The Sun.
London, England, 1865-12-08 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, DECEMBER 8, 1865.

harmoniously in the public interest with the Common
Council, and that to enlarge its numbers in the
manner proposed would go to impair its efficiency
by rendering it unwieldy. _ _ _ _

The debate was eventually adjourned, the Lord
Mayor undertaking to convene a special meeting on
an early day for its continuance.

THE LATE LORD PAL3IERSTOIsr.

From its position on the paper of business the
Court did not reach the motion of Mr. Rudkin for
referring it to the City Lands Committee to consider
what mark of respect should be paid by the Cor-
poration to the memory of the late Viscount Pal-
merston.
The Court then adjourned.

Sunday Opening of Museums and Galleries

--di--

A meeting of working men was held yesterday
evening in St. Martin's Hall, to advocate the open-

ing of the British Museum and public galleries to
the people on Sundays. The hall was quite filled.
The chair was taken by Sir J. Walmsley, who re-
ceived a most enthusiastic greeting, mixed with
some dissent.

Sir J. WALMSLEY, in opening the proceedings,
said that although announced as chairman on the
placard, he should be most willing to give way to
any one else they might select. (A universal accla-
mation at once confirmed his chairmanship.) He
remindedthem how longhe had beenknown to work-
ing men, and he appealed to them whether he had
ever acted otherwise than impartially in the chair.
(Cheers.) He was informed that the meeting con-

sisted mainly of friends of the working classes.
(Hear, hear, No, no, and confusion.) He under-
stood it included delegates from all the trades of
London (Tremendous cheers, No, no, and confusion).
The meeting had been called in consequence of asser-
tions which had been made in other places, to ascer-
tain whether or nc the working men were in favour
of opening our public galleries and museums in the
afternoon of Sunday, the only day—(great cheering,
hissing, exclamations, cries of " Turn him out,"&c.)
—whether the working men--(order)—whether the
working men of this metropolis were in favour of
—(order, cheers, question, hisses, no, no). The first

:ping they wanted to know was whether the work

ing men were in favour of a religious moral oppor-
tunity to enjoy the Sabbath, or whether they were
willing to submit to a small section of the commu-
nity. (Tremendous cheers, and cries of " Turn
out the city missionaries.") He believed that the
objects of the Sunday League were in unison with
the feelings of the great mass of the community.
(The uproar here became so general that nothing
reached the reporters from the platform for several
minutes. After a lull Sir Joshua resumed.) He
believed that the principles of the league were con-
sistent with the true tenents of Christianity. (More

uproar, during which the chairman resumed his
seat), and
Mr. T. HUGHES, M.P., came forward to implore
a hearing for both sides of the question. The meet-
ing, he thought, seemed inclined to hear neither
side. (That's it.) He suggested that they should
hear what the Sunday League had to say, and then
he had no doubt he and others would in their turn
get a fair hearing.
The CHAIRMAN resumed. He had been saying
that the objects of the Sunday League were consis-
tent with the pure tenets of Christianity. (No, no.)

He did not ask them to believe—he believed it. He

believed that the opening of the British Museum
would be a boon to the artisan. (A scuffle at the
lower end of the room here turned all attention from
the platform.) He understood that persons were
present who differed from him, and be trusted they
would come forward and show him his errors. He
knew there were men who would make the Sabbath

what it was in days of old, namely, an oppression.
(Cheers.) A pharisaical hypocrisy had fenced the
Sabbath about until it looked like a religion, but was
with them, in reality, a vice and an oppression. He

was bound to say, on behalf of the Sunday
League, that the working men of London were the
first to commence the league. (" No such thing.")
Yes, and they were the first to announce their

