The Sun.
London, England, 1870-05-16 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, MONDAI , MAY 16, 1870.

THE DRAMATIC COLLEGE.

The performance that took place on Saturday at
Drury-lane Theatre in aid of the funds of the
Dramatic College resulted in a great success. Tie
house was crowded in every part. The entertain-
ment, which was under the direction of Mr. Sothern,
was honoured with the patronage and graced by the
presence of the Prince and Princess of Wales. The
programme comprised Mr. Buckstone's excellent
comedy of " Married Life," and Sherid " School
for Scandal," both supported by the most prominent
members of the principal London theatres. In bis
own comedy Mr. Buckstone represented his original
character of Henry Dove with the same force of
humour which characterised his performance of
the part when the piece was produced at the Hay-
market nearly thirty-six years ago. Mr. Benjamin
Webster acted Mr. Dismal for the first time, and Mr.
J. L. Toole also undertook the labour of fresh study
with the responsibility of Mr. Samuel Coddle, a part
originally identified with the late Mr. Farren. The
respective peculiarities of Mrs. Coddle, Mrs. Lynx,
Mrs. Younghusband, Mrs. Dismal, and Mrs. Dove
were very happily portrayed by Mrs. Hughes, Miss
Caroline Hill, Miss Robertson, Mrs. H. Leigh, and
Mrs Frank Matthews; whilst Mr. W. H. Vernon
and Mr. Kendal represented Lionel Lynx and
Frederick Younghusband. At the conclusion of
the comedy, which was acted with great spirit
by all concerned, Mr. Sothern came before the
curtain, and, after expressly acknowledging on be-
half of the committee the deep sense of gratitude
felt for the patronage and presence of their Royal
Highnesses the Prince and Princess of Wales, an-
nounced that the total receipts amounted to £448
17s. 6d., and that the necessary expenses incurred
were £ll9 12s. 6d. ; thus leaving a balance for the
Dramatic College of £329 ss. This statement, ren-
dered with equal clearness and promptitude, elicited
a general round of acclamations. "The School for
Scandal" followed, supported by the strong cast
originally announced— the only change made
in the latest programme being the substitution of
the name of Mr. George. Perren for that of Mr.
Santley as the executant of the incidental song. Miss
Amy Sedgwick was Lady Teazle, Mrs. Chippendale,
Mrs. Candour ; Mrs Alfred Mellon, Lady Sneerwell ;
Miss Edith Stuart, Maria ; Mr. Chippendale, Sir
Peter Teazle ; Mr. Addison, Sir Oliver Surface ;
Mr. James Anderson, Charles Surface; Mr. Alfred
Wigan, Joseph Sur face ; Mr. Barrett, Rowley ; Mr.
J. Clarke, Moses ; Mr. Compton, Crabtree ; Mr.
Bancroft, Sir Benjamin Backbite ; Mr. H. J. Byron,
Trip ; Mr. H. J. Montague, Careless ; and Mr.
Stuart, Snak. With such a combination of established
favourites it need not be added that the comedy fully
maintained its hold on the attention of the audience.
It may be mentioned that the interest with which
the audience regarded the Royal box was heightened
on this occasion by the presence of Prince Albert
Victor, the eldest son of the Prince of Wales, whose
first visit to the theatre being thus made in bis
seventh year will probably link with the memory of
his eany enjoyment a remembrance of the Royal
Dramatic College which may not be disadvantageous
to the future interests-of that institution.

THE COLLISION BETWEEN THE ONEIDA

AND THE BOMBAY.

Some official correspondence and documents relating to
the collision between the United States corvette Oneida
and the steamship Bombay have been presented to Par-
liament. The most important item is a note from the
Board of Trade to the Foreign Office. In this note the
course taken by the Board of Trade is fully summed up
by Mr. Shaw Lefevre. He says : --Lord Clarendon
will observe that the statutory duty imposed
•on the Board of Trade under the circumstances, is
that of reviewing the sentence passed by the naval court
upon Captain Eyre for a breach of the 33rd section of the
Merchant Shipping Act Amendment Act, 1862." From
the replies which the Board have made to the applications
of the Peninsular and Oriental Company, and of Mr.
Eyre, Lord Clarendon will see that in the performance of
this duty the Board have expressed their opinion that,
not only is the conclusion of the court concern-
ing Captain Eyre's conduct after the collision
justified by the evidence, but the sentence of six months'
suspension pronounced by the court is inaduquate to the
gravity of the offence. Lord Clarendon will also see that the
Board of Trade entertain a very strong opinion concern-
ing the obligation upon masters of ships which have come
into collision to stand by and render assistance to each
other. And they have expressed in no measured terms
their condemnation of conduct such as that of which
Captain Eyre has been found guilty. At the same time
they think it important to remark that such conduct was
for the first time made punishable in this country by the
act to which I have referred. And, so far as they are
aware, no other maritime nations have any law by which
such an offence, if committed by the captain
of one of their own ships, could be punished at all. Look-
ing, therefore, to the matter in an international point of
view, it appears that British law compels the performance
by masters of British ships of the duties in question,
whether towards British or foreign ships, by means of a
sanction which no other nation enforces against its own
shipmasters. The Board of Trade have not power to re-
open an inquiry which has been terminated by the decision
of a naval court, except for the purpose of mitigating any
sentence which the naval court may pronounce, nor
would it be within the scope of their functions as a de-
partment of Government to take civil proceedings against
the Bombay or her owners on behalf of the sufferers by
the collision. The only proceeding which it would be
possible for her Majesty's Government to institute in
any such case, would be a criminal proceeding against
the master or crew of the ship causing the collision
for culpable negligence or misconduct leading to loss
of life. Such a proceeding, however, being penal,
must be supported by distinct and conclusive
evidence ; and the Board of Trade would not be justified
in attempting such a proceeding in the present case, unless
reasonably satisfied that it could be proved that the colli-
sion in question was due to culpable negligence or
misconduct on the
_part of the captain or crew
of the Bombay. Upon this point, however, the
decision of the Naval Court is entirely favourable
to the Bombay ; and the Board of Trade, as at present
advised, see no reason for thinking that decision wrong.
Not only, added Mr. Lefevre, was there no reason for
doubting the justice of the Court's decision, but the best
professional opinions were in favour of that decision. It
is, however, within the power of the United States Go-
vernment to raise the question by a suit for damages
against the owners of the Bombay. In such a suit the
issue would be raised in the form most favourable to the
Oneida • and the civil courts which would try the case
would be in no degree bound by the decision of the Naval
Court at Kanagawa.

THE FRENCH PARLIAMENT:

The Senate resumed its sittings on the 12th of May,
M. Rouher was in the chair. The President proposed
that the different committees should be named. M.
Chevalier called attention to the importance of the measure
concerning the postal treaty between France and England
The. President pointed out the difficulties of the case in
the present aspect of affairs, the old constitution having
been virtually put aside, and the arrangements for the
Senatus- Consultum not being completed. He therefore
advised the postponement of the bill untill the new
state of things was formally established. The Legislative
Body also sat the same day, M. Schneider in the chair.
M. Raspail was in his place. The drawing of the bureau
took place. The President said that France was impa-
tient for the official proclamation of the late vote on the
Plebiscite, and he proposed that the Deputies
should meet the next day to examine the results
of the election. M. Pelletan desired that they should
have a public sitting for the discussion of the bill on the
press. Before the proceedings terminated the Govern-
ment was asked concerning the purchase of the Roman
remains by the State, to which the Minister of the Fine
Arts said he must decline to give an answer.