentle-
man" at the head of the Roman Government. That was not
a decent mode of reference, and it was not justifiable on the
hon. member's part, even although he had a bigotted pre-
judice against Catholics. (Mr Roebuck signified dissent.)
The house had been occupied all that evening with spirits,
and nothing but spirits—(laughter)—and he thought they
had had enough of them. (Hear, hear.) The President of
the Bo.ard of Trade had left the house, not liking, perhaps,
to face the spirits on that occasion. (A. laugh.) The hon.
member for Sheffield had asked what Earl Russell would
do if an English merchant, not a gentleman, had his head
cut off at St. Petersburg. Why, he would do exactly what
he had in regard to Mr. Home—nothing. Russia was too
strong to go to war with. But if the merchant who was
not a gentleman had his head cut off by the Roman
Government, Earl Russell would then go to war, because
the Roman Gove nment was weak. The hon. member for
Sheffield must know, as a lawyer, that the Roman Govern-
ment in this case had acted within its strict right. Eng-
land used to extirpate Papists, as she called them, at her
pleasure, without receiving any remonstrances from foreign
Powers. The men thus sent away were not even foreigners,
but their own countrymen. As for foreigners, England
had always excluded them whenever she liked, on any
excuse or on no excuse. He trusted they would not have
a renewal of that night's exhibition; and he could not see
what on earth could have been the lion. member for
Sheffield's object, unless it were the propagation of his
extraordinary doctrines.

The house then went into a Committee of Supply on the
Civil Service Estimates, when a great many votes were
agreed to, after much discussion.
The proposed vote of .-C4,000 for a lunatic asylum in the
Isle of *lan was negatived upon a division by 95 to 73.

At the close of the inspection Col. Lemon informed
the corps, through Col. Jenkins, of his complete
satisfaction with the mannar in wbi;:h th© men had
acquitted themselves, and intimated that his official
report would be highly favourable. Tho pensioners
will re-assemble this morning at St. Mary's Bar-
racks for the purpose of returning their arms,cloth-
ing, &c., until they are again required for their
periodical training.
The mounted C battery 9th Brigade Royal Artil-
lery has received orders to hold itself in readiness
to proceed from Chatham garrison to Leith Fort
early in the ensuing week.
By direction of the authorities at the War
Department a number of new description of
military pontoons, similar to those in use
in the Austrian service, have been received
at the ;leadquarters of the Royal Engineer esta-
blishment, Chatham, for use by the officers and men
of that branch of the service in pontooning opera-

tions, which commenced for the season yester-
day. The Austrian pontoons are considered to
possess several advantages over the ordinary
" Blanshard" and other pontoons in general use in
the English service, and in order to test their merit,
as well as to ascertain their alleged superiority,
they will undergo various trials, under every variety
of circumstance, during the present summer. The
portion of St. Mary's Creek at Chatham, hitherto
set apart for pontooning purposes, having been
taken in for the dockyard extension, a new pon-
tcon-hard has been formed on the opposite side of
the harbour, near Upnor Castle, where a suitable
'establishment and buildings have been erected for
the accommodation of the officers and men while
going through that portion of their engineering
instruction under Coi,Lov
department.
Lovell,

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS—May 30.

(Before Mr Payne.)

THE ALLEGED VICTIMS OF POLICE PERSECUTION.
nhdi eN; ws
sheon twonasc ec t o
William
was placed in the dock. onv
ce
tne dy
eoanr penalhursdservitude,
last
of
shoplifting,
_ _ _

