The Sun.
London, England, 1863-11-27 00:00:00

THE SUN. LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, NOVEVIBER 27, 1863,

LAW INTELLIGENCE---This Day.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
(Before Mr, Baron Bramwell.)
WILKINS V. SMITH.

This was an action for libel brought by the plaintiff, the
proprietor of the refreshment rooms at the Peterborough
Railway station, against the Telegraph newspaper.
Mr. Hawkins and Mr. Keane were for the plaintiff, and
Mr. Sergeant Ballantine and Mr. F. H. Lewis for the de-
fendant.

Mr. Hawkins said the plaintiff claimed compensation and
damages for the injury he had sustained in consequence of
some comments of an unfair nature which had appeared in
defendant's newspaper. A special reporter from the
paper in question accompanied the Prince of Wales on
his journey to the north, and' the train stopping at
Peterborough station to take refreshment. On the pub-
lication of the report of the journey the following day the
special reporter said he trusted his royal highness had not
tasted the detestable pure sold at the Peterborough station,
and which was composed of a mixture of horsebeans, with
other such like delicacies. The plaintiff feeling naturally
indignant at such a reflection on the refreshments supplied,
wrote to the defendant complaining of the report,
and asking for an apology, when the following day an
announcement appeared in the Telegraph, stating that they
had been requested to state by Mr. Wilkins, that the soup
sold at the Peterborough station was not made of horse-
beans. Finding all attempts to obtain an apology vain, the
present action was brought. (The copies of the paper con-
taining the objectionable stricture and the announcement
mentioned, were put in and read.)
Mr. Sergeant Ballantine, for the defendant, argued that
although a misrepresentation respecting the ingredients of
the plaintiff's soup had been made by the gentleman en-
gaged to supply an account of the journey of his Royal
Highness the Prince of Wales to the north to one of the
newspapers, yet it was not of that damaging character
alleged by the plaintiff. The public, he contended, were
under a debt of gratitude to the press for the manner in
which a reform had been brought about in the hotel system.
Before the subject was put in its true light before the public
bills of inordinate length were the invariable result of any
person staying the shortest space of time at an English
hotel. But, thanks to the press, hotel bills had been
shortened, accommodation had improved; in fact, a com-
plete revolution had been the result of the comments made
upon the objectionable system, and now an altered state
of things was in existence. It appeared to him that the
most had been made of a very ridiculous mistake, and it
also seemed to him that some allowance ought to be made
for the disappointment that usually attends the first visit
of a traveller to a railway refreshment room, He would
not detain them. by describing the contents usually to be
found in those places—the antiquated and mathematically
cut sandwiches—(laughter)—the suspicious bits of
indestructible pork which might,
pie -- (laughter)—
it was true, fill up a vacuum, but which certainly
would obstinately resist digestion--(laughter) —he would
rather ask the jury their opinion of the soup usually sold
to cold and hungry travellers. He had never been to Peter-
borough, so his remarks did not apply to that particular
place ; but, speaking generally, he was sure that the man
who had once taken soup at a railway station would be
greatly indisposed to undergo the miseries of a second basin.
(Laughter.) Supposing a soup was made of horse beans,
he did not think it was the first article that
was manufactured, and of necessity, bad, because it was
made from somewhat coarse ingredients. To his mind it,
appeared that the flavouring was the principal thing—
(laughter) and although the plaintiff had called his cook
that important personage had not been asked of what the
identical soup prepared for royal travellers was composed.
(Laughter.) The whole matter he thought was perfectly
riaiculous, and he felt certain the jury would form a cor-
rect estimate of the damage the plaintiff had sustained for
the publication of the observations.
Baron Bramwell summed up the evidence.

The jury gave a verdict for the plaintiff with £25 of
damages.

DIVORCE COURT.
(Before Sir J. P. Wilde.)
BAILEY V. BAILEY.

Dr. Deane, Q.C., and Mr. Pritchard for the petitioner.

