The Sun.
London, England, 1864-12-01 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING, DECEMBER 1, 1864.

welfare and the happiness of the people of every
land ? (Cheers.) Why, our forefathers, they knew,
wore shoe-buckles and knee-buckles. Would they
resuscitate the buckle interest ? (Laughter.) Would
they reward the descendants of those who made
buckles? The thing was absurd. We must change
our labour and our pursuits according to the wants
of the age in which we lived. Why, he had passed
the little village of Bolsover, which was a little
rained place, where once the sound of the hammer
resounded in the making of those buckles. It was
a deserted village; we could not think of calling
into existence such a place as that. How absurd it
would be if we were to say to the crinoline interest
that, when the ladies abandoned those absurdities,
the crinoline interests should be perpetuated in this
country. (Laughter.) Well, he was sure that those
who would separate the interests of the people from
the people themselves had not given consideration
to the practical results that would arise out of such
a distinction. We existed as a nation, and when we
spoke of ourselves we did not speak of our buil
ings, towns, or cities, but of the people who inha.
bited this great and free country ; and it was for
the people we must legislate, and legislate wisely
and well. (Applause.) They contended not for in•
terest in any form, but contended for justice for all,
from the peer down to the lowest peasant. Very
much to the honour of Manchester and Lancashire,
when we were engaged in contending for fiscal re-
form and repeal of the Corn-laws, there was a public
declaration made in the Chamber of Commerce in
this city that if manufacturers had any protection
whatever before they sought the repeal of the Corn•
`.aws, they wore prepared to tell the Legislature that
they would surrender protection to the extent it
might exist, and that they would seek from the
Legislature, with clean hands, the repeal of those
obnoxious laws, Now, he did wish that their arise
tocratic fellow-subjects would say to them and the
great body of the people, " We have no interest in
this exclusive position in the election of members to
the House of Commons ; we surrender to the people
the rights of the people, and henceforth we will
cease to nominate members of Parliament who
shall make laws for the great mass of the people."
Let the masses of the people elect their own mem•
bars, and then there would be something of fitness,
something of harmony, existing among all classes
of the community. (Loud cheers.)
A vote of confidence in Mr Baxley was passed
unanimously.