Mr Payne said—You were convicted before me, on
Thursday last, of the offence of stealing from a tradesman's
shop, in conjunction with two other persons, a roll of cloth,
of the value of £3. I have had you brought up to-day for
the purpose of informing you that I have, after considers-

tion and consultation with others, determined to postpone
your sentence until next session, to enable inquiry to be
made into the truth of your assertion that you were the
victim of police persecution. But I think it my duty, in
consequence of remarts which have been publicly made
upon the case, for the sake of the administration of justice,
to say a few words about it. It has been said that the case
was a trifling one, I cannot agree with that opinion. When
a single person steals an article of small value, the case
may be said to be trifling ; but when three persons, one of
them an old offender—go out together and remove for the
purpose of stealing from a tradesman's shop an article worth
several pounds, although through the vigilance of the police
they do not carry off the article, it does not appear to me to
be at all a trifling case. It has also been said that the jury
might have acquitted you. Ido not see how, upon the evi-
dence, and using their common sense, they could have acted
otherwise than they did. If they had found you not guilty
upon the defence suggested, they would, in substance, have
declared the policeman to have committed a most wicked
offence, viz., that of having failed in one charge, and, in
consequence, entirely fabricated, or, as it is called, trumped
up another, and this only on assertion without any evidence.
I am not responsible for the verdict ; but I feel bound to say
that, both in fact and in law, I consider it was a just one.
For the sentence I alone am responsible. It was proved that
on a former occasion you had been, for a robbery of silver
plate, sentenced to five years' penal servitude, which would I
have expired on the Bth of this month, You were discharged
on a ticket-of-leave at the end of 4 years, and did not produce
any evidence as to how you had spent the past year. The
Principle upon which I have acted in passing sentence is this
—as long as I can see any means of combining the reforma-
tion of the offender and the protection of the public, I always
endeavour to do 80 ; but when, by numerous imprisonments
and a long term of penal servitude, it appears that the
offender will not reform, then I think it right to consider
mainly the protection of the public. But you asserted that
you were the victim of police tyranny. I have always had
a strong opinion, which I have often expressed in public,
against the interference of policemen with criminals who
hare got into employment, and have several times caused
investigations to ba made into such matters. I did not do so
at the moment in your case because I thought that as you
had instructed your counsel to accuse the policeman of amost
wicked charge, and which charge the jury had by their ver-
dict declared to be unfounded, I could not rely on your de-
claration, But on the next day, and before the remarks
appeared to which I have referred, your counsel was told

that the court would do what it could to forwari an inquiry
on the subject. I may further add that neither the jury nor
myself
were aware before the verdict of the previous con-
victions. You will be brought up again next session, and
such sentence will then be pasled upon you as any alteration
of the circumstances may require, or as after careful consi-
deration may be thought just and proper.
Mr Harwood (a magistrate on the banch)—llear, hear.

(Some counsel laughed.) I am astonished that several
members of the bar shoutd look at me and laugh. I dont
know for why, because I concurred in the remarks of the
judge, and I should have thought to have been borne out
by them instead of being laughed at.
In a case of a prisoner aawed Henry Dixon, tried onThurs-
day last, ho was brought up yesterday to receive judgment,
as a policeman stated that he knew the prisoner as a com-
panion of thieves, and had seen the prisoner frequently
within the last seven months in the company of two noted
thieves, The prisoner denied that statement, and said that
he was at that time in Feltharn Reformatory. Yesterday it
appeared that what the prisoner then stated was correct, for
he was only discharged from there in March last.
Mr Payne said that the constable must attend to explain
his positive statements, and he should like to know why he
was not present now. The prisoner had been remanded for
him to make inquiries, but he had not attended, and he
should take notice of it,
Mr Ribton, who defended the prisoner, said a strict in-
quiry ought to take place, for if gentlemen of the bar said
anything against the police he for one knew what a burst
of obloquy they had to undergo, and he did say that the
police ought to be cautious in what they swore to, as they
were mostly the principal witnesses against prisoners.
The roatter was then further deferred until next section.