This was an undefended suit by Clara Bailey for a disso-
lution of marriage with her husband, Loyd George Peachey
Bailey, on the ground of cruelty and adultery, and also for
the custody of the children.
The parties were married at Hunstone, in Sussex, on March
10, 1852, and there were three children issueof the marriage,
two of whom are living. After the marriage they resided
at Brighton for four months, and then emigrated to Aus-
tralia, where they lived for several years. The ill-treat-
ment was alleged to have taken place as early as June,
1855, and amongst the different acts detailed was striking
or kicking the petitioner violently a week before her con-
finement with her first child. The object for which the
respondent, who was originally a wine merchant, went
to Australia having failed, the parties returned
to England at the end of the year 1862. The
respondent opened a confectioner's shop at 1, Duke-
street, Brighton, and in the beginning of 1863 he resumed
his violence. On one occasion he followed her to her bed-
room and struck her a violent blow on the back of the neck
which knocked her down and rendered her insensible. • She
was laid up for a considerable time afterwards from the blow
in question. On another occasion he tore her mantle to
pieces, and while she was washing a bottle in the kitchen
he came in and knocked it out of her hand, and flung the
piece at her. In the February following, while they were
at tea in the parlour, without any provocation, he took
the bottles and flung them at her one by one. He
was addicted to intemperance, and had threatened
to shoot her with a gun. The petitioner left her
husband on the 23d March last, and had not since returned
to cohabitation with him. The adultery was proved to
have taken place with different females at Brighton ; and
on one occasion, during the absence of his wife, the re-
spondent brought home a woman named Lee, who re-
mained in the house for an hour.
The petitioner and other witnesses were examined, whose
evidence fully proved the case,
The learned judge made the decree nisi., with costs, and
directed the petitioner to have the custody of the children
until further orders.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.

(Sittings in Nisi Prins, before Lord Chief Justice Cock-

burn and a special jury.)
SYSIK V. FRAZER AND ANOTHER.
The cross-examination of the plaintiff in this case (the
particulars of which will be found in another column of
The Sun), was proceeded with this morning. At its con-
clusion some friends of the lady were examined, who stated
that they had never known her to be guilty of anything
that could be considered the act of an insane person.
The case for the plaintiff was proceeding when we went
to press.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE—This Day.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

A PEST.---Dan Mahomed, a man of colour, who is well-
known to West•end tradesmen as a beggar, and about the
greatest pest in that line in the metropolis, was charged
before Mr. Yardley with wilfully demolishing two panes of
glass in the window of Mr. Feodor Leihtwitz, tobacconist,
of No. 3, Old Compton-street.
Mr. Leihtwitz was standing at his door yesterday after-
noon when the prisoner passed, and after going a short
distance rushed back. M. Leihtwitz, fearing the prisoner
was about to attack him closed the door, and the prisoner
finding he could not get into the shop broke two panes of
glass.

Mr. Yardley asked how many times the prisoner had
been in custody
Barnes, the gaoler, said at least twenty times---for ruf-
fianly and unprovoked assaults, stealing meat. publicans'
measures, begging, in fact, for nearly every offence, and he
spent the best part of his time in prison.
➢ir. Yardley committed the prisoner for two months'
with hard labour for the wilful damage.

Mr. James Spence, of Liverpool, on
Southern Independence.

Last night the City Hall of Glasgow was crowded to
excess by a promiscuous audience, including all the chief
business men, to hear an address on Southern independence
by Mr. James Spence, of Liverpool. Mr. James Hannan
was in the chair.

Mr. SPENcE, on rising, was received with loud cheers.
He said he appeared in answer to a requisition signed by
200 of the citizens of Glasgow, inviting him to address them
on the subject of Southern independence. It afforded him
the utmost pleasure in responding to the request. Glasgow
had a right to speak on such a subject, and any opinion it
might express on a matter on which it had means of infor-
mation, not common to the whole country, would carry
weight in every other part of the kingdom. Before enter-
ing on the subject, he proceeded to clear the way by re-
moving two misconceptions which existed in some minds,
He had no hostility to the Gjvernment of this country, and
while ho nenwunced this cruel and unjust war, whilst he
claimed for the Southerners that right of self-government
which we accord to every other powerful community, he
was no advocate or defender of slavery. He deplored it
for its own sake, and for the sake of the Southern people.
lie entertained the opinion held by many of the greatest men
the South had produced—viz., Washington, Jefferson,
Madison, and Clay—all of whom regarded slavery as an evil
to their country; and advocating the independence of the
South, amongst other benef ts which he believed it would

