The Sun.
London, England, 1863-09-10 00:00:00

Mr. Sergeant Gaselee said he did not for one moment
mean to say that Mr. Metcalfe did know of the previous
convictions. Of that he was quite certain, and after the
explanation of Mr. Besley it really seemed to him there was
no one to blame at all in the matter,
Edward Head was indicted for stealing a brooch, watch,
watchguard, shawls, tablecovers, blankets, sheets, and £2
Bs. 6d. in money, the property and moneys of Elijah Lane.
Mr. Beeley prosecuted ; Mr. Ribton defended the prisoner.
Elijah Lane, the prosecutor, was examined by Mr. Beg-
ley. He said—l am a cab proprietor, and live at 67, Wood-
chester-street, Harrow-road. I had known the prisoner
previous to the 18th July, having seen him at work with
other men at a building going on five or six houses off from
that I occupy. On the evening of the 17th July my wife
came home to my house, being accompanied by a woman
named Oakley. I refused to admit the woman Oakley, as
she was the worse for drink. My wife came into the house,
and afterwards went out again and did not return that
night. I did not see her at all on the 18th. I did not see
her again until the 24th August. Before the 18th July I
had some bed linen in the house, a watch and chain, stock-
ings, and other articles, but after the 18th July they were
gone. About half the feathers were taken out of the bed,
and a great quantity of wearing apparel. Three boxes con-
taining various articles were taken away. All these things
had been taken away without my consent. It was several
weeks after this that I saw my
wife again. I tried to find
out where she lived and followed her for about 16 miles,
when, being tired, I was obliged to give up the pursuit. I
gave directions to some person in reference to the prisoner,
and in consequence -of what he told me I went to No. 32,
John-street, Tottenham-court-road. I watched the house
on two or three occasions to see if my wife went in there.
I went to this house on the 24th of August, about 4 o'clock
in the afternoon. I returned to it about 9 o'clock the same
night, when I went upstairs into a back attic. I found my
wife lying under the bed and the prisoner lying on it. I
there saw some of the property I had missed from my house
on the 18th of July. The first thing I saw was a box which
had been taken from my house, but the contents were gone.
I found three boxes in the room. One of the boxes the pri-
soner said belonged to him, which was locked, and he gave
the key of it to a policeman. In that box were found a silk
dress, a tablecover, and a number of articles that I cannot
now recollect, which belonged to me. The blanket, sheets,
counterpane, and pillow-cases on the bed I identified as my
property. I did not recover them. I have seen nothing of
my watch or chain since. The value of the property I lost
independent of my wife's wearing apparel, was about £lO.
Her wearing apparel was worth about £lO, as far as I am
able to judge.
Cross-examined by Mr. Ribton—MY
wife never left me
before for any length of time except to go into the country
to visit her friend,. She never left my house before with-
out my consent. We were on good terms together, but
like other persons,
we may have had a word or so, but no-
thing more. We never had any serious quarrel except
upon one occasion, when she came home the worse for
liquor.
Mr. Bosley objected to such questions, as they did not go
to impeach the veracity of the witness.
Mr. Ribton said he had never heard such an objedtion in
the course of his experience in the criminal law, and he was
sure it would not have been taken by any counsel who
knew his business.
Mr. Besley said such observations applied to him were
most impertinent.
Mr. Sergeant Gazelee thought that such observations
ought not to be made.
Mr. Ribton—Then I will retract it. No one doubts
that Mr. Besley knows his business. in fact ho knows too
much.
Cross- examination continued—My wife did not leave me
before. I knew that my wife went away upon one occasion,
but that was with my consent. I never desired her to leave
her home, On this occasion I did not tell her to go. I did
not say if she did so she might have her things. That Was
not very likely. I did not wear the watch I have lest con-
stantly, and my wife sometimes wore it, perhaps once a
month. It was not her watch. Two of the boxes taken
away were used to keep clothes in, the other for articles used
in the house, such as tablecloths, counterpanes, &c. The
sheets, blankets, and counterpane I found on the bed I know
belonged to me. I identified the sheets by the peculiar way
, There was a peculiar mark round the
knew them. I bought the watch in
in which they were hemmed, as my property. After they
left my place they had been marked with the letters " E.H.
blanketsop Oxford-street
for
hainedh ails° the chain. There were three anti-
macassars
.
(Edwardd-s
tbrHye
eewt a d )
taken, found in the box of which the prisoner
held the key, which I also identify as my property.
Sarah Ann Lane, daughter of the prosecutor, said her
mother was at home on the 17.,h July, but she went out and
remained out the whole of that night. On the 18th July
her mother came home about 11 o'clock, bringing the pri
soner with her. Her mother packed two of the boxes, and
the prisoner packed and corded another, He was there
about a quarter of an hour or 20 minutes, He went away
before her mother with the boxes. Her mother then went
out, and she did not see her afterwards. Witness was in
the kitchen and heard a cast come up, and the boxes were
put into it. The things produced were packed that morning.
Cross-examined—l did not hear my mother ask the pri-
soner to cord the boxes, I went up into the room and saw
the prisoner cording one of the boxes. There was no one
but my mother with the prisoner. I went upstairs when I
heard the prisoner come in. I have no recollection of my
mother leaving her home before. I never heard my father
tell her to leave and go away. My y father and mother bad
no quarrel the night before, bat my father would not allow
my mother to bring another woman into the house. My
mother then went out and sttpvd out all night. She came
on the following morning and began to pack up her clothes.
By the Court-1 saw a donkey cart come for the boxes,
and a young man was with it, but the man was not the pri-