(Before the Assistant-Judge•)
PROSECUTION Ov VENDORS OF INDECENT BOOKS AND

PRINTS.
John Pearson, of N. 2, Millbank-street, Westminster,
and Joan Paul, of Cecil-court, St, Martin's•lane. were
dieted for for uttering and vending certain indecent prints and

books.
Mr Sleigh prosecuted on behalf of the Society for
ifo the
Suppression of Vice, and Mr Ribton defendant he p:
Both the prisoners pleaded guilty to the ictments.
Mr Ribton said he wished to address a few words to his
lordship, as this was a very peculiar case as far as Pearson
was concerned, and he did sincerely hope that when his
lordship was made acquainted with all the circumstances,
he would consider the ends of justice would be answered if
Pearson was allowed to go out on his own recognizillCe3, or
find substantial bail to come up for judgment when called
upon. He had spoken to Mr sleigh, who represented the
Society for tho Suppression of Vice, and he was content to
leave the matter in the hands of the court, He should call
a number of witnesses to show that Pearson had borne a
good character, had been for many years in the service of
Mr. Carter, a builder of Eastcheap, and as regarded the
charge against them, it canoe out in this way :—A cata-
logue published by him was soot to the country, and this
was submitted tc the society. The prisoner Pearson lived
at No. 2, Millbank• street, Westminster, and a person went
there to purchase such articles as were referred to in the cata-
logue ; but he wished to state that these books and prints were
purchased in an ordinary sale in the rooms of auctioneers
of undoubted respectability, and those catalogues he held in
his hand, and where his lordship would find a description of
the books and prints then before the court. He referred
amongst others to lot 321 in one of those catalogues. This
was Pearson's first offence, and as he had bought these
things at public auction, together with their being no pub-
lic Tense Ahibistsioisntatnots-Judge,
saving examined the catalogues,ublic decency, ho trusted the pri-
soner would be dealt with mercifully by the Court.
asked if the attention of the society had been directed to
them, as they were catalogues issued by some of the most
nreostpbeceltiaebvlee
untilbook tneysaw them that these persons auctioneerswould of the metropolis.
Mr. Sleigh said the Society were not aware, and they cl:d
sell such objectionable books.
Mr. Ribton said when the defendant was waited upon by
the officers of the society he showed them the catalogues,
and told them where the books were purchased.
The Assistant Judge would like to know the person in the
country to whom the catalogue was sent and the position of
life he was in.
Mr. Sleigh said sometimes information came anony-
mously to the society,and there were obvious reasons for this.
The Assistant Judge—Have these catalogues been sent.
to schools or establishments ?
Mr. Sleigh—No doubt they are extensively circulated,
but it is only occasionally that we hear of them.
Several witnesses were called who gave Pearson a good

charac'er.
In the case of Paul it was said that he went to another
person, on being applied to, and procured these objection-
able things for him.
Paul said the man had been for two years a personal
friend, and had dined and drunk at his:house, and ho only
got these things at his earnest request.
The Assistant Judge said this war a most aggravated case
as regarded Pearson, and he must express his surprise that
swh firms as nave been mentioned should have in their

catalogues and sell such works as these. The catalogues
issuA by Pearson appeared to have been widely and exten-
sively circulated, lie had not the slightest excuse for doing
so, as he was in employment, and with a good income, while
for his own advantage he was circulating these infamous
publications throughout the kingdom. A. large number of
persons were joined together and used the greatest exertions
for the purpose of extending principles of morality amongst
the people, but here was the source of poison which might
carry ruin into the families of all. The court would but ill
discharge its duty if it did not pass upon Pearson a severe
sentence, which was that he be imprisoned and kept to hard
labour fur 12 months. As regarded Paul his offence was
not so bad, and the sentenca of the court was that he be
imprisoned and kept to hard labour for six months.

It was also ordered that the attention of the book auc-
tioneers should be drawn to their catalcgues.

Brutal Assault by a Schoolmaster,

Edgar Glonnie Smith, a schoolmaster residing at Becken-
ham, was summoned yesterday at the Bromley petty ses-
sions, of which Mr. Alderman Wilson was chairman, for
having on the 12th inst. unlawfully assaulted and beaten a
little boy eight years of age, named Robert W. Ruck, son
of Mr NV. Ruck, a solicitor, residing at Grocers' Hall.

Mr Sergeant Ballantine appeared for the prosecution, and
Mr R. Adams for the defendant.
Tho ase excited a considerable amount of interest, and
the small room at the Bell Inn in which the magistrates
meet was crowded to excess during the hearing.

