The Sun.
London, England, 1863-09-22 00:00:00

THE SUN. LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, SEPTEMBER 22, 1368.

and Michael Flannagan,were severally indicted for stealing a
silver and a gold chain and a gold locket, value £5, and the
sum of £3 and upwards in money, the property of some
person unknown. The prisoner Flannagan was further in-
dicted for assaulting and beating John Perry, with intent
to resist his lawful detention.
Mr. Abrams prosecuted; Mr. E. T. Smith appeared for
Moore, and Mr, Gent for Flannagan.
Henry Bartlett, police-constable, 142 F, said that at five
o'clock on the morning of the Ist of September he was on
duty in Broad-street, St. Giles's, where he saw the two pri-
soners drunk and fighting together. That was the morning
of the day on which the fight took place between Goss and
Mace. On that morning there had been a great many
people going that way towards the Great Western Railway
station at Paddington. He went to the prisoners and en-
deavoured to separate them, telling them to go home and
that they must not fight there, and that if they continued
to do so ho should take them into custody. They said they
would fight after he had spoken to them, when Perry and
another constable came to his assistance and they were taken
into custody. Witness took Moore, and Perry took Flan-
nagan. After getting a short distaxce, witness observed
the prisoner Moore put his hand into his pocket, from
which he brought out a silver watch, and directly after-
wards threw it away. A police-constable of the E
division picked it up and handed it to witness imme-
diately. The bow of the watch was broken. He asked
Moore what he had done that for, and he said, "What do
you mean ?" On going towards the station-house ho saw
Moore again put his hand to his pocket, and then place
something in his mouth. Witness put his left arm round
his throat, and with his right hand put two fingers into his
mouth, and forced from it a piece of gold chain, to which
was appended a gold locket, both of which were produced.
He also forced from his mouth two sovereigns and one half-
sovereign. On getting to the station-house be searched the
prisoners, and on Moore he found three sixpences, threepence
in copper, and a common brass breast-pin. He refused to
give any account of himself or the property, or where he
lived.

Cross-examined by Mr. Gent—The two men were fight-
ing for some time. He (witness) did not tell them to go to
the Great Western Railway and fight it down the line with
Goss and Mace.
Wm. Ackrell, police-constable 43 F, said he knew the
prisoners at the bar. He had known Moore for three months
and Flannagan for six years. He had frequently seen both
the prisoners together.
Mr. Sergeant Gaselee said that a man had a right to throw
away his watch if he liked, and there was no proof that it
had been stolen, and persons might throw away their pro-
perty when pursued by the police. He directed the jury to
acquit the prisoners.
The jury then returned a verdict of Not Guilty.
There were several constables in attendance to prove for-
mer convictions against both the prisoners for felonies.
The prisoner Flannagan was then charged with assault-
ing and beating John Perry, a constable of the metropoli-
tan police force, with intent to resist hie lawful detention.
The prisoner pleaded Guilty.
John Perry, 176 F, said he was present at the time and
place stated by the witness Bartlett, and took the prisoner
Flannagan into custody. After getting a little distance with
him he suddenly struck witness on the chest, tripped him
up and ran away. On recovering himself witness went after
him and captured him.
Mr. Sergeant Gaselee sentenced him to be imprisoned and
kept to hard labour for one month.
The counsel engaged for Moore applied to the Court to
order that the watch picked up by the police and the chain
and money taken out of his mouth should be restored to
him.

