The Sun.
London, England, 1863-07-24 00:00:00

The Alleged Murder in Gower-street.

Last night Dr. Lankester resumed at the Lord
Wellington tavern, University-street, the inquiry
into the circumstances of the death of Michael Quin,
aged 45, who was alleged to have been murdered on
the night of the 27th of June. On the night in
question, it will be recollected, deceased was seen to
tall off the steps of 87, GchNer-street, and being
picked up insensible he was carried to the station-
house as being drunk. He was subsequently re-
moved to the University Hospital, where he died in
a few hours. It was then found that his skull was
fractured and several of his teeth knocked out. The
endeavour to find out who had inflicted the terrible
injuries o❑ deceased brought to light some strange
facts. It appeared that deceased was a native oi
the south of Ireland, where he bed a wife and
family. Some time since they fell into great dis-
tress ; the eldest son enlisted in the 18th Royal Isist,
and the wife came over to England. In her absence
the deceased formed an illicit connection with a
young woman named Margaret Fergusson. 'this
intrigue being discovered by the neighbours, he
came over to England, bringing his paramour with
him. He found lodgings for her in the house where
his wife lived. When that fact became known there
was, of course, a great disturbance, and the woman
was turned out. Quin followed her, taking with
him his furniture and leaving his wife in great dis-
tress. Meanwhile his son had deserted, and had
become almost the sole support of his mother. The
deceased asked the son to leave his mother and go
to live with himself and Fergusson, who would
" make him more comfortable." The young man,
at first, it is said, refused indignantly, but after-
wards said he would go, and take " the - Fer-
gusson from his father." He went, and in a month
induced Fergusson to elope with him, and at the
same time carried off his father's furniture. The
father, furious at having been duped, gave informa-
tion to the authorities with a view to having his son
arrested as a deserter. The latter, however, got
clear off, and it is said he cast off Fergusson within
a month. The deceased then formed A connection
with a woman named Walshe, and it was said that
threats of various kinds had been made with regard
to him. Inspector Garforth now produced several
witnesses whose evidence merely went to show that
deceased was a very sober man, and was quite sober
when seen near the Marble Arch on the night in
question. The inspector said that all efforts to dis-
cover the deceased's son had been unavailing. The
coroner, iu summing up, said that there appeared
to be every reason to believe that the case was one
of wilful murder, but there was no prospect now of
evidence of the fact. The jury returned a verdict
that deceased died from fracture of the skull from
a blow, but how or by whom the said blow was in-
flicted there was no evidence to show."

[ADVERTISEMENT.]—Consumption, all nervous, bilious,
liver, and stomach complaints, in every stage, are only ag-
gravated and accelerated by drugs of every description, but
perfec,ly curable by Du Barry's health restoring Revalenta
Arabica Food, as proved by thousands of cases which had
been considered hopeless. We quote a few.—Cure No. 62,014.
Miss Lange, 18 years of age, cured after the medical men had
abandoned all hopes of her recovery from the last stage of
Pulmonary consumption, with fearful cough, expectoration,
exhaustion, spitting of blood, perspirations, hollow cheeks.
emaciated to a skeleton. She is now, thank God, a perfectly
healthy, blooming, fleshy girl.—N. Lange, Commissaire de
,Police. Cure, No. 48,270. Mr. James Roberts, of Frimley,
Surrey, of , hirty years' diseased lungs, spitting of blood, liver
derangement, and partial deafness.—Cure, No. 47,121. Miss
Elizabeth Jacobs, of extreme nervousness, indigestion,
gatherings, low spirits, and nervous fancies.—Cure, No.
54,816. ►be Rev. James 'l'. Campbell, Fakenham, Norfolk,
of indigestion and torpidity of the liver, which had resisted
all medical treatment. In tins, 11b, 2s 9d ; 21b, 4s 6d ; 5112,
lls ; 121 b, 225; 241 b, 40s. Barry du Barry and Co., No. 77,
Regent-street, London; also Fortnum and Mason:, and all
grocers and clic.mist3 in every town of the United Lingdom.