Mr Sergeant Ballantine, in opening the case, said that
the summons was taken out under the 24th and 25th of
Victoria, which gave to the magistrates the power of sum-
marily dealing with cases of this description in a manner
which they had not previously possessed. The defendant
was a gentleman keeping a private educational establish-
ment at Beckenham, and the complainant a child, eight
years of age, who had been placed under his care. The
father of the complainant, being desirous of sending two
of his sons to an establishment where they would be taken
care of, sent them down to Mr. Smith's school. As one of
the sons was of delicate health, suffering from glandular
swellings, it was considered necessary that they should be
sent to a school where they would be treated with the
greatest kindness. Accordingly the boys were sent to the
defendant's school on the express understanding that per-
sonal chastisement was on no account to be resorted to. and
it was upon the assurance that Mr. Smith would only use
persuasion and endeavour to win the love of the boys
that they were sent to his establishment. Notwithstand-
ing this, however, the conduct of the defendant towards
the younger boy was such as to render him unfit to
have the charge of children, and which he could not
but term brutal in the extreme. The boy was set
to learn lessons, and because he was unable to ac-
complish them to the satisfaction of the defendant, he
flew at him and beat him unmercifully about the face and
head, so as for a time to completely shatter his nervous sys-
tem. His head, face, and ears were fearfully bruised, and
although he was immediately placed under medical care the
marks of violence had not yet disappeared. The ordinary
excuse which schoolmasters put forward in such cases could
not be used here, inasmuch as Mrs. Ruck—being of opinion
that personal chastisement did very little good to children—
had expressly stated that it should not be used to her boys ;
and in consequence of Mr. Smith's statement that ho never
flogged his pupils she had been induced to send her sons to
his schools. The conduct, however, of the defendant on the
day in question was more like that of an Irish labourer
having no control over his temper than that of a man who
had charge of the education of children. The elder boy,after
his brother had been beaten, found means of writing to his
mother and relating the circumstances. The father, imme-
diately upon being made acquainted of the fact, went down
to the school, took his son away, and placed him under
medical care. He would call evidence to prove the state in
which the boy wasfound by his parents. His client brought
this case forward simply on public grounds, and he trusted
the Bench would so deal with it as to make it an example
to others who had the care of children.
Mrs. Esther Ruck, the mother of complainant, deposed

that her youngest son was of delicate health, suffering from
enlargement of the tonsils. When she first saw defendant
she asked whether his boys were ever beaten, as she strongly
objected to ttat mode of punishment. He replied that they
never were, remarking that he began by making a boy love
him. She consequently sent her ions on the.l3th April.
On the 12th of May she received a letter from her eldest
boy, who stated that his brother had been severely beaten
by the defendant. Her husband immediately fetched
him from the school, when she found some bruises about
his head and face, his ears being completely black; there
were also marks over his nose and neck, and his eyes were
also blackened. She communicated with Dr. Jefferson,
who immediately attended him. His nervous system was
much shattered by the treatment he had received, and

when he moved about he complained of giddiness and pains
in the head. She could hardly say that he had recovered
now. Two other medical gentlemen, Mr. Barford, of
Wokingham, and Mr. Burney, of Croydon, had also at-
tended him.

In cross-examiration by Mr. Adams, the witness said
she had distinctly told the defendant and his sister that her
son was suffering from ill health and must not be beaten.
Esther Ann Ruck, the daughter of the last witness, who
was present at the first interview with the defendant,

corroborated her anther's evidence in every particular.
Robert Ruck, the complainant, deposed that on the 12th
inst. h© was unable to do the work set him by Mr. Smith,
who consequently struck him on the head and lace with
his hands, repeating it about 30 times. He tried his beat
to do the task, but was unable.