grievance, and their announcement led to the peti-
tion to the House of Commons. (Much interrup-
tion and cheering.)
Mr. LANGLEY rose, and was received with mingled
cheers and disapprobation. After considerable con-
fusion and interruption, Mr. Langley was allowed
to defend himself from the imputation of having
misrepresented the working classes to Earl Gran-
ville. The question was whether he was to be
charged with deliberate lying, or whether Mr.
Murphy and his friends had misrepresented him.
Mr. Murphy and his friends had asserted that the
Sunday League did not, in asking for the opening
of public places on the Sabbath, fairly represent the
working men. Now, what were the facts ? In 1864
the Sunday League invited all the trades to send
delegates to meet them at the Whittington Club.
About 60 came, and many more were prevented at-
tending by unavoidable circumstances. (Interruption
and cheers, the Rev. Newman Hall having appeared
on the platform.) The delegates present were una-
nimous in pronouncing in favour of the principles
of the Sunday League. (Cheers and dissent.) There
were represented at the meeting carpenters, tailors,
turners, watchmakers ; in short, every one of the
working trades. The way in which Mr. Murphy
and his friends met this was to put up a single tailor
or carpenter, who said, "I know nothing of that
deputation ; I'm not represented:" It was, then,
Mr. Murphy and his friends who were guilty of mis-
representation. (Cheers and hisses.) Mr. Langley
continued, amid incessant interruption, to defend
the Sunday League, and was proceeding to quote
some observations which had been made by Mr.
Whitmore, when that gentleman suddenly appeared
in front of a gallery and received a tremendous ova-
tion from his frit nds. For some moments the question
with the meeting seemed to be, " Whitmore or no
Whitmore," and the noise reached its climax when
Mr. Whitmore descended from the gallery, and,
accompanied by some friends, made his appearance
on the platform.
Mr. LANGLEY continued—The Rev. Newman
Hall condemned the way in which he (Mr. Langley)
had been treated at Lambeth Baths.
Rev. NEWMAN HALL—What he had said was—

(hear, hear, cheers, question, hisses, knocking of
sticks against the floor, &c.) He wanted to hear
both sides. Mr. Langley had misunderstood him.
What he said was that the meeting at the Baths
should have given him (Mr. Langley) a hearing.
If any one in that meeting was his friend, let them
keep good order. If there were costermongers from
the New-cut, let them be quiet ; if they were Chris-
tians, let them keep quiet. A sudden expression of
opinion was justifiable, but this continued interrup-
tion was irrational.
Mr. LANGLEY proceeded to defend himself and
the Sunday League. Mr. Whitmore had accused
him of being opposed to the half-holiday movement,
but he emphatically denied the-accusation. He had
always been an advocate for shortening the hours of
labour, and was not going to " iat" then ; what he
had said was that if the Saturday half-holiday
movement prevented the opening of the museums
on Sundays, the Sunday League could not support
it. The petitions against the opening of public
galleries on Sundays to the House of Commons
were thus described in the report of the petitions
committee. They were signed first by Sunday
school children. (Great interruption and cheers.)
Secondly, Sunday school teachers. Were these
working men ? (" Yes," " No," cheers, hisses.)
But the worst was yet to come. The committee
cp eas
reported that in all these petitions the first ten
signatures were genuine, and all that followed
werea in thec c
onl annileod handwriting.atioofLondon
(Great co nf usion
and cries of " Time.") rtrhhee e
he humur?crahcsl: g
ooand
h
population, and the question which the Sunday
League asked was what was to be done on Sundays
with the remainder. (Hear, hear.) Mr. Langley
concluded with a short recapitulation of his argu-
ments, and contended that he had defended the
Stinday League triumphantly against all the charges
which had been made against it. Mr. Langley re-
sumed his seat amid great cheering.
who was much cheered, said
htiae:helarad.
statement been HUGHES,summoned 3mimade
e byto m
him toeeLtil tc:GT-.anatbsvtiilaine-,
when introducing a deputation ~frown ilia own

bormigh to that noble lord. He did not acknow-
ledge the right of the Sunday League to summon

him, but as he felt the great importance of the ques-
tion at issue, he had come there that evening. He
must however remark, at the outset, that the autho-
rities of the Sunday League had done a strange thing
and one which he thought unjustifiable, in adver-
tising.his promise to attend:as though he were coming
by his own desire, and to their support. Such a
statement could only be misleading. He was come

there on a summons to substantiate a statement made
by him, and that he was now prepared to do. (Hear,
hear, and some interruption.) He must, however,
first express his own regret at the spirit in which
both the League and their opponents carried on this

struggle. Here was a grave question on which the
working people of London differed strongly. That

was all fair enough, as the question of opening the
Museum and other public collections on Sundays
had two sides, each of which may be honestly held