Mr, Leveson Gower, M.P., and his

Constituents,

REIGATE, Wednesday%

Mr. Gower, the member for this borough, last
night addressed a large body of his constituents in
the public hall—the Mayor presiding. The hen.
gentleman said he appeared before his constituents
for the purpose of showing how far he had acted in
accordance with the promises made by him during
his canvass, and how far he deserved the confidence
which they had been pleased to repose in him. It
had been frequently said that the last two sessions
had been unproductive and barren—that members
of Parliament had had an easy time of it. If the
meaning of that assertion was, that no great
organic changes had taken place, . and that the
country had not been involved in any war, it was
fair and true. But if they looked at the gradual
but steady remission of taxation which had taken
place during that period—if they looked at the wise
and salutary measures which had been adopted to
mitigate the distress in the north—if they looked
at the changes which had been made in the educa-
tional system of the country—if they looked to such
measures as the Government Annuities Bill, the
Penal Servitude Act, and other measures of the
kind, they could not say that the last two sessions
had not been productive of any wise and useful
measures. (Hear, hear.) The hon. gentleman then
proceeded to state the part which he had taken in
various measures which had been submitted to the
consideration of Parliament. He was returned to
Parliament unfettered, generally speaking, not as a
delegate but as a representative. His friends were
good enough not to require pledges from him, but
he pledged himself to support the Liberal party and
Liberal measures in the House of Commons. He
was pledged to vote for the abolition of Church-
rates, and bound himself to vote against the
introduction of the B Allot, end proposed to show
how far he had carried out his promises. Soon
after he had taken his seat in February, 1803,
Mr Hadfidd introduced the Q ialification for Offices
Abolition Bill, by which it was proposed to abolish
certain declarations required by persons holding
civil offices. That was a liberal measure which he
felt bound to support. (Hear hear.) He also sup-
ported the Affirmations Bill, the object of which
WAS to substitute declarations for oaths in certain
cases—and another liberal measure, by which Mr
Bouverie proposed to emend the Act of Uniformity.
(Hear,) When a proposition was made for an in-
quiry into the game laws, he voted for that proposi-
tion. But there were some other-measures which he
thought wrongly associated with the Liberal party
—which he thought his duty to oppose. Among
these was the Burials Bill, proposed by Sir Morton
Petos and his (Mr Gower's) opinion was confirmed
by the house, for the bill was rejected by a nrijoe
rity of 272, against 02. He did not at all deny the
right of Dissenters to be buried in churchyards,
but he did not think it right to require that other
services than the Burial Service of the Church
should be read in the churchyard, and the great
fault of the bill was whether a discretion with re-
spect to such burials was to be left to the clergyman
of the Church. If an act was required to' be done
by law it ought to be ordered by law, and not left
to the discretion of a person who by the exercise of
that discretion might incur odium and aversion.
(Hear, hear.) Another measure, introduced by Mr
Gregory, the member for Galway, for opening the
National Garden in Edinburgh on Sundays, was in
opposition to the wishes of a great majority of the
inhabitants of that borough. Although that measure
might have been a harmless measure, yet, as it might
have tended towards the opening of other places of
amusement on Sundays, he voted against it, and it
also was rejected by the house. He now came to the
question of church-rates, the total abolition of which
ha had pledged himself to vote. The numbers in
favour of Sir J. Trelawny's bill were 273, and
against it 283. True to the promise which he had
given, he voted with the minority. Two other mea.
sures on the same subject were subsequently intro-
duced—one by Mr Newdegate, for the commutation
of church rates, and the other by Mr Alcock, for the
redemption of church rates. Neither of these bills
appeared to him to meet the exigencies of the case,
and he voted against them. The bill for the commu-
tation of church rates had been revived this year,
and met with the same fate as it had experienced on
a former occasion. Sir J. Trelawny had declined
to introduce his bill again. Whether any other
champion could be found to introduce such a mea-
sure he knew not, but if one should be introduced
he should adopt the same course which he followed
on the previous occasion, (Cheers.) With respect
to the ballot, he divided against it, object-
ing to it, as he did, on principle. The number
of votes in favour of Mr. Berkeley's measure was
102, and the number against it 122. These num-
bers formed a striking contrast to the division on
the'church-rate question, and showed the little prac-
tical importance that was attached to the ballot in
the country. He was not present at the division,
but the next best thing to voting against a bill was
to pair against it, and he paired with Mr. Langton,
the colleague of Mr. Berkeley. When a bill was
proposed for the purpose of introducing the ballot
into municipal elections he voted against the
measure as he had done against the larger one.
Passing from the session of 1863 to that of 1864 (the
events of which were fresh in the memory of all pre-
sent) they would recollect that it was wound up by
one of the most exciting and eloquent debates which
had taken place of late years. 11.1,613g:referred to the
American and Danish questions, the hon,gentleman
went on to notice a measure, hisconduct with respect
to which had excited some dissatisfaction. It was
impossible for any member to please all his constie
tuents on every vote he might give. Some hon.
members,when they could not please their constitu-
ents, adopted the plan of not voting at all. Now,
that was a course which he never could adopt.
(Hear, hear.) The question to which he had just
referred was the Oxford Tests Abolition Bill, and

he hoped to be able to show he had acted honestly,
and according to his convictions, The bill contained
two provisions, totally and essentially distinct. The
first provision would have admitted persons not be-
longing to the Church of England to the degree of
Master of Arts without taking the declaration now
required. The provision was not limited to Dissen.
ters, but would have admitted Roman Catholics,
Jews, and any other class. The government of the
University of Oxford was carried on by Convoca-
tion, consisting of Masters of Arts, residents and
nonresidents, by whom the rules and orders go.
verning the University were framed. The teaching
of the University was strictly a religious teaching,
and if the measure had been passed, persons who
were not members of the Church of England would
have been admitted into the governing body. The
Chancellor of the Exchequer made a long speech
on the second reading of the bill, stating that it
proposed to do with respect to Oxford what had
been done with respect to Cambridge; but that was
a false assumption, for the bill went a great deal
further than the measure with respect to Cambridge.
The right hou, gentleman, however, contended that
the governing body must be kept in the hands of the
Church. Sir George Grey in voting for the second
reading disavowed doing so on the ground that its
principle was a severance between the Church and
the University. Mr Dodson declined making any al.