From the e'videnee of Dr. Jefferson, Mr. Barford, and

Mr. Burney, it appeared that the boy had been most bru•
tally handled, and that his health had thereby been consi

derably impaired for some time. The bruises which they
found on his head, neck, and ears, must hive been caused
by extreme violence.
Mr. W, Ruck, the father of the complainant, deposed to
having, in consequence of a letter from his oldest son, gone
down to the defendant's school at Beckenham, when he
found his youngest boy in the state already described.
In cross examination he admitted having used very

strong language towards the defendant, and threatened to
knock him down, remarking that the slate in which he
found his son made him lose all control over his temper.
Mr. Garrard, the boy's grandfather, corroborated the
statements of the former witnesses, with regard to the in-
juries inflicted on the complainant.
For the defence, Mr. Adams called

The defendant's sister, who stated that she was present
when Mrs. Ruck first saw her brother, and she did not
hear him say that he never beat his boys.
Robert Farquhar, an assistant to the defendant, said that
he had assisted in teaching Robert Ruck, axd bad found
him to be an obstinate boy, and deserved the thrashing
which the defendant had given him,

Five boys, named Henry Wilson, William Grove Parker
ISl‘Crea, Henry Ilot, and Carlton Adams, were called, and
stated that the complainant had not been severely beaten,
having only received a just punishment, which they would
not have objected to themselves.

In cross-examination by Mr Sergeantßallantine, M'Crea
admitted that the defendant had previously told him to say
that Robert Ruck had not been much hurt, and that ho de-
served the punishment.

Mr Ottawell Waterfield, of Sheen, with whom the de-
fendant had been a teacher for some years, and the Rev. W.
Chalmers, rector of Beckenham, spoke to the defendant's
character, stating that they believed him to be a quiet, good-
tempered man, and could not account for his having beaten
the boy Ruck.

Mr Sergeant Ballantine having replied upon the whole
case,

The magistrates retired, and after an absence of about a
quarter of an hour, returned, and fined the defendant £5.
There was a counter summons taken out by the defend•
ant Smith against Mr Ruck for an illegal alleged assault,
arising out of Mr Ruck having shaken his fist in the de-
fendant's face.

After a brief consultation, however, with Mr Sergeant
Ballantine, Mr Adams consented to withdraw it.

The parties then left the court.

Another Benefit Society in Trouble.

At the Southwark P, lice Court yesterday, Mr Ody, the
solicitor, of Trinity. street, Borough, attended with a poor
man to ask for a summons against the treasurer and
trustees of the Helping Hand Benefit Society, held at
the Waterman's Arms, Barnham-street, Tooley-street, to
show cause why they neglected and refused to pay his client
John Huggins, a free member, a certain amount due to him
from the sick fund of the society.
Mr. Ody said his client was a very poor man, and some
few years ago was induced to become a member of the Help-
ing Hand Benefit Society on account of the high promises
set forth in their book of rules. He paid his contributions
regularly, and considered himself entitled to any benefits
alluded to in the rules, one of which set forth that any mem-
ber becoming sick shall be entitled to 10s. a week for so long
a time. His client unfortunately for himself became sick a
short time ago, and was compelled to declare himself on the
sick fund, He received the weekly sum regularly for a few
weeks, but all at once it was stopped, and when he went to
the society to know the reason, he was told that he had
been expelled because he had broken ono of the rules of the
society by being out of his house beyond the hours specified
in the rules. He explained that the poor man was in want
of a loaf of bread, and while he was gone to a baker's near
his house for ono, he was met by one of the stewards, and
he reported the circumstance to the society, and on that solo
account he was expelled.
The Clerk read the rule in question, and observed that
there could be no doubt that the rule applied to members
following some employment. It could never have contem-
plated a poor man being expelled for buying a loaf of bread.
Mr, Ody was of the same opinion, and he contended that
it was a hard case for this poor man. These societies, If
allowed to go on uncontrolled by the law, would be a curse
to the poor man instead of a benefit. Therefore he hoped
his worship would grant the summons applied for.
The Clerk—ls the society enrolled according to Act of
Parliament, and aro the rules certified by Mr. Tidd Pratt?
Mr. Ody, after examining them carefully, replied in the
negative.
The Clerk told him that as such was the case the magis-

trate could not interfere. He must go to tho County Cour