by reasonable men. But it would seem that they
could not differ without making bitterly personal
attacks on each other, and bandying about accusa-
tions of lying and trickery, which could only exas-
perate opponents without forwarding their own
cause. One side seemed to him just as bad as the
other in this respect. He was going to tax the
working people themselves with it, but he found
others at the head of this agitation in a higher sta-
tion of life, and really they ought to see that the
contest was carried on with 'decent courtesy.
Strong words don't make a strong case. (Hear.)
And now as to the matter iu contest. He would
say at once that he was not a Sabbatarian.
He believed that the Sabbath was made for man,
and nDt man for the Sabbath. But he was equally
sure ',that Sunday should be a day of rest. (Loud
cheers.) In this great city nine-tenths of us are
overworked, and we want rest, lawyers and states-
'men as much as working men. What is rest, then ?
Well, he himself found the only real rest in worship
and in family life. But he had no wish to bind
others—some men might find rest in walking in the
country, in botanising, or geologising, or reading
books unconnected with their regular work, or in
looking at pictures._ He had no objection to any of
these, or to any other occupation not immoral,

though he had his own strong conviction that those
who went altogether without worship would get no
true rest for mind, body, or spirit. (Hear, hear.)
He came, therefore, to the consideration of the
question quite unbiassed. All he wanted was that
Sunday should be a day of rest to our overworked
people. Ile had tried to look at the question from
the working man's point of view, and he had done
his best to find out what the real feelings and wishes
of the majority were in this matter. After inclin-
ing some years ago to the view taken by the Sunday

League, he had come round to the belief that the
majority of the working classes in London do not
wish for the opening of the British Museum and
other national collections on Sundays—that they
are very anxious for the opening of them on the
evenings of week days, and for some shortening of
the hours of labour (cheers)—that they believe
that the agitation for opening on Sundays dimi-
nishes the chance of getting work-day openings—
that if Government sets the example by opening
public institutions, employers will cite and act on
the example, and the end will be seven days
a week work instead of six days. (Loud cheers.)
He was not saying whether these beliefs were right
or wrong, but only that to the best of his
judgment these were their beliefs. This was the
statement he made to Lord Granville, and he would
now give the evidence on which be grounded
it. (Hear, hear.) Mr. Hughes then proceeded
to state the experience of his canvass in Lam-
beth, where at every meeting the question was
raised, and invariably decided against opening on
Sundays. He had presided in August at a great an-
nual meeting of cabmen, in November at a large
meeting of signalmen and switchmen ; both these
bodies were vehement opponents of the Sunday
opening as leading to Sunday work. The Early
Closing Association were also unanimously in favour
of week-day openings, and against the movement for
opening on Sunday. Lastly, he had talked with
many working men, whom he knew well and could
depend upon, and had received letters from others,
all leading to the same conclusion, and thus he sub-
stantiated the statement made to Lord Granville.
lie was quite ready to admit, however, that there
was a respectable minority amongst the working
people of the other way of thinking, and they had a
right to be heard. All he hoped was that in future
both sides would carry on the contest (unless indeed
they could learn to agree, which would be far the
best plan) without calling names or imputing mo-
tives, or charging each other Aid' lying and forgery.
(Cheers and dissent.)
Mr. WRIGHT, chairman of delegates, confirmed
Mr. Langley's statements as to the representative
character of the Sunday League. ( The conduct of
the meeting here became almost riotous, knots were
formed in various corners, many persons left the
room, and shouts were given for various names.) We
gathered from Mr. Wright's observations that the
trade societies represented the working men of Lon-
don, and that the trade societies supported the Sun-
day League. He concluded by moving a resolution
, to the effect that the metropolitan members be
requested to move in Parliament for a committee to
ascertain the real feeling of the working men on
the Sunday question.
Mr. UPSHAW seconded the resolution.
Mr. G. M. MURPHY rose to move an amendment,

but the demonstrations in the body of the hall be-
came so noisy that his observations were not heard.
Mr. Newman Hall and several of the more re-
spectable occupants of the platform beat a hasty re-
treat. The Chairman appealed in vain for a hearing
for Mr. Murphy, who was at last obliged to resume
his seat. The meeting now began to disperse ra-
pidly, but it was understood that the original reso-
lution was carried.

this city. On the evening of Sunday the 15th Oc-
tober, about 11 o'clock, he was passing along George
Leigh-street, when he saw the prisoner and five or
six others standing on the opposite side of the street.