confer, he held it to be the only issue of this war that pro,
tnised a hope to the termination of the evil. He then
showed, from the early history of the Union, that its pre-
sent constitution not only originated in rebellion, but was
the fruit of a secession. He stated that the principle of the
present constitution was that each State was a sovereign
community, governing itself except in regard to those mat-
ters which, iu common with the rest, it committed to the
general government of the country. There was not a word
in the constitution to forbid any of the States retiring from
it as they had dyne from its predecessor. Hence the coer-
cion now attempted by the North had not only no warrant
in the constitution, but was the wrongful exercise of a power
which was deliberately excluded from it. lie affirmed not
only that secession was a just right of every State, but that
the ingenuity of man could not combine those sovereign
States into a Federal Republic without the right of seces-
sion. He did not advocate this principle of secession, he
was no believer in republics in any form, but right was right
and it' the American people thought proper to adopt certain
principles or forms of government, it was their duty now to'
accept the consequences. The Southern States had not only
a right of accession inherent in the Federal compacts, but
they had the same right from a still higher source, the da,
claration of independence, the fountain head of American
political principles. Ho then quoted Abraham Lincoln's
justification of Western Virginia receding from the rest of
that state, and asserted that any one who sought would find
an authority for the very grossest form either of rebellion or
secession in Mr. Lincoln. Thus the Southern States had
right upon their side ; they simply do what the Northern
slaveowners did before them, and have taught them to ad-
mire ever since. But it might be asked whether, admitting
the right, there was sufficient ground to exercise it. H e
then recited the causes which had led to secession, laying
stress on the fact that the people of the North and South
are distinct from and antagonistic to each other. The North
preached religious liberty, and practised it by persecuting
and slaying all who differed from themselves. In like man-
ner they were the first to threaten secession; they were the
first who took measures to secede; but now that others fol-
low their example, and they lose by it, they deem it the
deadliest of sins. This was not an attempt to cut one na •
time into two, but to compel two nations to be one. The
fact that the Southerners ate another people, and the na-
tural desire which it created to have an existence and
government of their own, that was the cause of this convul-
sion ; but there was another, in the conviction which had
long pervaded the South that the Union was worked to
the profit of the North and their own loss. Some might be
surprised that he did not mention slavery as one of the causes
of secession. The very smallest reflection ought to show
any one who took the trouble to reflect that slavery, so far
from being a cause, was the strongest of all possiblereasons
against secession. He then went on to show that in all the
other cases of war or threatened war in America slavery had
no part, and asserted that if slavery was the first object of
Southern thought, they would have clung to the Union
with the most desperate tenacity, but some might ask, Was
not slavery declated to be the corner-stone of the. Southern
Confederacy ? That was a popular and parrot cry of the
Northern advocates. It was true that a Southern orator said
that the difference of race and the inferiority of one race to
another was the corner-stone of the system ; but did they
ever before hear of such a thing as taking a metaphorical
expression of an orator and fixing it on 8,000,000 of people ?
Leaving metaphor for fact, every man knew where to find
the corner-stone of any confederacy. There was but one
thing to which that epithet would apply, and that was its
constitution. Now, in the constitution of the Southern
States there was not a single principle in support of slavery
which was not in the old one. Strange to say the only new
principle was opposed to slavery, and that was the absolute
prohibition of the slave trade. There was not one word in
it to prevent any State freeing its slaves, and remaining a
member of the Confederacy as before. What did they think
of the capacity of those who took up the sound of a phrase,
and had not the penetration to discern the sense of it, and
the limits of its application ? There was another question,
Was it true that this war was carried on by the North in
order to free the slaves ? Now, it was true there was a small
band in the North of fanatical men who had made this sub-
ject a passion, and who, to gratify that selfish passion, were
not only hounding on this bloodshed, but were ready to
exterminate men of their own race, and to level every re-
straint of law and humanity in order to carry out their ends,
But these men were a mere handful of the 21 millions
in the North. The infinite majority regarded the negro
with aversion, and maintained the war, some for the sake
of Southern trade, some because they feared that separation
now would lead to other divisions in the future, but by far
the greatest number because, under the pernicious moral
effects of the Union, boastful ambition had become the
leading characteristic of the Federal mind; and as their
idea of greatness was the gross idea of greatness in size,
they shrink from this reduction of dominion. Could there
be any possible doubt on that point ? Mr. Lincoln never
wielded despotic power over what were called the Free
States. If his objects were to free the slaves, would he not
proceed with those who were within his reach ? He had all
the slaves in Delaware,Maryland, Missouri, Kentucky, ab-
solutely in his power. Why did he not tree them ? They
were told the constitution stood in the way ; that was a
miserable excuse. The constitution might be laughed at
when Lincoln wanted to imprison men, but it must be re-
spected when he wished to free them. But though he would
not free those within his reach he was quite ready to free all
who were beyond it. Those were the
principles, this the
style of virtue they ware to sympathise with and admire.
He characterised Lincoln's celebrated emancipation procla-
maticn as a complete farce, and then asked the meeting to
consider the subject of slavery, not as ranting declaimers
but as thoughtful men. It was a great, terrible fact
4,000,000 of negroes—and the people of this country took
these negroes from Africa to slavery in America. How was
this evil to be removed ? Certainly not in the philanthropic
manner proposed by the North of setting at liberty men
who were powerless to make their way 5n the world; but in
his judgment, the first step to terminate this evil was the
independence of the South. Ihe problem, how to effect a
change in the condition of so vast a multitude without
anarchy or industrial paralysis, was the largest and moat
difficult ever presented to the mind of the statesman.
When he reflected on the wonders the people of the South
had aecompllshed, when he considered how they had raised
and equipped great armies, how they had created manu•
ctu
calmnessres, or
in that
the senate, what heroism in the field,
he was convinced they were equal to this further task.
What ended slavery amongst ourselves ? Had the people of
fa
sena,
self-devotion they had displayed, what
France invaded us to force emancipation upon us, should
we have assented ? Nay, they knew better. In that case we
should probably have been slaveowners to this day. It was
ended under a 'calm conviction of duty. Carry that convic-
tion to the Southern mind, and they would gather the same
fruit. He thought, in considering the question of inde-
pendence, they must also weigh the consequences of the
other issue. He held that the first result of Northern sue-
coos would be a war with this country, which would be most
disastrous to ourselves. The independence of the South
appeared to him to be essential to the well-being of the whole
American people, and the prolonged continuance of the
war would be fraught with great evil, both of which points
he 'illustrated at some length, and vividly portrayed the
terrible effect of its prolongation on the Americans of both
sections, and asking what could be done to end that mass of
evil. They could at least make the attempt to do some-
thing. Neutrality did not necessitate inaction, Ho did
not urge recognition, but whathe did urge was that Govern-
ment should enter into relations with the other Powers of
Western Europe, and in their united wisdom decide as to
the measures to be taken. Our inaction was, indeed, con-
venient at the moment, and saved responsibility and excused
irresolution. This country did not attain its place among
nations by a policy of hiaction. It was not by doing
nothing that we were ourselves what we are, and our emi-
nence would hardly be maintained if we were always to
leave it to another Power to regulate the destinies of the
world. It was the duty of this country not to follow, but
asmen to hold out a hand when
the voice of outraged humanity implored it. It was our
auk) es politicians to consider the balance
duty a
ns , and
ef poweritthe
New World as well as the Old. It was our citizens
to lead. It was our duty,country,
to give some regard to the interests this
ot
try
the danger threatening it in future. i f
was a duty wo owed
ipsr ec
suendt rbyy, a
the desire for self-government
to our traditions to respect the
it was a duty which
expressed
by wh
ich
they tempest
powerfulparent of
eAopinlee.rican,dowed to its descend..
ants to make an effort to assuage
the blessings of peace
they were tern, and restore to them
eve endure and that
lie concluded amid
was the independence of the South'
loud applause. 11 received and a f
The lecture having been very we
livered the' vast a few
ssem-
questions having been put and ens
blage broke up.