teration in the bill,und on the third reading the Chanel
cellor of the Exchequer voted against it, and Sir G.
Grey walked out of the house without voting at all.
He (Mr Gower) objected to the bill, and
voted against the second reading. He was of
opinion that some relief was required with respect
to the University of Oxford. The members_ of
that University, by opposing all just and wise con.
cessions, had brought these difficulties upon them-
selves. The University of Cambridge had °rigid
nated a measure for the relief of Dissenters. A
Dissenter was allowed to become a Master of Arts,
but he was not allowed to become one of the go-
verning body. He would concede to every one—
Roman Catholics as well as others—the right to
vote for members of the University of Oxford, and
believed that such a measure would be satisfac-
tory to the Nonconformists throughout the country.
(Hear, hear.) The Chancellor of the Exchequer
had suggested that there might be separate halls
and colleges. Perhaps the plan might be adopted,
but he did not think it would be proper to in-
terfere with the just rights snd privileges of
the Church of England. (Hear, hear.) He
now came to a measure on which he had been mise
understood, and respecting which he desired to give
some explanation. Two measures had been intro-
duced for closing public-houses on Sundays. They
had been rejected by the House, and very wisely so.
On both occasions he voted in favour of the intro.
duction of the measure, bat on both occasions he
voted against the second reading. He voted for the
introduction of the measure because he thought that
any person who could deal effectually with drunken.
ness would deserve well of his country. That was
the great source of crime, and there was no height
in social position or intelligence to which the work-
ing classes might not arise if they were not kept
back by its deadly influence. At the same time he
did not think that the i emedy was to be found in
legislation, hut in the working classes themselves.
(Hear.) His reason for voting for the introduction of
the measure was that he wished to challenge a full
discussion of the subject. He thought it would be
useful in turning the attention of the working
classes to its great importance ; • and more than
that, he could not be indifferent to the number of
petitions from the working classes praying that the
temptation might be removed from their path.
But the measure proposed was practical, because
the subject could not be dealt with by law, and
because the bill presented the anomaly of refusing
the poor manr his glass of beer while the rich man
was left to act just as he pleased. (Hear, hear.)

With respect to_the question of reform, he believed
that it excited some interest among the working
classes, although there was no great manifestation
of feeling at the present moment. (Hear, hear.)
During the last Session two measures were
introduced, one of them by Mr. Locke King,

to lower the county franchise to £lO, the
other, by Mr Baines, to lower the borough
frarchise to £6. He thought it would be wrong to
infer, from these measures having been rejected by
the House, that the working men were indifferent
to the question of reform. He believed they were
alive to the difficulties with which it was surrounded,
but it appeared to him that the advance of know.
ledge and intelligence in the country required a
further extension of the franchise. (Hear, he:An) It
was not reasonable to suppose that a system which
held good in 1832 eJuld be equally good in 1864.
(Hear, hear.) He was not prepared to say what
exact measure of reform should be proposed—at
what limit the county or borough franchise should
stop. But he thought that before long the Govern-
ment would have to deal with the question of re-
form, and be was clearly of opinion that the conduct
of the working men in the north of England had
given them a title to the enjoyment of the franchise
which they had never possessed before. (Cheers.)

Charge against a Gentleman of Obtaining
Jewellery by False Fretenccs,

Arthur Bootle Wilbraham, holding the commission of
ensign in the Coldstream Guards, was summoned to the
Marlborough-street Police-court before Mr Tyrwhitt on
two charges—one for having obtained jewellery of the value
Emanuel, jeweller, of Bond-street,
and jewellery of the value of
£l,lOO from Mr Hancock,
slirry
treaet, by false and fraudulent pretences.
oj
jeweller,
w31,11e0 offrom
Bond-street,
o nd Mr.
Mr Giffard was for the prosecutior ; Mi Metcalfe for the
defendant; and Mr Sleigh, instructed by Mr E Lawrence,
of Waterloo-place, watched the case on behalf of Mr Robt.
Morris. _ .