Mr. Sergeant Gaselee said he thought ho ought to have it.
Mr. Abrams said the learned Judge had no power to
order the restoration of anything but stolen property, and
as the prisoner had thrown away the watch he had aban-
doned it altogether, supposing it not to have been stolen.
Mr. Sergeant Gaselee said the prisoner might bring a
suit for the recovery of it.
Mr. Abrams said, at any rate, the Judge had no power to
make an order for its restoration.
Some money found on the prisoner Flannagan was ordered
to be given up to his mother.
John Blakesley, 23, portmanteau maker, was indicted for
embezzling the sum of £1 5s 6d, received by him for and
on account of William Henry Hall, his master. He pleaded
guilty.
The prosecutor, a portmanteau maker, resides in Field-
terrace, Bagnigge-wells-road, end the prisoner was in his
service about three months ago. About the 29th of July
he was sent with two portmanteaus to Mrs. Lazarus's, Fore-
street. He had an invoice, but he was not authorized to
receive any money. He came back to his employer and told
him that if he went to Mrs. Lazarus she would pay him the
money. It turned out, however, that the prisoner himself
had received the money and receipted the invoice, which
was produced. He absconded from his employment, but
was afterwards taken into custody by Police-constable
Crockford in King•street, Soho.
Mr. Sergeant Gaselee sentenced him to be imprisoned
and kept to hard labour for 12 calendar months.
Henry Smith, 52, brass finisher, was indicted for stealing
two pewter measures, the property of James Brown Wood-
ward, and one pewter measure, the property of John Mac-

farlane.
Joseph Ross, waiter at the Dunstan's Arms, East-road,
City-road, said that on the evening of the 9th inst., about half
past 5 o'clock, the prisoner was served with half a pint of
porter. Witness saw him take a pint pot from the table and
put it into his pocket. The prisoner went out and witness
followed him. About 100 yards from the house he went up
to bim and asked him for the pots he had in his pocket. A
constable came up, and the pats produced were found in his

possession.
John Macfarlane, landlord of the Globe public-house,
Chart-street, Hoxton, proved that one of the measures pro-
ducad was his property.
The jury found the prisoner Guilty.
Charles Dullamy, formerly a police-constable, proved that
on the 13th of June, 1862, the prisoner was convicted at
Worship-street, under the Criminal Justice Act, of pot-
stealing, and sentenced to be imprisoned for two months.
Mr. Sergeant Gaselee sentenced him to be imprisoned
and kept to hard labour for 18 months.
(Before Mr. Payne.)
Thos. James, labourer, was charged with maliciously in-
flicting grievous bedily harm upon James Allday, a police-
constable.
Mr. Cooper prosecuted, and Mr. E. T. Smith defended.
Mr. Cooper, in his opening address, said this was a case
of an aggravated assault on a police-constable while in the
execution of his duty. It appeared that on the night of the
30th of August last some persons while coming down Cow-
cross, close to the Court, having been to an Irish wake, a
row was got up, as is usually the case on such occasions,
the policeman, Allday, was engaged in dispersing the crowd,
and while doing so received a blow on the left ear, which
immediately stunned him and felled him to the ground. A
man of the name of Castello was taken up, but on being
brought before the Court on a former occasion, his identity
was not proved, and the jury acquitted him. The prisoner,
at a later period of the row, was seen to throw a stone at the
constable, and after a desperate struggle with the mob, the
prisoner was secured and conveyed to the station, the crowd
using every endeavour to rescue him, He (Mr. Cooper)
said it was highly desirable that the police, who had some
very onerous duties to perform, should be protected from
these violent attacks, and trusted that the jury would give
an impartial verdict after having heard the evidence.
James Allday, police-constable 71 G, said he was the per-
son who had received the injury from which he was now
suffering. On the night in question he was engaged in
quelling a disturbance in Cow-cross, resulting from an Irish
wake, There were 200 or 300 people on the spot at the
time—a very violent crowd. Whilst endeavouring to keep
the people back, a stone was thrown with great violence
from behind, which he received on his ear, causing a severe
wound, rendering him totally insensible. Ho had since
been suffering from deafness and pains in the head, and was
delirious on the night in question.
Robert Elford, police-constable G 134, confirmed the
last witness, and stated that he saw him in the crowd, and
was endeavouring to go up Benjamin-street, the prisoner
being about six yards in advance of him, when he saw him
hurl a stone at the policeman Allday, falling him to the
ground. Ho was immediately conveyed to the station-
, house, and a surgeon sent for, who ordered his removal to
the hospital, The stone was here produced in court—s
large piece of granite in a rough state.
John Blencowe, another constable, said he helped the
last witness in keeping the crowd back, and on the occasion
in question saw the prisoner throw the stone deliberately
at the constable, and that the stone *whizzed past him. lie
considered himself very lucky, and that if he had been two
inches nearer he should have received the blow. Witness
was not mistaken as to the prisoner's identity.
Charles Bendle, police-constable G ]Ol, also assisted in
keeping the crowd back. He saw the constable AlldaY
knocked down by the stone. He could swear to the prisoner
as being the man.
Mr. J. Foster, house surgeon at the Free Hospital,Gray's-
inn-road, was next examined—The injured policeman had
been under his superintendence and was recovering. When
brought into the hospital ho had an abrasion on the ear and
the skin was very much cut. A slight concussion of the
brain had taken place, accompanied by the usual symptoms.
He was greatly excited and delirious. In his (Mr. Foster's)
opinion such a wound would be occasioned by a stone
thrown in the manner described. He had heard of cases
where persons had died through similar injuries.
Mr. E. T. Smith made a very able defence on behalf of
the prisoner, contending that in a mob like the one de.,
scribed the constables might have been mistaken, and that
it was a case of mistaken identity altogether.
The learned Judge then summed up, and
The jury immediately returned a verdict of guilty,
A police-constable said the prisoner was once charged with
pocket-picking.
Mr. Payne, in passing sentence, commented on the
brutal nature of the assault, and said that it was highly
desirable that the police should receive the protection of
every one. The duties they had to perform were of such a
nature that their lives were often in danger, and it was abso-
lutely necessary that the strong arm of the law should reach
persons of this description. Here was a man who, in
endeavouring to put a stop to a disturbance and clearing
the road, was brutally wounded by the prisoner with a
stone which, if it hEtd been but thrown in his fleet would