SPIRIT or THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

TIMES.—Taking occ sion tthtii d Memorial re
cenUy presented to the Foreign Secreiaty by sou,
Liverpool firms, Mr. Cobden yeate,-day brought b.--
fore the House the question of building vetZis for
tot eign belligerents. When a speaker so much In
earnest, and generally so conversant with the mar.
ters he discusses, can add so little to our knowledge,
it may be presumed that the subject is pretty well
exhausted, and this is indeed the case. Politicians

and lawyers, Federal partisans and Confederate sy in.
pat hisers, the law officers of the Crowntheir opinions,
and the Chief
Baron of the Exchequer have given
and both politically and leeallY the subject is per-
. fectly well understood. lir. Cobden, by arguing or
the abstract propositions contained in the Liverpool
memorial, and pointing the dangers of such an
interference of individattols ;
1 might have
quarrels as the
law is now said to permitt have given a use-
ful turn to the discussion but he preferred to treat
the question as one of British injustice to the Fede-
ral States and possible Federal resentment. That
great
we, in our ill-will to the Republic, are aiding
rebels in a piratical war against
it, and that we con-
sequently find to our cost that we have incurred its
anger, are the assertions by which Mr. Cobden hopes
to influence the British Parliament, and obtain a
revision of the law. But we need not say that this
is not the ground taken by Liverpool memo-
rialists, who look solely to he theconsequences of Chief
Baron Pollock's doctrine in case England shall at
any time be engaged in war, and who ask for a
change in the law, as a means of inducing the world
in general to agree to a principle more favourable
to belligerents possessing a large
i.mercantile marine. g
Whether the Chief Baron's be upheld or
not, it is perfectly clear thatrtuhlenForeign Enlist-
ment Act is a purely domestic enactment, intended
to bind Englishmen for the advantage of England,
and thin eo interpretation of it can givet cause of
All that
grievance to a foreign country. _ tAmerica
or any other Power can demand of the British Go-
vernment is that it shall not do, or
allow any British
subject to do, anything which is ry to inter-
national law. Mr. Seward or McrunAtrdaa I Adams hal., s no-
thing at all to do with the 59th of George 111.,
I
more than with the Act of Parliament which any
regu-
lates our street cabs. The Foreign Enlistment Act
gives no belligerent any right which he does not
derive from the doctrines which are accepted by
nations as binding on neutrals. The whole question,
then, is whether international law forbids a neutral
to build for a belligerent a ship which may be used
for warlike purposes. Now, without presuming to
anticipate the decision of the Court of Exchequer
next Michaelmas Term, we may say that the reason
of the case combines with high authorities in favour
of the affirmative. A ship is contraband of war,
but so are rifles, cannon, powder, lead, cordage, and
all other goods capable of being used in war. Yet
that these may be supplied by toe neutral to either
party without any breach of neutrality has never
been contested, except in an irritable moment by Mr
Seward last year, and even Mr. Seward did not per-
sist in an opinion which would have been contrary
to everything that has been written and acted upon
on either side of the Atlantic since his own nation
has been in existence. Our traders have sup-
plied both parties with rigid impartiality during
the present war, taking their chance of capture by
Federal or Confederate cruisers, which have an
equal right to seize a cargo destined for Charleston
and a cargo destined for New York. Do these
ships come under a prohibition which does not
apply to rifles and gunpowder ? We cannot see
it, and we believe that no case and no passage from
ratty legal writer has been cited to that effect, though
all the ingenuity of the Federal lawyers has been
at work. On the other hand, the terms of the Foreign
Enlistment Act, as well as the dicta of lawyers and
politicians, seem to indicate plainly that merely
building a ship and selling it unarmed to one belli-
gerent gives no ground of complaint to the other.
The words of the Foreign Enlistment Act are
"equip, fit out, or arm a ship or vessel." As the
Act was expressly intended to prevent anything
that might be " prejudicial to and tend to endanger
the peace and welfare of this kingdom," the absence
of any prohibition whatever as regards the building
or selling a vessel shows that the framers of that law
had no idea that such an Act could be made a griev-
ance by a foreign Power. The equipping and arm-
ing of a vessel makes the port of the neutral practi-
cally a belligerent port, and if the vessel be thus
equipped and armed it sets out at once a formidable
enemy, and gives a just ground of complaint to the
belligerent whom it attacks. Bat what identity is
there between such a case and that of a mere un-
armed vessel which is sold to a belligerent ? Such
a vessel leaves the neutral port unarmed and defence-
less ; it is just as easily captured as any other piece
of contraband goods ; as soon as it is three miles
from the neutral coast it may be seized by the enemy