The prisoner was ill-using awornan, and prosecutor
spoke to him on that subject. Prisoner knocked
him down, and a struggle ensued between them, in
the course of which Foster was kicked on the back

and the head and his watch torn from his pocket
by the prisoner. All the men then ran away. The
prisoner was apprehended, and the watch was found
on him. The prosecutor said the watch had been
sent to him as a present from America ; it could not
have fallen from his pocket. The prisoner, who
denied the robbery, was found guilty, and sen-
tenced to penal servitude for twenty years, the
Judge remarking that this was an offence which
must be put down.
John Smith, 20, was indicted for garotte rob-
bery. Mr. Watson prosecuted; Mr. Torr defended.
The prosecutor, Mr. Jacob Sneidman, was, about
half-past eleven o'clock on the night of the 6th of
October, going home along Deansgate. At the

corner of -Cumberland-street he passed four men.
He had proceeded only a few yards when he felt
himself seized from
.behind; an arm was passed
round his neck, a hand put over his mouth, and his

arms and legs were held. While he was held in
that way a hand was thrust into his pocket, and he
was robbed of all the money he had in his posses-
sion. That being done the prosecutor was knocked
down, and his assailants ran away. He kept
sight of the prisoner whom he followed, and who
was apprehended in Jackson's-row. Mr. Torr, in
defence, raised a question as to the identity. The
jury found the prisoner guilty. Sentence was post-

poned.
Zachariah Logworth, 25, and Ann Gleeson, 25,
were indicted for a street robbery. Mr. Torr pro-
secuted ; the prisoners were defended by Mr. S.
Pope and Mr. llalsall. The prosecutor, Richard
Woods, lives at Wigan. and on the 31st of August
he went to a testimonial festivity at Bolton. About
midnight he stopped to speak to the woman Glee-
son ; the man came up, assaulted him and robbed
him of several articles of apparel, a knife, and a
shilling. The defence was a denial of the identity,
and witnesses were called to the character of Log-
worth.—The jury convicted both the prisoners.—
Sentence was postponed.
William Green, 23, was indicted- for having
violently assaulted Patrick I(ilgarry, and robbed
him of 7s. 6d. in money.—Mr. AFhworth prose-
cuted.—This robbery was committed between ten
and eleven in the day. The prosecutor was on his
way to market when he met the prisoner and three
other men. They offered to treat him, but he re-
fused to accompany them. They, however, pulled
him through a public-house called the Market
Vaults, in Manchester, into the yard at the rear,
where they robbed him.—The jury convicted the
prisoner, who pleaded guilty to a previous convic-
tion, and the Judge said he had been convicted six
times.—Sentence was postponed.
Arthur Pattison, 19, a lad of respectable appear-
ance, and described in the caler@ar as well educated,
pleaded guilty to having, at Manchester, on the
night of the 18th of October, committed a burglary
at the dwelling-house of James Sorbie, and stolen
therefrom 12 forks, 18 spoons, and other articles.—
Mr. Jordan addressed the Court in mitigation of
punishment.—The prisoner was sentenced to three
months' imprisonment.
Simon Hogan, 31, and Michael Corner, 19, were
indicted for burglary.—Mr. Hopwood prosecuted;
Mr. TOrr defended the prisoner Comer.—The pro-
secutor, Matthew Martin, is a tin-plate worker,
living in Ashley-lane. About two o'clock on the
morning of the 2d of October, he was sitting in
the kitchen with his son-in-law, when he heard a
knock at his door. He went up stairs, looked
out of the window, and saw about fourteen men.
He refused to open the door, which they forced
open. A number of the men, including the pri-
soners, rushed in, seized the prosecutor, searched
him, and took from him what little money he had.
Martin's daughter, hearing the noise, came down
stairs ; she was also seized. Hogan held her by the
throat while she was robbed. When the men left
the house Martin went to look for the police. He
overtook the men, who again held him and searched
his pockets. The defence was that the men went
to Martin's house to play cards with him.—Mr.
Torr submitted to the Jury that Corner's identity
was not satisfactorily established, and called wit-
nesses as to his character.—The jury acquitted them
of the burglary, but found them guilty of larceny.
They recommended the younger prisoner to mercy.
Sentence was postponed.
The Court was occupied during the remainder of
the day in disposing of cases of criminal assault.
Arthur Peel, charged with the offence at Rochdale,
on, the 4th of September, was acquitted. Thomas
Scragg, charged with the offence at Stalybridge, on
the 28th of August, was acquitted of the felony,
but pleaded guilty to the attempt, and was sen-
tenced to six months' imprisonment.
Nisi PRIUS COURT.
(Befor Mr. Baron Pigott.)
ACCIDENT AT.TIIE VICTORIA RAILWAY STATION.