have been certain death, and for which the prisoner would
have forfeited his life on the gallows. The sentence of the
Court was that he be imprisoned and kept to hard labour for

two years.
Charles King, 15, errand boy, was charged with stealing
a cashbox, containing a cheque for £37 10s. and £1 18s. 61
in money, the property of Wm. Sugg, his master.
The prisoner pleaded guilty, saying that it was through
bad associates he had been led to commit the robbery.
Wm. Goodson said he was clerk to the prosecutor, an en-
gineer, who lived at 19, Marsham-street, Westminster. The
prisoner was in Mr. Sugg's service as errand boy, and had
been so since the 29th August. On the 2d September last
the cashbox, which was kept in the back-office, was safe at
6 o'clock in the morning, locked. The drawer in which the

cashbox was contained was not fastened, and prisoner had
access to it. At a few minutes after 9 on the same morning
on going to the drawer the box with its contents was missed.
The prisoner went to his breakfast, but did not return.
Witness told his master of the robbery, and information was
given to the police. The prisoner two or three days after
the robbery gave himself up, confessing to having commit-
ted the theft. The property had not been found. It was
afterwards ascertained that the prisoner with his companions
had spent the money and destroyed the cheque. The pri-
soner was seen on the day of the robbery running down
Bennett's yard, close to Mr. Sagg's premises, with some-
thing under his coat.

Jeremiah Burr, 194 B, said on Saturday, three days after
the robbery, the prisoner gave himself up, saying he had
robbed his master, and that a boy named Furlong had part
of the money, and he (prisoner) had the rest. It appeared
that this was the first offence.

Mr. Payne, after conferring with the other magistrates on
the bench, deferred sentence.
Milliam M'Donnell, engraver, was charged with stealing
a carpet value £5, the property of Thomas Harding.

The prisoner pleaded guilty.
William Davis said he was shopinan to the prosecutor,
who resided at 195, Marylebone-read, and his business was
that of a baker, and on the 4th September last, while in the
shop be observed the prisoner and another man outside.
The prisoner took up a carpet which was outside the shop,
and placing it on his shoulder, walked away. Witness fol-
lowed
vas
daansd caught hold of him, and said to him, " Where
are you going with that carpet ?" to which he replied, " All
right, this man asked me to carry it," pointing to the man
who
with him, Witness told the prisoner to come
inside the shop, when he said, "All right, it will be nothing
out of your way; let me go." A constable was sent for, and
the prisoner given into custody.
David West, policeconstable 307 D, said he took the pri-
soner into custody. He gave an address which afterwards
turned out to be false.