taken into port, and condemned, even though it be
in the charge of a crew put on board by the builder,
and thougn it may claim to be neutral property.
It is precisely in the position of a cargo of gun-
powder or other material of war. The ship, the
guns, the powder may all be consumed with equal
legality by the neutral ; and it is the business of
the other belligerent to look sharply after such
specimens of contraband, and to prevent them
coming together in some foreign port, or on the high
seas, and by their combination constituting that
" equipped, armed, and fitted out" ship of war which
the Foreign Enlistment Act, as well as the princi-
ples of international law, forbids us to send out of
our ports. If this view of the subject be correct, it
is evident that, according to the doctrines of inter-
national law, as they are accepted at present, the
Federal Government has not the smallest ground of
complaint against this country. If our shipbuilders
sell vessels to the Confederates, the Northern officers
must try to get hold of them as they come out of the
Mersey, and before they take their armaments on
board. In default of such vigilance they must be
content to hear of a Confederate man-of-war cruis-
ing about in the Atlantic. As to Mr. Cobmuch
den's
course of argument, it is not likely to have
effect on the people of this country. With the usual
infelicity of his school, he appeals to the most un-
worthy motives. He would frighten us into chang-
ing our law by threatening us with the future ven-
geance of his American friends. If certain vessels
are allowed to sail, it " will probably lead to a rup-
ture between this country and the United States."
We are to consider the effee' of such a state of things
on the minds of the shipowners of New York and
Boston. The American Government has
ed shint
aepositions as to the value of each capturp
and cargo, and claims for the amount
"H haver e been
made on the English Government. Ma-
jesty's Government had refused to ademand could cknowledge these
claims, but some day when the
made most inconveniertly for the Government, the
result would probably be either humiliation or war."
We need hardly say that such considerations
will be treated very lightly by the British nation.
We take our stand on right and international law,
and if we have these on our side we care not
Cobden's
for the
resentment of any people whatever. Mr.
speech "called attention o the memor
whateverial of the
Liverpool merchants, but hatd nothing
do with it. These gentlemen do not assert that any
breach of international law has been committed by
the selling of ships, but they are alar at
how weak international law is, and they desire that
England shall call a Congress to change it. They
advise that the Foreign Enlistment Act shall be
made more stringent, and that then the Foreign-
office should endeavour to " secure the assent of the
Government of the United States of America, and
other foreign countries, to the adoption of similar
regulations in those countries also"--thus admitting
that even by the law of the United States the acts
which Mr. Cobden incriminates are perfectly
of t legalhe
We have no wish to dispute the proposition
Liverpool merchants, that the present, state of the
law gives advantages to a weak naval
State against
and may consequently be prejudicial
a strong one,
to England in some future war. But that is nothing
to the point. The question is what is the law, and it
is evident that the document on which Mr. Cobden
founded his speech expressly assumes the prihciple
against which he inveighs.
POST.—On the eve of the prorogation of Parlia-
ment the relations between Denmark and the
German Confederation certainly demanded a passe
ing word. Mr. Seymour Fitzgerald only ex-
pressed the sentiments entertained by the majority
of Englishmen when he deprecated any
Denmark attempt
by the German Powers t
through the medium of a Federal execution. It is
scarcely probable so long as a large proportion of
the Duchy of Schleswig are Germans, and so long
as that province remains aner integral portion d
exist of the
Danish Kingdom, that pfect oncord
between the latter and the great Federation of Cen-
tral Europe. Whilst Germans inhabit the Duchy
and supply a pretext for interference, and whilst
that Duchy, with its port of Kiel, remains an object
Of envy to the German Powers, Europe may expect
to hear from' time to time those demands made of
Denmark by the German Federation, which are spe-
cially characteristic of mighty States when address-
ing those which are comparatively weak. The sub-
ject matter of the dispute which has so frequently
j:eopardised the peace of the North of Europe may
bevel been, as Lord Palmerston yesterday observed,
ls ee of the most complicated which has ever nlyaged the attention of statesmen, and its originemaera;
possibly be concealed in the obscurity of
imes ; but, at all events, recent transactions have
ended so much to clear away complications and to
ispel obscurity, that it is by no means
anti
'flnecessary to
be either a profound statesman or a learnedumes to understand fully the merits of
true between the Danish monarchy and thethe exietie g
German
iet. It is so clearly the policy •
maintain unimpaired the independence an
of
dinte-
grity of the Danish Kingdom, that one might be