4th cf February of this year Mr H. Emanuel received a note
of the case was this. On the
rings, &c., to the value of about £2,000, :might be sent to
frollrtGheiffdaerfdensdaiaitthreerihuiessttoirng
that diamond bracelets, ear-
him for inspection at the officers' guard room at the Horse
Guards. One of Mr Emanuel's assistants, named Streeter,
was sent with jewellery corresponding in'quality and amount
to that ordered by the defendant. The defendant made a
statement to Streeter during that interview, which was
that he was engaged to be married to a rich heiress, that
the articles of jewellery were for her, and that he was going
down by the three o'clock train the next day for the
purpose of presenting the jewellery to :her. The de-
fendant obtained goods to the extent of £3,140, and in
considering the question-of fraud it was material to see
what it was the defendant intended to do with the jewels—
give them to his asserted bride, or apply them to the relief
of his own necessities by raising money upon them. When
the defendant obtained the jewels, on the same day or within
a very short time after they left Mr Emanuel's possession,
the defendant executed an agreement with Mr Morris
making the bill of parcels of Mr Emanuel the schedule of
the agreement for money advanced to him on the goods.
This fact spoke more emphatically as to the character of
the transaction than anything he could possibly say,
Since the original transaction the defendant had been
made a bankrupt, and this would perhaps help to convince
the court that when the defendant obtained the jewels he
had not the 'Reims of paying for them, nor intended to pay
for them, but that he from the first, in case he got them,
purposed to apply them to his necessities.
Mr E. W. Streeter, manager to Mr Emanuel, then gave
evidence, stating that he waited upon the defendant, and
supplied hint with the jewellery, which he stated was for a
lady he was about to be married to.
By Mr Metcalfe--If we did not think the transaction
quite correct we should not let a young gentleman have
goods unless he was going to be married. Mr Emanuel
said, "I would rather not serve you if you are not going to
be married." A bill was drawn for the amount, and three
months after the defendant renewed the bill. I was present
when the defendant renewed it, a day or two before it came
to maturity. There has been more than one renewal. On
the first renewal two bills were given, one for £1,500, and
the other for £1,650. The defendant said his father was
going to pay the £1,500 bill as a present to the young lady.
The first bill was for £3,100, and before it became due the
defendant called to have it put into two. The defendant
did not say that he had told his father that he owed £1,500
for jewellery, and that was the reason why he wanted the
bill for £1,500 to show his father. He had no recollection
of it. He said his father would come and take up the bill
for £1,500. Mr Emanuel went to the defendant's father. I
have not seen the bills given on renewal. (Some bills were
produced.) I believe those are the bills. The amount is
increased £6O for interest, but defendant had also bought an
emerald ring in the meantime- the ring was bought for the
wedding also. It is usual to give three rings in the upper
circles in cases of matrimony— a ruby, emerald, and a dia-
mond. I believe the defendant gave one bill for the whole
for £3,500. I did not tell the defendant, but I believed he
had been having bills out. Defendant asked me if I could
tell him where he could borrow some money. I cannot say
when that was, as he used to come in occasionally. It did
not concern me. I said. "Don't go to money lenders—an
insurance office is the beat thing." I will not swear that I

did wt mention the name of Davis. Messrs Lawrence,
Plows, and Boyer aro the solicitors for the prosecution.
I know Mr Davis, of Clifford-street. I don't know that
he is an attorney. I don't know that he is a money
lender. I should not know you were a coun-
sel if you called, without you said so. I will
swear I told the defendant to go to an insurance office, but
I have no recollection of sending him to Mr Davis. I have
not sent young men to Mr Davis to borrow money, To the
best of my recollection I sent defendant to an insurance
office. I have never taken goods round to persons, volun•
teering to let them have them. I never take them until they
are sent for. I have not left goods with servants to show
their mistresses without being sent for. I took an assort-
ment of goods consisting of jewellery, to defendant, and I
sold him £3,000 worth. if he thought proper to give the
lady £2,000 more than his note stated that was nothing to
me, We had done a little business before with him. We
knew his family, and we knew that his father lived in
Brook-strcec.

Mr Harry Emanuel was then examined, and ho stated
that he certainly should not have parted with his goods
had not defendant stated that ho was going to marry a rich
heiress.

Mr It. Morris, Carlton. chambers, Regent-street—l know
the defendant. I saw him on Feb. sth at my then office in
Sackville-street. I give him a check for £1,700, defendant
owing me £l,lOO at the time. This made the whole debt
£3,000. I took a memorandum and security of jewels. I
made a list of articles in the casket. (Agreement here put
in and read. It was to the effect that the defendant, in con-
sideration of a check of £1,700 and his two bills for £650
each, agreed to secure the amount, £3,000, by the deposit of
jewels, and in default of payment Mr Morris was autho-
rised and empowered to sell the jewels and convert the
amount to the repayment of the £3,000.) The whole of the
jewels in the casket were stated to bo worth about £2,200.

Mr Metcalfe—For which a charge of £4OOO was made.