soner.
Elijah Wheatley said he lodged with Mr. Lane. He had
not eeen the prisoner before the 18th of July. He saw the
prisoner and Mrs. Lane near the Bishop's-road Station of
the Metropolitan Railway. He was carrying her shawl and
parasol on his arm. He spoke to Mrs. Lane. He had seen
the prisoner on several occasions.
Crops-examined--He lodged with Mr. Lane for 6 months.
Mrs. Lane was out for two nights while he was there. He
asked her what she was doing, and to return to her home.
She said she would not. She never mentioned the name of
her husband.
Mary Ann Black said,—l keep the house No. 32, John-
street, Tottenham-court-road. The prisoner came to my
house about taking a room on the 20th or 21st of July. He
was accompanied by Mrs. Lane, whom he represented as his
wife. The woman said they wanted to come in immediately,
as they had been living with her sister, and she had given
up housekeeping. The next day they brought 4or 5 boxes
in a cab, and the prisoner and the roan took the boxes up-
stairs together. The blankets, sheets, and counterpane on
the bed did not belong to me.
Robert Grove, a cab proprietor, said on the 24th of
August he accompanied the prosecutor to a house, No. 32,
John-street, 1 ottenham-court-road, and went to the back
attic. He saw the prisoner lying on the bed, and Mrs.
Lane lying under the bed. The prisoner's first words were
" Go out of my room, or I will d— soon put you out. Wit-
ness asked the prosecutor if he had any knowledge of any-
thing that was in the room, and ho said the boxes in the
room belonged to him. He also said the blankets on the bed
were his. Mrs. Lane said they were not, and that they be-
longed to the landlady. He saw a box opened, out of which
one of the prosecutor's stockings was taken. The box was
locked, and the key of it came out of the prisoner's pocket.
Witness was sure that the box was locked. Witness said
to prosecutor, " Here is a box which we have not examined,
and it had better be opened."
John Baker, 42 E, police constable, said he went to No
32, John-street, Tottenham-court. road, with the prosecutor
and Mr. Grove. He saw the prisoner on the bed: and Mrs.
Lane crawled from under it. He asked whom a box belonged
to, and the prisoner said it belonged to him. He took a key
from his pocket and the box was opened. In it were found
some articles which the prosecutor identified as beonging
to him, and a letter addressed to the prisoner from Ha wife,
whom he had sent down to Sidmouth, in Devanshite, with
her children. (In this letter, which was couched in affec-
tionate terms, she applied to the prisoner for money, as the
children were in want, and she had scarcely a bit of shoe to
her feet).

Mr. Ribton then addressed the jury for the prisoner, and,
after citing several oases which had been decided, con:ended
that no felony had been made out in this case, as the wife