11r: Pope, with Mr. Edwards, appeared for the
plaintiff ; and Mr. Aspinal, with Mr. Littler, for
the defendants.—This was a special jury case.—The
action was brought to recover compensation for in-
jury done to the plaintiff on the 6th of June, while
the plaintiff was working at the Victoria ailway
Station, Manchester. On the day named a number
of Messrs. Fairbairn's workmen were erecting an
iron bridge in the place of the old Ducie bridge,
across the Lancashire and Yorkshire end of the sta-
tion, and by which the traffic would pass from
Cheetham Hill to the city, through Corporation-
street. The plaintiff was one of these workmen, his
earnings at that time being about 255. or '26s. a
week, but ordinarily only 18s. About half-past 8
o'clock in the morning he was standing between one
of the lines of rail and a temporary platform, when
he was struck by one of the London and North-
Western trains coming down the incline from York-
shire. One of the buffers struck him on the side,
he was carried about 40 yards and the engine was
brought to a standstill about 60 or 70 yards from
the bridge. The plaintiff was taken to the Royal
Infirmary, and he had not been able to work since.
His loins were lacerated and his left hand was so
seriously injured that it was found necessary to
amputate three fingers. It was alleged for the plain-
tiff that the defendants' engine was goinc, at the
rate of 15 miles an hour, which was said to be much
too rapid for a crowded station with a number of
workmen employed at its entrance. It was also
stated that when the works were commenced, the
engines were in the habit of stopping before they
' reached the bridge, and when the workmen had
got off the road the train proceeded slowly into
the station. A, number of the plaintiff's fellow-
workmen were also in danger when the train
which caused the accident approached them, but
they heard it and were able to get out of danger.
The plaintiff did not hear it, nor did he hear any
whistle ; and further, when he was struck by the
engine he was in the act of lifting a plank, which
greatly hampered his movements. The strongest
evidence for the plaintiff as to the conduct of the de-
fendants' engine driver was the testimony of a plate-
layer, who was working on the main line, a short
distance beyond the bridge, and nearer Miles Plat-
ting. He said that the driver did not whistle, nor
slacken his speed; witness therefore shouted to the
workmen at the bridge, but they would not have
time to get out of the way before the engine was
upon them. Several other witnesses stated that the
train was going unusually rapid, but one of them
estimated its speed at about six miles an hour.—Mr.
Walker, the senior house-surgeon at the Royal In-
firmary, stated that the wound in the plaintiff's
loins was large enough to admit ore's hand, and that
when the plaintiff was admitted to the infirmary,
witness thought he would not recover.—The de-
fence was that the company should not be held re-
sponsible if the plaintiff contributed to the danger,
and that the plaintiff, working in a dangerousplace,
ought to have kept a look-out. The driver of the
engine stated that he came down the incline slower
than usual, without steam, at not more than six miles
an hour. He saw the plaintiff when he was about
40 yards off, and he blew his engine whistle, turned
on the brake, reversed the engine, and put off the
steam, in order the sooner to bring the train to a
standstill. He admitted, in cross-examination by
Mr. Pope, that thongli the train was not going
more than six miles an hour, the train was not
brought to a stand still till it had got 60 yards
below the bridge, or about 100 yards from the
point were he reversed the engine. Other witnesses
confirmed the driver's siatemeuts as to the speed
and the slackening of the train, and as to the use of
the whistle. The jury found a verdict for the
plaintiff for £2OO.
THE LONDON AND NORTHERN BANK V. POGSON AND
ANOTHER.

Mr. Temple, Q.C., with Mr. Holker, appeared
for the plaintiffs ' • and Mr Pickering, Q.C., for the
defendants ; and the case was tried by a special
jury. The action was brought to recover £BO 9s.
on a four months' bill of exchange, drawn and en-
dorsed in December, 1863, by the defendants, who
were machine makers at Holmsfirth, and accepted
by Mr. P. H. Moorhouse,. of Thurlstone, near Hud-
dersfield. The case was very -unimportant ; and
the only point in it was whether, when the bill be-
came due, the acceptor, -who shortly afterwards
made an assignment, renewed it in blank. The ar-
gument for the defendants was that the bill had
been renewed, and that the plaintiffs, who dis-
counted the first bill at their Huddersfield branch,
had possession of the renewing document, which
Moorhouse's insolvency had since rendered worth-
less. The plaintiffs' reply to this was, that though
they had the renewed bill, their manager only got it
into his PossesEiOrt when he heard that Moorhouss

