The Sun.
London, England, 1847-12-11 00:00:00

S N. DECEMBER HI 1847.
7

Mr. P. BANKES, who appeared as counsel for the
noble defendant, on the case being called on, said Mr.
Ronalds, his Lordship's attorney, had that moment re-
ceived a letter from the plaintiff, which he would read:
" 6, Northampton-square, Dec. 8.
" My Lord,—This is to inform your Lordship that as
an acquaintance of your Lordship has promised to come
forward and settle the little pecuniary matter of 51. be-
tween us,:it now will not be necessary for your Lordship
to attend to the summons at the Westminster County
Court on the 10th inst.

"I have the honour to be, my Lord, your Lordship's
most obedient servant,

"JOHN MILLER.
"Hight Iron. Lord Dudley Stuart, M.P., &c."

The pliiintiff having withdrawn from the case, he (Mr.
Bankes), on the part of the Noble Lord for whom he had
the honour to appear, had to apply to the Court for
costs, as he should show that there was not the slightest
foundation for the claim, but that it was one of the most
impudent attempts ever made to obtain money from his
Lordship. He made the application for costs, although
there was every probability of their never being paid,
more for the purpose of deterring other persons equally
unknown to his Lordship, from harassing him with
these attempts, than to punish the plaintiff. The plain-
tiff was totally unknown to his Lordship, and, from his
letters appeared to have no settled place of abode, as
they were addressed from several different places. He
(Mr. Bankes) would read some of theletters to show that
whatever services were rendered they were gratuitous.
The first letter was dated 48, Cromer-street, Gray's-inn-
road, August 3, 1847, and was as follows :
" My Lord,—Permit me to state that when I heard
your Lordship intended to put up for Marylebone, and
that Mr. Harvey intended to do so also—knowing no-
thing of your Lordship's character but what was most
honourable, and a countryman of which every English-
man ought to be proud of—having so nobly stepped for-
ward out of the common course of an idle aristocratic
life and selfishness to aid the oppressed and to relieve
the distressed, and that you, well deserved the honour
you sought for; knowing also from my own individual
experience that Mr. Harvey was a man unfit to be trusted
. . . . I determined with myself to exert all my
humble powers in influencing all my friends in the bo
rough to serve your Lordship, exhibiting to them and
many others beside Mr. Harvey's character in contrast
with your Lordship's. And Ido think my humble ex-
ertions in your Lordship's behalf placed your Lordship
at the head of the poll, as well as have drove Mr. Harvey
from the field of election for ever. But, my Lord, I did
this at some little pecuniary sacrifice, which I am sure
your Lordship, after I state what my present circum•
stances are, will not suffer me to lose. Just at the cri-
tical moment of the Marylebone election, I declined to
accept of 10s. a day to be employed on the City election,
which employ for sixteen days would have been 81., pre-
ferring, without any specific engagement from Mr.
Ronalds, to go into the field and work at once for your
interest, which I believe he knows I did, and Mr.
Ramsey knows also. Mr. Ramsey knows that
I worked for the ballot, as well as working for
the poll. But I should be ashamed of myself, as
a Reformer, to expect anything from your Lord-
ship for my services on Buchan occasion, when "England
expects every man to do his duty" free.—(Laughter.)
But, my Lord, now I haie no property. I have been
made to sacrifice more than 20,0001. by the enemies of
liberty, persecuting me to the utmost, and I should like
your Lordship to hear my tale on some future occasion.
I have neither funded property, freehold property, or
household property, though I had all these once, with
carriages and horses. Time alone is the only property
I have at present, and having spent that in your Lord-
ship's interest, stating this, I hope—l more than hope, I
know—from your Lordship's generous disposition, I may
expect a favourable answer to this letter. Waiting your
Lordship's favour, I have the honour to be, &c.,
" JOHN MILLER."
Upon the receipt of this letter, his Lordship, thinking it
would be as well to avoid the plaintiff's importunities for
the future, for his alleged services in driving Mr. Harvey
from the field, ordered Mr. Ronalds to pay him 51. This
was done on the sth of August to the great gratification
of the plaintiff; but on the 7th another letter was re-
ceived, in which he acknowledged the receipt of the
5/., but