TIMES.—We cannot expect that the doubting
public will derive any great assurance from the
letter of Mr. Vernon Lushiugton on the Steam Rams
in the Mersey which we publish this morning. The
assumption with which our correspon den t commences
his argument begs the entire question practically at
issue. If there were " evidence of the fact" that these
vessels are act aally destined for the use of the Con-
federate States and also a certainty, or a reasonable
amount of probability, that this would bring the
adventure within the scope of the Foreign Enlist-
ment Act, nobody can deny that Lard Russell
might " exercise his power of detention" and
forbid the ships to leave the port. But, unfortu-
nately, neither of these conditions can be easily
satisfied. That there is not, or was not, sufficient
evidence of the fact we know from the avowal of
Lord Russell himself, and that there is nothing
positive in the applicability of the Foreign Enlist-
ment Act to the case must be inevitably inferred from
the experiment tried upon the Alexandra. The ques •
tion actually pressing for decision at this moment is,
doubtless, as Mr. Lushington states it—" Ought not
Lord Russell, as British Minister, acting under the
power of the Foreign Enlistment Act, to order the
detention of the steam rams in the Mersey ?" This
question, however, can only be decided by evidence
which does not appear to be forthcoming, and it
does Lot help the case in the least to assume the
discovery of what cannot be found. A few days
ago Lord Russell did certainly not, by his own
admission, conceive himself to possess, as British
Minister, any sufficient warrant for the sug-
gested exercise of power; and unless we are mis-
informed, he has since that time received assurances
of the really innocent character of the sus-
pected vessels. On this point, however, we cannot
expect the public to be very credulous. Probably
nine people out of ten are prepossessed with a pretty
firm opinion upon the ultimate destination of these
ships of war, but Government' can act only upon
stronger grounds than this, and such grounds had
not been discovered at the date of Lord Russell's
letter. Nor can we think our correspondent's argu-
ments are any more conclusive when they are based
upon the actual circumstances of our present posi-
tion. It does seem to be the fact that the construc-
tion of these vessels in British yards " tend to endan-
ger the peace and welfare of this kingdom ;" inso-
much that we have been actually threatened with
war in case any more such cruisers should be allowed
to escape from our ports. It is also true that not only
the preamble of the Foreign Enlistment Act, but
the broader theory of international law, forbids
as unlawful any such acts on the part of citizens
of a State as tend to compromise the public secu-
rity. But it needs no argument of ours to prove
that this doctrine can only be laid down with limi-
tations. The acts in question must be such acts as a
foreign State can only complain of, but complain of
with reason; otherwise any Government might at
any time dictate to any other Government a modi
fication of its laws under threat of war. We have
been repeatedly placed in imminent danger of war
by the acts of private citizens as well as by the policy
of Government. Scarcely a foreign Court but has
remonstrated with us more or less fiercely on some
of the results which the rights of political asylum
and free discussion are calculated to produce. On
these occasions we have always been resolute in
maintaining our privileges, and it is not so very
long since a Government was overthrown in an
attempt to give greater stringency to English law
at the presumed instance of a foreign Power. It is
not enough, therefore, to allege that "in fact" the
proceedings in question endanger the public peace.
If they are not proceedings proscribed by law, Go-
vernment can bring no law to bear upon them. AV hat
Ministers really want is plain enough from Lord Rus-
sell's letter. They want producible evidence of the
fact that the Steam Rams in the Mersey come within
the scope of the Foreign Enlistment Act, or such
evidence as will at any rate justify them in detaining
the vessels and leaving the case for the judgment of
a Court. Their anxiety to obtain this evidence,
and their readiness to act upon it when obtained,
are so plainly visible that the Federal Government
ought to give us credit for fair intentions. We
may say, too, that the public is of the same mind
also, and that the news that these Rams had been
stopped would be received with general gratification.
We do not profess to b© very disinterested in this
matter. To say the truth we are by no means sure
that the trade in question could be proved to be
unlawful either by British or American law; but
we are perfectly sure that if it could be stamped as
unlawful for the future the establishment of the
doctrine would be very much to our advantage.
We concur, too, in the idea of our correspondent,
that as international law is always making, and as
the innoxious rights of neutrals have been recently
enlarged there would be some propriety in seizing the
opportunity to limit neutral rights in the more ques-
tionable kinds of commercial adventure. We must
confess to an opinion, after a vigilant observation of
this controversy, that nothing less than a distinct
prbscriptiou of the trade in question would suffice to
place the law in a satisfactory state. At present it
appears that if a citizen of a neutral Power cannot
actually sell a vessel like the Alabama to a belli-
gerent without offence, he can so very nearly do
so that the impediments in his way are of little
avail. The sale of the Alabama herself could cer-
tainly have been defended perhaps even successfully.
•
The particular acts required to make the transac-
tion unlawful can so easily be omitted, disguised,
or suspended, while the real bargain goes on all the
while; that the law is almost powerless. Our cor-
respondent speaks of the Foreign Enlistment Act
itself—that act on which he would have Ministers
ground their proceedings irrespectively of inter-
national law—in terms which show that he can put
little faith in its operation. There is nothing for it
but to declare the sale of ships of war to a
,belli-
gerent plainly and indisputably unlawfu:. r
nis
would be an innovation, but the innovation would
be ad in our own interests. It would altogether
relieve us, as neutrals, from the recurrence of
predicaments like the present, and it would protect
us as belligerents from the operation o f a practice
which could not but be troublesome, if not danger-
ous. After all, however, perhaps our correspondent
is simply, though insensibly, expressinga desire,
which we have no doubt is pretty generally felt,
that Government would cat a vexatious knot by
detaining these two steam rams and trusting the
case to trial. That is a matter for Government
itself to consider. There is a very common belief
that these vessels, to whatever order they were
originally laid down, or through whatever hands
they may be intermediately passed, are des-
' tined in the end for the service of the Confede-
rates against the Federals. There is an equally
general impression that if we were in the position
of the Federals, and had suffered as they have from
the operations of such vessels, we should be unlikely
to take the matter quietly. Nor can we say that
we should expect to find much counterpoise to these
opinions in any sympathy for that " commercial
adventure" which selects channels of such equivocal
propr •
iety In short, if Ministers detained these
vessels we do not think they would be hardly
judged, bet the question depends upon evidence
which can only be known hereafter.