A NEW THEATRE at Alexandria, with accommo.
modation for 1,500 people, and with two tiers of homes, is
to be opened in December with Italian orera.

Uncle Baby, or (shall we say) the Born Idiot,

Under the title of " Shadows," &c., we find the
following amusing sketch, in the newly published
number of Punch :
Enter now our Theatrical Shadows, and at once we take
off our hat to Mr. Fechter, expressing a hope that his Thea-
trical Shadow may never grow less i The romantic melo-
drama "Bel Domenic.," has been preceded by a charming
little piece, entitled " Uncle Baby." Any one with the
slightest pretension to taste in theatrical matters ought to
go early and see " Uncle Baby." For the benefit of those
who, either by reason of a light dinner or dyspepsy, circum-
stances over which they have no control, may be prevented
from witnessing this truly delightful comedietta, we will
attempt to give some slight notion of the plot, dialogue, and
interesting situations.

The curtain rises r.p_d discovers Miss Carlotta Leclercq,
dressed as Mary (shall we say Mary? very well), and
seated at a desk. Miss Leclercq looks at the audience, and
everybody cheers enthusiastically for about the space of two
minutes, by Mr. Barnett's, the acting-manager's, watch.
When this has subsided the play begins in earnest.

Mary (putting some money in a secret drawer)—Abl
for these many years-

(Goes on saying something which evidently affects her
deeply, but which is totally inaudible in the gallery, and
not heard in the other part of the House, in consequence of
there being some confusion in the Box keepers' mind as
to the precise numbering of the seats.)
Enter Mr. SHORE, lightly.

(He is supposed to be in love with Mary—Shall we call
him Arthur ? we never heard his name and it wasn't in the
bills : —very good then, Arthur be it.)
Arthur (aside)—Ah, she little knows who's down-stairs.
(Aloud.) Mary I
Mary (turns suddenly and almost crying)—Arthur I
(Pouts.) How you frightened me.
[Looks at the carpet and pouts again.
Arthur (who evidently has very limited ideas on any sub-
ject—aside)—Sho little knows who's down-stairs. (Aloud.)
Mary I
[MIRY pouts and locks up sixpence in a secret drawer.
Arthur (opening a door—aside)—She little knows who is
down-stairs.