" Never for a moment supposed that a less sum than
101. would have been offered, when I can give ,indis-
putable proof of the fact that had it not been for my ex-
ertions Mr. Harvey would have gone to the poll and
been returned; consequently, your Lordship would not
have been placed in the present honourable position."
With respect to the power and influence of the plaintiff
he (Mr. Bankes) begged to say that he was not an
elector of the borough, and had not the slightest influ-
ence. In another part of the same letter, alluding to his
only property being " time," the plaintiff went on—
" All my friends (electors) say that I dishonoured my-
self and the cause too for accepting so trifling a sum for
rendering such important services, and it is at their re-
quest. my Lord, to further benefit myself, that I make
your Lordship further acquainted with the fact, as they
are all certain that such a sum was never contemplated
to be given by your Lordship. I have done this, leaving
the matter solely in your Lordship's hands for further
consideration, and I am quite certain the result will re-
dound to your Lordship's honour and to the honour of
the cause your Lordship espouses."
The result was, that his Lordship referred the plaintiff
to Mr. Ronalds. To that gentleman, and also to his
Lordship's secretary, several letters were written, in
which he spoke of his Lordship's proud position in
Marylebone being due to him, for he only had caused
the retirement of Mr. Harvey. Finding it impossible to
get any more money out of Lord Dudley Stuart, another
letter was sent to his Lordship on the 24th of November,
in which the plaintiff says he has no alternative but to
appeal to the county court for justice; winding up the
letter with a pathetic appeal in these words:—
"Your Lordship's kindness is known to the whole
world—reaches from pole to pole; let then this kindness
not be tarnished by my making an appeal to the laws
for a small mite of justice to one who has devoted
his life and fortune for the benefit of his fellow-
countrymen."

This feeling address had no effect on his Lordship, for
on the next day Mr. Ronalds wrote back, informing
plaintiff that he would appear to any process that
might be issued against Lord Dudley Stuart. The
plaintiff, however, issued process against his Lordship
personally, solely for the purpose of annoyance, and in
another letter said—

" His Lordship had not a leg to stand upon in a court
of justice, that ho could bring forward many of the elec-
tors who would prove that the quality of his services ren-
dered alone gave his Lordship the victory, and that
in the course of a day or so he should wait upon Ser-
geant Shee (one of the candidates), and get him, if he
could, with all his witnesses, to maintain his action ;
proceedings which he greatly regretted being driven to,
as he was sorry the Liberal cause would suffer by the
exposé."
The Learned JUDGE said he thought the Learned
Counsel had stated quite enough to entitle him to the
costs, for it was not right that Lord Dudley Stuart, or
any one else should be brought their at their own ex-
pense, and the plaintiff withdraw from the action. Ac-
cording to the statement of the Learned Gentleman, he
supposed it did not matter wheter an order was made for
the payment of costs that day week or that day twelve
months.

Mr. BANKES said it was more for the purpose of pre-
venting annoyances that he asked for the costs.
The JUDGE—Then he will be ordered to pay the costs
of counsel, attorney, and one witness in a month.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS.

Before Mr, Sergeant ADAMS, Assistant-Judge, and a

Bench of Magistrates.)
Tho Court sat this morning for the purpose of hear-
ing the appeals which had been entered for the Decem-
ber general session. The court was much crowded by
parties who are connected with steam-boats from its
having been understood the Bench would give judgment
in two of the cases wherein the defendants had appealed
against the decision of Mr. Yardley, the magistrate at
the Thames Police-court, who had convicted certain
persons for having acted as the commanders of steam-
boats without having taken out the necessary license.
w. J. PATTISON V. THE CONVICTION OF E. YARDLEY,