The following is the letter referred to above :

Sir,—The letters of your able correspondent
Phocion" may lead some of your readers from the
true and urgent issue, which is not—What is the
duty of a neutral State by international law P but
this—Ought not Lord Russell, as British Minister,
acting under the power of the Foreign Enlistment
Act, to order the detention of the steam rams in the
Mersey ? It is to this latter issue I would recall the
attention of your readers.

That the building of these steam rams is with in-
tent that they shall be employed in the service of the
Confederate Government, and that this is positively
or probably within the terms of the 7th section
of the Foreign Enlistment Act (59 George 111.,
cap. 69) I assume; for I do not know the evidence,
and I will not trouble your readers with the cum-
brous terms of that ill-drawn statute. Assuming
that there is some evidence of the fact, and that the
case is probably within the statute, ought not Lord
Russell to exercise his power of detention ? The
nuilding of these rams does in fact " tend to en-
danger the peace and welfare of this kingdom"
(preamble of the act); the sailing of these rams
unchecked may—and, we are told, probably will—
precipitate all England into a huge war ; and for p
what, or whose benefit, is England to run this risk .
For the private benefit of Mr. Laird, the shipbuilder
—unless it be for the Confederates.
If " the peace and welfare of this kingdom" be the
right point of view, and it can be no degradation to
execute our own laws, it is of quite secondary im-
portance to consider at this moment the limits of
commercial licence tolerated to neutrals by purely
international law. In such great matters as peace
or war, as Mr. Burke has said, " What a lawyer
tells me I may do" is not enough,
But it seems that your correspondent, who justi.