Mr Morris—The £2,200 was the value in the trade. I
offered them to Mr Attenborough, as I am nojudgo of these
things.
Mr Giffard—That is my case.
Mr Metcalfe, for the defence, denied that a misreprescns
tation of existing facts had taken place.
Mr Tyrwhitt—The case stands on this foundation. Did
he or did he not state anything which in another court
would ho held to be a pre-existing fact ? All the convic•
tions which I can put my finger upon contain what is a
clear falsehood as to fact. But as to this assertion about the
heiress, how can I say it is not so with the evidence before
me ? The fact is, the parties thought only about payment.
If the father would not pay some one else would—they did
not care who.

Mr Metcalfe—They feared the defendant going into the
Bankruptcy Court, and they wrote to put on the screw
somewLere.

Mr Tyrwhitt—l entertain strong doubts on the matter,
but this is not the court for the solution of those doubts. If
the bankruptcy had not intervened these proceedings would
never have been heard of. Bills having been given for the
amount due to the complainant, that very much alters the
complexion of the case so far as the moral aspect is con-
cerned. It is certain that the complainant, who was con-
tent to take bills, looked to the civil remedy as the means of
getting hi money. I must send the case before a jury cer-
tainly.

The defendant was committed on bail in two sureties of
£3OO each.

The second charge of obtaining goods from Mr Hancock,
was adjourned till next week.

The Loss of the Brilliant Steamer.

OFFICIAL REPORT.

To the Lords of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade.
My Lords,—We the undersigned, two of her Majesty's
Justices of the Peace for the county of Edinburgh, have
held an official investigation into the circumstances attend-
ing the loss of the steamer Brilliant, upon the South Henoit
Rock, off the Island of Inchkeith, on the evening of the Ist
inst. In this inquiry we have been assisted by Captains
Harris and Baker as Nautical Assessors, and have now the
honour to report that the Brilliant was a paddle wheel
steamer, built at Glasgow in the year 1848, and registered
at Leith of the burthen of 349 tons gross, and 229 tons not,
and of the combined high pressure of 250. She was owned, as
appears from her certificate of registry, by the Hull and
Hamburg Steam-Shipping Company. The Brilliant left the
Tyne at 5 45 a,m. of the Ist inst.,bound to Leith, with a gene•
ral cargo, a portion of which, consisting of rod iron, was car-
ried on deck. She was commanded by Mr James M`Donald,
who holds a certificate of competency as master, dated Jan.
16, 1862, and had a crow of 17 hands all told,
and about 62 forccabin passengers. The Brilliant
passed inside the Bass Rock about 3 15 p.m.
the same day, and at 4 p.m. she is represented as being
abreast of the Fiddra, at a distance t f ono mile. The weather
at this time was very hazy, and increased in density as the
vessel approached Inchkeith. From Fiddra a west course
was steered for about an hour at the rate of 8 knots, when
it was altered to W by S far about half an hour, and the
engines were slowed to half speed, or about 51 knoLs. At
5 45 p.m. Inchkeith Light was seen though the mist,which
by this time had become very dense, and which hung vary
heavy on the horizon, so that the light was only seen at
intervals. Same misgivings as to the position of the ship
seems at this time to have crossed the mister's mind, for
the helm was ordered to be starboarded in order to keep her
more off the island, when immediately the ship struck, and
the following morning became a total wreck. Such is the
brief narrative of the facts attending the loss of the vessel,
as collected from the evidence. In commenting upon them
it is only necessary to point out that the channel through
which the master intended to have passed is only ono and
one-third of a mile in width, and consequently extremely
dangerous in thick weather, when the leading marks on
Leith Pier are not visible. In this case, as the weather
was moderate and calm, with a dense fog, very great cau-
tion became necessary, and the channel being so contracted,
a very slight error in estimating the distance of the vessel
from the small isiland of Fiddra would be quite sufficient
in thick weather, without great attention to the lead,
which was in this case entirely neglected, to place the
vessel in jeopardy either on the north or south side of the
channel. It is much to be regretted that Mr IVPDonald did
not anchor his vessel when the fog became so thick as to
prevent his seeing the leading marks. The neglect of these
precautions constrains us to say that the Brilliant was lost
by the default of her master; and wo have therefore sen-
tenced Mr Al'Donald, with the full concurrence of the
Assessors, to have his certificate of competency suspended
for the space of six calendar months from this date.—We
have, &c.

WM. STEEDMAN, J.P.
TILOS, DISHINUTON,
We concur in the above report,
HY. HARRIS,
}Nautical Assessors.
It. B. BAKER,
Council Chamber, Leith, Nov. 2.5, 1864.