justified in treating with indifference threats which,
if carried into execution, would have the effect of
fighting up N war in which England would es.ur.di!.
b- round on the side 01 D. am :I.k . But, ue torte
(lately, the tone in which certain B- utsti STotteemt
14ve treated tne question at t.su, between D- ntpari,
-lid the Confederation has given rise abroad, to some
enable misconception. Oa risinv from a peru-
parus._ ',heated despatch which Earl Russell
sal of the ctn.._ '-h Government in the autumn
addressed to the Dan._
the question which
Commonsl a -
.esterd.ay by
owfaslasptut yearin ot ee might House woefl
Federal would
executiont. the
eMver.ntS.oFfittzhgeettahlrde—atWothaat lbne
Lord carriedhenceforth
Palmerston n u ?
the The German
i s reply
r Powersetaos s this
u i
wn ae
haveill set oanr
ns given
et hub, !el
for
tem pigtntoor
eDneencine necessary y c °bysis en'
armedciu
e
cinoegrcth e n
ornelsocte.a ny"
Ar
spect to these disputes, the Government to the policy and course of the Govertnamreelditesiinroro%
andtha if
that rightshoeny
attempts o t D emnemr
were
Denmark
made shouldto overthrow
r t,maintained,hrow
those
is
rights they would be resisted." This a clear outr-
spoken policy, of which there can be In no
itself lbappe
hension, and which will recommend to ever)
one. Denmark is not a large State, but it is as
sovereign and independent as _Russia ; whilst, as
the Premier observed, its geographical position ren-
ders it a matter of great importance to this country
that its rights should be secured. Since the I romul-
gation of the ordinance of the 30th March, giving
to the Duchy of Holstein a separate constitution, all
pretexts for interference by the Gorman Confedera-
tion in the affairs of the Danish monarchy has been
completely removed. England, said Lord Palmer-
ston, recognises the right of the Diet to exercise the
same control over the affairs of Holstein which they
are empowered to exercise over those of the other
States which constitute the Confederation:; but in
respect to Schleswig they were considered to have
no more right to interfere than in regard to any
independent State not a member of the Confedera-
tion. This is so indubitably true, that it is to be
regretted that Lord Palmerston entertained for a
moment the frivolous pretext under which the Diet
justify their interposition in respect to Schleswig.
" There are many Germans in Schleswig," said Lord
Palmerston, " and the Government held that the
German Confederation had a right to represent, if
such a case existed, that the German inhabitants
were not placed on an equal footing with the sub-
jects of Denmark." But is there not a fallacy
lurking under the expression, ' Germans 9" If by
that term was meant German subjects, then the
ground for interference by the German Power whose
subjects they were would be intelligible. But if by
the term is simply meant persons speaking the Ger-
man language, and possibly cherishing German
likings and German traditions, then the ground for
interference becomes so shadowy that if entertained,
and generally acted upon, there would be no end to
the complications to which it wuuld give rise. The
population of Schleswig, it is needless to say, are
Schleswigers and Danish subjects; sieve that Duchy
forms as intimate a part of Denmark as Ireland does
of the United Kingdom, and they can no more be
called Germans because they speak the German lan•
guage than Belgians can be called French because
they speak French. Without for one moment at-
tempting to j notify any distinctions which the Danish
Sovereign may draw between different classes of
his subjects, if any such distinctions exist, it is evi •
dently not open to a foreign Government to dictate to
him in the management of the affairs of his kingdom.
The Diet, indeed, confess that in regard to Schles
wig they are not entitled to interfere, and it ie
only in the Duchy of Holstein that they threaten a
Federal execution. But by the royal ordinance of
March last the Holsteiners are placed in a position
which leaves-them nothing to desire, and their pro-
tectors, the Gernian Powers, nothing to demand.
Hence the dissatisfaction of the latter at the pros-
pect of their sole ground for interference in the
affairs of Denmark being removed. In the course
of the spring several of the German powers " pro-
tested" against the course taken by the Danish So-
vereign in giving to his subjects in Holstein a
liberal constitution, and a Federal execution was as
usual threatened. The German Powers are, how-
ever, far from precipitate, and in the present condi-
tion of European affairs there is little probability of
the execution taking place. Lord Palmerston has
pledged the Government to make every effort to
retain this much vexed question within the field it
has so long occupied—that of diplomacy. He is
more sanguine about the results of friendly nego-
tiations than we are. As for the Danish Go
vernment, the course they have to follow is simple
enough. They cannot admit the principle of foreigi
interposttion in the conduct of their internal affairs.
On the other hand, we hope—though we doubt it
—that the German Powers will at length admit that
a common tongue and a common lineage do not give
them a right to prescribe the political privileges
which the subjects of a foreign State should receive
at the hands of their Sovereign.