HERALD.—We published yesterday two docu-
ments which showed in striking contrast one with
the otl- er. 'Tae first purported to be a memorial to
Earl Russell from the British and Foreign Anti
Slavery Society on the subject of the steam rams in
the Mersey. The second was a quotation from an
address recently issued by the Central Association
for the Recognition of the Confederate States. It is
interesting to compare these papers, which Mils
trate with wonderful truth the difference between
mock humanitarianism and genuine humanity. The
committee which authorises Mr. L. A. Chamerovzow
to append his very continental signature on their
behalf complain of the vessels, with iron rams and
turrets, that would have frightened Troy, which are
now in preparation in what Gibbon called " the
active waters" of the Mersey and the Clyde.
They are designed, affirms the memorial, for the
service of the American rebels. Whence comes the
information of these positive gentlemen ? Appa-
rently they resemble the lecturer who assured his
audience that he had the utmost contempt for facts
and confined himself to principles. The principle
of the British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Associa-
tion seems to be justice for the negro and injustice
for every one else. What right have they to advo-
cate arbitrary confiscation ? We may have a great
horror in England of slavery, but that is no reason
why we should violate the law; and if our Foreign
Secretary has really given way, upon the false and
flimsy grounds alleged, and resolved to detain the
ships of Mr. Laird's construction, he may bring the
Crown itself into Court and be compelled to prove
his justification by evidence. If he need not do
this—if the Queen, whose prerogative he and his
colleagues direct, can in these matters do no wrong
—what will be his position, as the cringing agent of
Federal America, in the sight of Federal America ?
Is it not enough that our Ministers have already
disgraced us beyond remedy by their pusillanimous
submission to insolence and outrage ? We have
been virtually blockaded out of our own ports and
our commerce has been harassed by a species of
piracy carried on iu the name of a violated inter-
national code; and now our shipbuilders, we are
told, must be punished upon charges supported by
no evidence whatever. 'We know, however, what
the public opinion upon the question is, and if Earl
Russell does not, he will learn in time to repent his
own policy, if not to spare us as a nation the igno-
miny of his capitulation and surrender of English
interests to the Federal Cabinet. There is a poem
which the late Sir Robert Peel was in the habit of
quoting. It spoke of England as having in the
course of her history grieved, wept, and groaned ;
but as having " never blushed." Could we say that
after striking the colours of our commerce in the
Mersey at the dictation of a demagogue cabal in
America ? "On anti-slavery grounds alone," urge
the memorialists, "such interference is justifiable."
We submit, however, that the Government of
Great Britain is not a mere committee of philan-
thropists dominated by a single idea. We would
add, too, that philanthropy itself is abused and
misrepresented by them. They would dig myriads
of graves for white men, and desolate entire re.
gions of the globe in order to abolish a particular
institution. They would make of the negro at once
a freeman and a murderer, for in the same breath
they summon him to revolt and to consecrate his
first hour of liberty by massacre and pillage in the
planter's home. We tell these fanatics that the
policy for which they clamour is drenching the
earth with blood, is demoralising a great people, is
destroying the constitutionalism of America, is mul-
tiplying atrocious crimes, is laying cities in ruins,
and plucking up harvests by the roots, is en-
gendering the most ceadly hatreds and eneuu
raging the most hideous tyranny; and that
were it finally triumphant its fruit, gathered in
a wilderness of ruin and slaughter, would prove
a bitter gift to the negro. But these gentry, who
tassame to monopolise the humanity of the world,
who scoff at legality, who favour the employers of
hired informers and spies, and who have no objec-
tion to contraband bargains in war materials with
'he stranglers of blacks 'ueneath the lamplights of
New York, resemble those other champions of
aborigines who hate an English sailor, but would
cherish a Malayan pirate, who call our soldiers cut
throats while they are tender to Bosjesmen and
lieffirs, and who, like them, deem that a doubtful
liberty secured for the African labourers in the
Southern States may well and mercifully be punished
by obliterating for a century the civilisation of half'
a continent, slaughtering a million of men, and
trampling a gallant and Christian people either into
extermination, or into political and social slavery.
It is a relief to turn from them to the Central
Association for the Recognition of the Confede-
rate States. Its address is signed by men of all
shades of opinion in party matters. We make no
account of their general politics when scanning
what may emphatically be termed an eloquent
list. The organisation is assuming, we rejoice to
observe, formidable proportions. Among the sig-
natures are three peers, many members of Parlia-
ment, numerous clergymen, an immense array of
commercial influence, and not a few men whose
hearts are fervently in the cause of emancipa-
tion, but who have not been duped by the
tardy hypoarisy of the North, with its shame-
ful and bloody holocaust of negro victims at
New York. These memorialists declare that
Great Britain, France, and Belgium, with any
other Powers which may be willing to assist, have
a perfect right to interfere and put an end to
" a world-wide calamity ; " that the Southern
States can never, without infamy, cease the
conflict, unless by arbitration and in indepen-
dence ; that the " awful human butchery is
likely to go on for years if not terminated by
the supreme mandate of Europe ; that the
Pederals may annihilate, but cannot reccluoile ;
that " our own guiltless and suffering people "
ought to have their interests regarded by a British
Cabinet; and, that every day of hesitation a day
of torture to humanity. To this
lishnsen respond. The a• appeal most Eng-
viency exhibited by
and aesht;te devastation in America, weary of
famine in Lancashire, weary
sa
are weary of the far spread
a the patient subser-
viency
the disgust
onlywhose
abtar
oi tt
ilac as
states-
menbeeto beast of themselv
in the realm. When, howeverl
es iansisttehres
of the nation to be manifested
in a form that shall
elicit a distinct policy from amid the simpering sub-
tleties and diplomatic abasements of our Foreign
office? Will it be when Earl Russell brings his
country to further shame by patroniaing professional
deletion, receiving his instructions from a foreign
cabinet, and playing the pirate, so to express it, by
proxy, in the British dockyards on the Mersey.

London : Printed and Pie?fished by WILLIAM ANDRNWO,
of No. IU, Strand, Printer, at Tam SUN Office No. 112,
Strand, in the Prgninct of the Savoy, in the Count)! of
*iddleeex,_"Thursday, Beptember 10, 1868