The learned Judge then sentenced the prisoner to 12 ca
lender months' imprisonment with hard labour.
A man who refused to give his name, but was afterwards
ascertained to be Falharn, was charged with stealing an
umbrella, a parasol, and shawl, the property of Maria Evans;
a cloak, travelling bag, and an umbrella, also the property
of Maria Evans ; a shawl, a parasol, an umbrella, the pro-
perty of Edith Evans, and an umbrella, and a walkingstick,
the property of Arthur Robertson Evans.
The prisoner pleaded guility.
Mr. Cooper prosecuted.
From the evidence it appeared that on Friday aflernoon,
Aug, 28 last, about 20 minutes to 4, the prisoner was seen
on the platform of the King's• cross station on the departure
side, A train started at 4 o'clock, when the prisoner went
out of the station to a publichouse in St. Pancras-road. He
returned again in about 20 minutes. He remained till a
quarter to 7, and then went into the first-class waiting room
and brought out with him the two shawls, cloak, bag, four
umbrellas, and several other articles. He got about 20 yards
from the entrance gate, and upon seeing a police-constable
dropped the things and started off running. He was after-
wards stopped and given into custody. When the prisoner
was stopped he said, " Oh, for God's sake let me go, I ern a
ruined man." The property was afterwards owned as hav-
ing been stolen on the 28th of August last.
The learned Judge sentenced him to be imprisoned in the
House of Correction for 18 calendar months.
John Regan, 21, labourer, was charged with assaulting
Lawrence M`Auliffe, a constable of' the metropolitan police
force, in the execution of his duty. The prisoner pleaded
not guilty.
Mr. Taylor prosecuted, and Mr. Warton defended.
Lawrence M'Auliffe, 301 K, said that on the night of the
28th of August, between the hours of 11 and 12, he was on
duty in High-street, Ratcliff. He heard women crying and
shouting "Police" and "Murder," and the wife of the pri-
soner came to witness in a bleeding state, seeking his pro-
tection, whereupon the prisoner immediately kicked him in
wrested the stomach, from the effects of which he was no w suffering.
He having occasion to stoop a little, the prisoner rushed
upon him, placed his fingers in his stock, nearly choking
him, at the same time tearing his greatcoat, doing consider-
able damage. Witness sprung his rattle and seized the pri-
soner. A struggle ensued, and a mob came up,who succeeded
in rescuing the prisoner, who got clear off. Some other con-
stables soon arrived, and they went with witness to the pri-
soner's house. He was told he was wanted, and he replied
from
a`
kOeh
the,
you
life b eo—f n 0 . '
of'
them.
drew
Thea knife,
knife
was and
ssaidi h
teed wouldfm
t
him. Before the prisoner was even spoken to
he drew forth
l
the knife, and said he would stab witness and the other con-
stables. He was not sober.
Upon cross .examination it appeared that it was after he
left the house that he produced the knife. Neither of the
constables drew the staves. He raised his hand with a
knife in it, and at the same time he was seized by the con-
stable, who got the knife from him.
John Wilson, police-constable 152 K, when sworn, said
he met the last witness in High-street, Ratcliff, on the night
ethetothe station-house,
in question, and from what he said they proceeded to the
dock at the station-
prisoner's house and brought him downstairs. Witness had
hold of his collar, and Constable Auliffe held him by
ano-
ther part. 'file knife was open in his hand. Prisoner
I'll do for you, or some of
said, " Now, you ---, . you," and
threw his arm back and made a blow at witness with the
knife. He got the prisoner outside, and with the assistance
of two other constables the knife wads taken from his hand,
house the prisoner said, m ve.ryt. sorry I did not knife
minegh. e waslv, Ihc,onnvieny