was trying to cash it, the managers' object
being to prevent two bills running at the
same time for the same transaction. The manager
showed by his books that he never entered the re-
newed bill to Moorhouse's account, or sent the docu-
ment to London, and that when it became due he
never gave notice about it, because it was a worth-
less document. He held the defendants liable for
the first bill, and brought the present action to re-
cover upon it. The evidence of one of the defend-
ants, in support of the point urged by the counsel,
as to the renewal of the bill by Moorhouse, was so
strong, that on the Judge suggesting an adjourn-
ment of the hearing till to-day, they stated that
their minds were made up, and on each side con-
senting to their verdict without going further into
the case, the Jury found for the defendants. The
jury accompanied their verdict with the opinion that
the way the bank manager dealt with the renewed
bill was not business-like.

The Court rose shortly before six o'clock, and
will sit to-day at ten.

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

TIMES.—The most virtuous of JUdges feels his
severity relaxed when a criminal pleads guilty al-
most before he is arraigned. At times, indeed, the

thorough-going English lawyer experiences a tran-
sient annoyance to think that the battle should be
given up before it is begun ; but this sentiment
generally gives way to pity for the unfortunate
wretch who could be guilty of such a weakness as
to give it at once. He might have made a good

fight ; and, at all events, he had all the chances in
his favour which intricate procedure and the neces-

nary rigidity of rules of evidence give every prisoner;
but, instead of that, he comes into court crying out
hiS guilt, and begging that his fate may be swiftly
decided by sentence. It is evident that the man's
nerve is gone, his spirit is broken, his heart is cowed,
and the only thing to be done with him is to send
him back as quickly as possible to his cell and the
chaplain. We feel like a disappointed Judge in
receiving the annual Report of the Commissioners
of Woods and Forests. They are, doubtless, ex-
cellent people in private life, these Commissioners,
beloved' by their friends and hated by a proper
number of enemies, but in their public and official
capaeity they have somehow a bad name. Something
more than a suspicion of jobbery and extravagance

hangs over their administration of the land revenues
of the Crown. All sorts of queer stories of leases

hastily granted at nominal rentals have been charged
.against them at one time or another, and people are
apt to suspect that where there is so much smoke
there must be some fire. The Commissioners them-

selves are painfully conscious of the accusations that
have been made against them. They have issued a
report which is absolutely plaintive in itd character.
They begin by describing the circumstances of their
origin. This is a matter of course ; every unhappy
criminal has some unhappier parents on whose bad
training he may throw the responsibility of his mis-
spent life. The .present Commissioners acquired an
independent existence in 1851. Before that time
they formed a part of a larger body, which super-
intended the Public Works as well as the Woods
and Forests, and the First Commissioner of this
composite Board was always a political personage,
who went in and out of office with the Ministers of
the Crown. The united Commission failed, how-

ever, to give satisfaction to the public. It managed
a large property, and was in receipt of a considerable
income, but a very small balance found its way into
the Exchequer. It was impossible to prevent the
First Commissioner from obliging his friends, and
the money which flowed in from land revenues on
the one hand was spent so easily on Public Works
with the other, that at last a Committee of the House
of Commons plucked up courage to recommend a
severance of the functions which were so unprofit-
ably united. A new Commission of Woods and
Forests was appointed, having for its sole duty the
charge of the landed estates of the Crown, and this
-is the Commission which now comes into court. But