ESQ.
At a former sitting of the Court this and another
case of a similar character were argued, and the Court
took time to consider its judgment.
The defendants had been convicted of having acted in
the capacity of captains and commanders of steam-vessels
without having obtained the requisite license according
to a bye-law of the Court of Aldermen. The defendants
appealed, and
The Learned JUDGE now gave judgment, and said
that this was an appeal by William John Pattison
against a conviction of Mr. Yardley, the effect of which
was that the appellant had been condemned to pay a
penalty for having acted as the captain and commander
of a steam-vessel plying between Yantlett Creek
and Windsor, he not being at the time duly licensed
according to the provisions of a certain bye-law for re-
gulating steam-boats plying on the river Thames.
The Court had most carefully considered the arguments
which had been advanced by the Learned Counsel who
had appeared on behalf of the corporation on the former
day when the appeal had come before him in support of
the conviction, as well as those which had been sub-
mitted by the Learned Counsel in opposition to the con-
viction, and in maintenance of the appeal. The Court
had also carefully perused the bye-law upon the subject
which had been framed by the Court of Aldermen, and
the conclusion to which it had arrived, as regarded that
bye-law, had been that that bye-law was illegal and
contrary to the law of the land. By that bye-law it was
enacted, " that any person acting as commander of any
lighter, wherry, or other craft," plying for hire between
certain points not having a license as directed by that
bye-law, should be liable to the payment of a certain
fine for every trip performed in such " lighter, wherry,
or other craft." Now the Court of Queen's Bench had
decided that " steam- vessels " came within the statute
for regulating watermen, and that Court was therefore
bound by that decision; but except for that decision he
should have entertained great doubts upon the point.
It was, however, quite clear that a "steam-vessel" was
not a "lighter," nor was it a " wherry ;" and notwith•
standing the Court of Queen's Bench had held and de-
cided that a" steam-boat was within the comprehension
of, and was comprised within the term ' vessel,'" yet

[PRICE SD.

' that Court was unable to arrive at the conclusion that
the term "craft" meant and included " steam-boats. '
In the cases which were at present under consideration
and before the Court it happened that the appellants
were freemen of the Watermen's Company; but the
Court was furthermore of opinion that the Court of
Aldermen of the city of London were net armed with
any power, without fresh bye-laws and regulations, to
compel the captains and commanders of " steam-boats"
plying on the Thames to be freemen of the Watermen's
Company. It was not upon that one point only that the
Court was about to decide the present cases, because
these appellants were in reality freemen, and, therefore,
the conviction had been, not for not being freemen, but
because they had not possessed a license to use that
privilege in commanding steam-boats. The bye-law in
question had made it imperative that the captain or
commander of a steam-boat should not only hold a
license, hut that no such license should be granted unless
the sum of Is. was paid for it. Now, the Court of
Aldermen, which had thus exacted this fee, clearly had
no authority whatever to do so. The statute under
which this bye-law had been framed gave no power to
the Court of Aldermen to issue licenses upon any such
terms ; and in framing such a bye-law the Court of
Aldermen had manifestly forgotten that without the
direct authority of an Act of Parliament no body, cor-
porate or otherwise, had the power to impose a tax upon
any of her Majesty's subjects. The only power to levy
taxes was vested in her Majesty and the louses of Par-
liament, and thus in demanding the payment of this one
shilling the Court of Aldermen, it might be humorously
said, were reviving the old qnestion of " ship-money,"
which was so celebrated in the days of Charles 1., although
in the present time that matter would not be attended
with the mischiefs consequent upon it at that period. A
freeman of the Watermen's Company might, under the
statute, be compelled to take out a license to navigate a
steam-boat on the river Thames as a captain or com-
mander, but it did not follow that he was compelled to
take out such a license as this bye-law of the Court of
Aldermen required. That bye-law was clearly illegal;
and, therefore, as the appellant had been fined for not
having that license, it was impossible that the Court
could confirm such conviction. The bye-law was clearly
defective, and therefore, supposing that the judgment
which the Court was now expressing was correct, it was
quite apparent that new bye-laws were required for the
regulation of the Thames. The question which was in-
volved in the matter was, without doubt, one of too
great and general importance to be finally determined in
that court. It was important to the Court of Aldermen,
inasmuch as it affected their powers and jurisdiction; it
was important to the Watermen's Company, it was im-
portant to all those persons who acted as the captains
and commanders of steam-vessels, and it was of im-
portance, especially to all those who had a large capital
embarked in the steam-navigation of the river and the
traffic of steam-boats. Taking the point, therefore, as
to the mode of granting license as the main ground of
its decision, the Court made an order for quashing the
conviction.
STEPHEN MACKLEY V. THE CONVICTION OF E. YARDLEY,