some of you, particularly you"
friendly
to witness).
aangdreaafttemr aobshfooriitot
ise gave you a nod,
Mr. Taylor— (Laughter.)
Witness—Yes.
resumed--The prisoner sv
Examination res drunk,but knew
was about. When first
very well what he attacked the pri-
Boner endeavoured to dig the knife into witness's arm, but
he did not succeed.
George Robjuit, police-constable 158 K, sworn—He said
he was called to assist in taking prisoner into custody. As
they were goingg along
l Wilson said, Look out for the
knife." He turned is head and saw the Prisoner with
one in his hand ; it was open. Wilson took the knife from
him. When at the station the prisoner said he was sorry
he had not knifed one of them, and he would if he had an
opportunity.
In cross-exam
ins len by Mr. Warton, the witness said
no unnecessary vicl.ence was used in taking the prisoner to
the station ; they did not draw their staves.
Mr. Warton, inveryot:
the able and eloquent speech, addressed
the jury on behalf prisoner, and pointed out the dis-
crepancies in the elvience, and reminded them that if they
had arty reasonabdoubt in their minds as to the prisoner's
guilt, they were h3unddo to give him the benefit of such doubt
and acquit bins.
The Deputy Assistant-Judge said he did not think it was
necessary for him to make any remarks upon the evidence.
The constables hadsworn positively to the facts, and if they
believed them they had no other course than to find the pri-
soner guilty.
The jury, after a short deliberation, returned a verdict of
guilty of an assault on the police while in the execution of
their duty.
John StimPsert Police-constable 21 K, said he knew the
prisoner. He was charged with assaulting him Nov. 12,
1860, at the
harms Police-court, and was sentenced to 14
days' imprisonment.
The prisoner said he was drunk at the time, and was very
sorry for what he had done, and if his lordship would be
lenient with him, he
would never do so again.
The learned Judge,in passing sentence, said he was con-
tinually called upon to comment upon the evils of intempe-
rance and the evils it caused among the working classes.
Tho sentence of to Court upon the prisoner was that he be
imprisoned and kept to hard labour for twelve calendar
months.
Samuel Cooper, groom, was charged with stealing a silver
watch and a pl.' chain, value £B, the property of John
Mills, in his dwelling-house, to which indictment he pleaded
not guilty,
coffee-house.
Mills sail ho lived at 65, Marylebone-.lane, and kept
a
watch"-6use. On Thursday, August 27th,
he lost a silver
. _ and gold chain from the bedroom, being usually
placed under the pillow on going to bed, The prisoner and
his wife had lodged in the house for some time. Prosecutor
afterwards saw the watch at a pawnbroker's shop, and he
thereupon requested the prisoner to come with him for a
little walk. They went to the pawnbroker's, and prisoner
was thererecognised as having pledged the watch and chain.
The prisoner said, "Oh I the watch I pledged for the ser-
vant." Re was then given in charge. He said he had
pledged an opera glass as well. Ostie had been missed by a
gentleman who had lodged in the house, but who was now
living in the country.
Alfred Chamberlain, assistant to Mr. James, pawn-
broker 15 Norfolk -street, Isr or ol -street, Fitzroy-square, produced a silver
watch and gold chain, pawned on the 27th of August for
LI 10s. The prisoner, when ho pawned it, said he had
been out of a situation for six months, and that ho did not
know what he should do when that was gone. Witness
produced an opera-glass, pledged by him on the 22d of
August for 6s.
Sarah Lynch, servant to Mr. Mills, said she made the
bed on the night of the robbery. She put the watch and
chain on the drawers in the room and did not see them
afterwards, The witness stoutly denied the assertion of
the prisoner that she had given the watch to him to pledge
for her,