who can escape at once from the taint of his origin
Elereditary propensities will break out, and the new
Commission did not find it easy to discontinue
immediately the pleasant practices of its predecessor.
The Commissioners had scarcely been in office a year
when the Montagu House scandal showed how easy
it was to relapse from the paths of virtue, and
divers other little arrangements which have since
been effected prove their continued peccability. But
the Commissioners, though deploring the frailty of
Commissions, and pleading by way of extenuation
tic bad example they had in their preeecessors,
claim the merit of some good deeds for themselves.
In the year which ended on the 31st of March, 1851,
the last complete financial year before the separa-
tion of the Departments of Works and of Woods and
Forests, the gross income of the latter Department
was £341,025 9s. 6d., and in the year ended the
31st of March, 1865, the gross income had grown to
£441,620 3s. 9d. There has, therefore, been an in-
crease of more than a hundred thousand pounds in
fourteen years, or something like 29 per cent. The
Commissioners claim credit for even more than this.
In the year 1850, they say, more than one-third
of the gross revenue under their charge arose from
quit and free-farm rents, and from ground-rents
reserved under building leases having long terms to
run, and this part of their income has, therefore, not
yet been susceptible of increase. The actual in-
crease has taken place in the rack-rents of Crown
property,,-and,, instead of being 29 per cent., may
perhaps amount to 40 per cent. It is notorious,
however, that the increase in value of landed pro-
perty in the fourteen years from 1851 to 1865 has
been enormous, and in the case of town property
and property in what are called " residential neigh-
bourhoods " has very much exceeded even 40 per
cent. Something has been done, but it does not
follow that more could not have been achieved ; and,
in truth, satisfactory as the increase which has
been made in the revenue of the Woods and
Forests is in itself, there is not wanting evidence.
that it has been rather forced upon the Commis-
sioners than accomplished by any excessive vigi-
lance. It is more distinctly to their credit that
with an augmented revenue the expenses of manage-
ment have been but slightly increased. These were,
indeed, large enough before. In the year ending
the 31st of March, 1851, a sum of £8,816 was spent
on the drainage, planting, and improving the Crown
property, and £78,580 on what are somewhat
vaguely called " other items of expenditure." In
the year ended the 31st of March, 1865, no less
than £38,807 was spent on improvements, which
we are assured are reproductive, but the "other i
items" had only risen to £83,241. The net revenue
of the Crown lands has, therefore, risen from
£253,628 to £319,571, or 26.4 per cent. The Com-
missioners are very earnest in protesting that only
a small portion of the £83,241 spent on the " other
items" of expenditure is under their control. They
complain with pathos that observations are fre-
quently made on this head of their accounts, and
that an extravagance is imputed to them of which
they are not guilty. Part of the sum consists, they
say, of annual payments imposed by Acts of Par-
liament, by ancient grants, and by former owners
of estates now vested in the Crown, and these out-
goings are therefore compulsory; part of the re-
mainder is the property tax on the rental of the
Crown lands, which is in truth deducted by the
tenants from their rent, but is entered on both sides
of the balance sheet as a matter of account; and a
third part is due to that zealous reclamation of the
rights of the Crown to the foreshores of the king-
dom which provoked the resentment of a member of
the late Parliament, but only with the result that he
was thrice counted out upon it. It would be very
easy to point out the weak points in the apology in
the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, but we
are not disposed to exhibit a virulent virtue in judg-
ing of their shortcoming. We all know their faults.
They are not stern enough in refusing to do kind
actions. They parted with forestal rights over Epp-
ing Forest for a song, and never thought of asking
what the value of the rights they were selling was
to the purchasers as well as to themselves. They
made very easy terms in granting leases of the new
houses in Carlton-house Gardens, which must have
been bettered had the transactions taken place in
open market. In the Appendices to the present
Report there are recorded one or two instances of
apparent kindliness to lessees. But it is very hard
that in this utilitarian age there should be no place
left where a pleasant thing can now and then be
arranged; and the Commissioners of the Woods and
Forests doubtless feel the force of the maxim
noblesse oblige. They are the representatives of the
Crown, and they may not haggle with tenants or
put up their estates to public auction. They must be
liberal, and even generous in their dealings. The
force of this apology is, however, somewhat lessened
by the eagerness which the Commissioners occasion-
ally display in very small matters ; and perhaps the
true moral as to the management of the Crown
property would be to convert as much as possible of
it into money and invest the proceeds in the funds,
thereby escaping the opportunities and the danger of
benevolence. •
HERALD.—The unhappy lady whose sufferings
have been so long before the public has finished her
career in the courts by " pursuing" our contempo-
rary, the Saturday Review. Ordinary readers are
well aware that the weekly journal which Thackeray
delighted to call " The Superfine Review" is not so
superfine but that it can hit hard, and use upon
occasion the Strongest language. Now and then,
indeed, it breaks a butterfly upon the wheel, or slays
the slain in mere wantonness of spirit ; and no doubt
had not the motto of Publius Syrus—" Judex dam-
natur cum nocens absolvitur"—been already appro-
priated, the Saturday Review would have told us on
its title-page that the absolution of the guilty is the
condemnation of the judge. At any rate the Satur-
day Review is not at all open to the charge of too