George Ring, police-constable, 76 D, said he went to the
pawnbroker's and saw the watch and chain. The prisoner
and his wife came into
.the coffee-shop, and Mr. Mills said
that the prisoner had acknowledged the pledging of the
watch and chain, and gave the prisoner into custody. The
prisoner then said, " I did not receive it from the servant,
I received it from my wife," The wife mid to him, "It to

a falsehood, and you know 1 did not give you the watch."
The prisoner then replied, " I shan't tell any lies about it;
you know you did."
The prisoner, in his defence, said he was innocent of
stealing the watch.
The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and he was sen-
tenced to three years' penal servitude.

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

TIMES.—The Russian reply to France can hardly
be said to be conciliatory, and if it expresses a wish
to avoid a quarrel, it does so in the most curt and
cavalier manner. It is impossible to see in this
pithy and decided document the smallest concession,
or the least tendency towards a mutual understand-
ing. It is a slap on the face, and nothing else.
Prince Gortschakoff declares that discussion could
only lead to still further divergence, and says almost
in so many words, as in his reply to Lord Russell,
that if the French Government wishes to avoid un-
pleasant misunderstanding the less it says further
on the subject the better. The last two or three
paragraphs, which are identical with those to Eng-
land, are in the same tone of dignified self-assertion ;
and the concluding remark, that the Emperor of
Russia has the right to expect and to demand the
same respect for the fundamental principles of in-
ternational law on the part of the other Powers as
he has observed himself, reads like a decided hint
to the Powers that they are exceeding the limits
of their rights. Indeed, it cannot be mistaken that
these despatches, while admitting for courtesy's
Bake the representations of the Powers, and re-
plying to them indirectly in a Memorandum,
assume that the Russian Government is not

bound to consider them any further than it pleases.
So far, too, as the mere question of legal obli-
gation goes, it must be confessed that the para-
graph which Prince Gortschakoff addresses par-
ticularly to M. Drouyn de Lhuys, contains an
argument of no trifling force. He only dwells upon
one point of the French despatch, because he wishes
to avoid any future misunderstanding—namely,
the way in which, more than once and under dif-
ferent forms, the French Minister alludes to the
Western provinces of Russia as affected by the
stipulations of the treaty of 1815. The Emperor of
Russia only consents to discuss the condition of the
Duchy of Warsaw, and " must peremptorily ex-
clude, even in an interchange of friendly views,
any allusions to portions of his empire to which no
internatioual reference whatsoever refers." As we
shall point out presently, Prince Gortschakoff has
no right to exclude thus peremptorily under any
circumstances references to parts of his empire not
expressly guaranteed by treaty; but at the same
time the observation is a home thrust, and hits the
weakest point in the attack of the Allies. Although
it is addressed only to France, its force extends
equally to the other two Courts; end, however it
may be answered, it places them in a position of
great difficulty. It is evident that, if it is ad-
mitted, it reduces the interference of the three
Powers to perfect uselessness. Suppose, it says,
that they have a right to insist upon the establish-
ment of a free Constitution in the Polish provinces
guaranteed to Russia by the Treaty of Vienna,
they have no right to urge any such claim as re-
gards other provinces. But Prince Gortschakoff
and every one else knows perfectly well that if the
good offices of M. Drouyn de Lhuys are only to
affect the Duchy of Warsaw, they will be perfectly
useless. The insurrection is not confined to the
Duchy of Warsaw. The Poles who are, directing it
have no idea of treating the Duchy of Warsaw
as distinct from the other Polish provinces, and
when Europe thinks of the Polish question its
sympathies extend far beyond those limits. In
short, neither M. Drouyn de Lhuys nor any
one else who discussed the subject could possibly
avoid speaking of Poland in a sense which
would trespass on the " peremptory" limits of the
Emperor of Russia. This assertion of them has the
effect of nullifying the propositions of the three
Powers by refusing to allow them to apply to what
they were intended for. Any fresh agreement among
the contracting parties to the Treaty of Vienna could
only apply to the Duchy of Warsaw; but, as they
would in that case be perfectly useless, it can be to
nu purpose to urge them. But, at the same time,
all three Powers declare that they remonstrate upon
no other basis than the treaties of 1815. Diplomacy
seldom claims any other support. That is as far
back as diplomatic memory reaches. The oldest
diplomatist, like " the oldest inhabitant," has no
traditions before the Congress of Vienna. It is clear
at least that, as we said, the legal right of interfer,
ence is limited by those treaties. The Russian Em-
peror has certainly a technical right to say that be
will admit of no further intrusion into the adminis-
tration of his dominions ; and after this rigid asser-

tion of the right, any Power which persists in mak-
ing such allusions as Prince Gortschakoff complains
of must be prepared to do more than remonstrate.
We are, in short, impaied on the horns of a very
unpleasant dilemma. Either we with the reforms
we press for confined to the Duchy of Warsaw, in
which ease our interference is useless, or we ask for

their extension to other provinces of Russia, in which 4
case it is dangerous. Our remonstrances are either
merely diplomatic, and founded on the Treaty of
Vienna, and therefore obsolete and unmeaning, or
they are founded on international law and can have
no other arbiter but force. This difficulty in defining
the limits of interference. is precisely the one under
which we have all along observed that this Polish
business labours. The three Powers know neither
what they are asking, nor whom they are asking it
for, nor what is the country they are talking about.
Their propositions, therefore, must be vague, and it
does not require a diplomatist of Prince Gortscha-
koff's skill to baffle them by merely professing his
inability to meet them. " We don't understand each
other," says the Russian Minister, " and I see no
chance of our doing so; the less, therefore, said about
the matter the better." What Lord Russell and
M. Drouyn de Lhuys are to say to such a polite re-
fusal of the debate we do not know, unless, like the
Squire in the " Vicar of Wakefield," they should
charge their own confusion on the weakness of their
adversaries' brains, and so excuse their retreat from
so disagreeable a position. At all events, before
they attempt to renew the discussion it would be
well to settle distinctly with themselves in the first
place on what grounds they intend to negotiate,
what they expect to obtain, and what good would
be done by obtaining it. This general and pur-
poseless fencing is disarmed by a single thrust from
their adversary, and only wastes time and deludes
the spectators. We cannot help feeling half afraid
lest something should come of all this demonstra-
tion, and we cannot wonder that Russia is a little
irritated by so provoking a flourish of small swords.
At the same time, Prince Gortschakoff goes beyond
what he can justly claim when he absolutely denies
the right of foreign Governments under any cit.,-
cumstances to " allude" to portions of the Russian'
empire which are not expressly guaranteed by
treaties. The maladministration of a province may
light a flame which all Europe is interested in
quenching, and if an insurrection in the heart of
Russia disturbed the peace of Europe, the Great
Powers would have a distinct right to complain of
it, and, if necessary, to interfere to quiet it. If a
man persists in setting his house on fire, his neigh-
bour has a right to interfere, though the house may
be freehold and not leased. All Europe is con-
cerned in the pacification of Poland, and not of the
Duchy of Warsaw alone, and the Government are
certainly justified in remonstrating with the Em-
peror of Russia against acts which have a tendency
to keep it in a perpetual state of revolt. Above all,
they have a right and a duty to remonstrate against
acts of barbarism and cruelty which are a dishonour
to a civilised Government, and which disgrace the
age in which they are committed. But this sort of
remonstrances appeals to a higher law than the
treaty of 1815, and to an authority which Prince
Gortschakoff would be less ready to dispute than
the Congress of Vienna. If the Government con-
fined themselves to this, they would be supported
by the general feeling of the country ; but it is a
Utopianism unworthy of the Foreign Minister of a
European State to make proposals which could not
be accepted without the prospect of reviving a state
of things which has long become obsolete, and in-
troducing disturbances which could find no satis-
factory end except by a European war.
POST.—Notwithstanding the apparent success
which has attended the recent military operations
of the Federal Government at Charleston and in
Tennessee, never perhaps since the commencement
of the civil war were the prospects of the North
more gloomy than at present. If the war is, as tile
Unionists allege, gradually but surely exhausting
the rebel resources, it is no less certainly wearing
out the energies of those who foolishly imagine that
by the extermination of a population with which
they claim kindred, and the destruction of cities
which they assert to be their own, they are laying
the basis of future national prosperity and greatness.
It was at Charleston that the first overt act of re-
bellion against the authority of the Federal Govern-
ment was committed; and the reduction, if not the
destruction, of that town has always been antici-
cipated by the Northern population with feelings
of intense satisfaction. Expedition after expedition
has been despatched from Washington to effect
the capture of the capital of South Carolina,
and of its formidable defence, but hitherto without
success. Now, however, for the first time, fortune
'smiles on the Federal arms, and it is not improba-
ikt:kat one of the most thriving and prosperous of
Americt:n seaport towns may be reduced to a mass
of ruins. According to the latest accounts Fort
Sumter WaB.ltitu-,lst entirely battered to pieces, and
although FOki moint-ie was in a position to reply
position gained by Gen.
to the Federal fire, still tt,.: eh as to enable him
Gilmore on Morris Island WiW k): ..
•to discharge shells into the heart Ql'he city. The