The Sun.
London, England, 1851-06-26 00:00:00

THURSDAY EVENING, JUNE 26, 1851

amply snsiaine.l the well-deserved reputation of Messrs.
W. P. 13t he and Con.p.tny, th propriet,,rs of the tuv. rn.
The don,,t;ol,N in the curie of ti.e ev,ning amounted
to ribi,ut 2 500/, itielocimg the sum 60 gUlfleAS, given
by Lorci Ov,istirne, the Presidehr, 20 guihtab by Lord
Robert Grosvenor, M.P., and 60 guineas by Messrs.
Yiekford.
Mr. Toole officiated as toastmaster.

THE METROPOLITAN WATER
SUPPLY.
(From the Times.)
The disctssion on the Metropolitan Water Supply has
now commenced in serious earnest, and the position of
parties is as follows:—The Ministerial scheme has been
embodied ins Government Bill, which was introduced
by Sir George Grey, and carried through a second read-
ing by a small majority against the resolute protests of
the metropoitan representatives. This Bill the Home
Secretary jusified, on the ground that principles theo-
retically better had been found irreducible to practice.
The best plan he admitted would be to place the supply
under popularcontrol, but as this had been proved be-
yond his capreity, and as there were resaons against the
establishment if a Government Board, he recommended
the measure Wore the House as a sensible compromise.
Meantime Mr. Mowatt professed to have conquered Sir
George Grey's " impossibility," and presented the
House with a till providing the very machinery which
had bee❑ declared impracticable. Common sense would
suggest that upin this the Home Secretary should have
suspended his own imperfect measure until he had as-
certained whether the problem which had baffled him
had been really solved by another. He had acknow-
ledged popular control to be the true thing need-
ful, and had onlj devised his own scheme in default
of ability to construct a better, so that when
the real desidentum was submitted to his notice it
would have been but consistent with political honesty to
give it every opportunity of trial. Nevertheless, though
Sir George Grk y confessed to being as yet unacquainted
with Mr. Mowatt:s prepositions, he pushed forward the
Cabinet Bill with the whole force of Government, con-
tenting himself with observing that he should not object
to the reference of Mr. Mow att's Bill to this same tribunal
—a Select Commttee—to which he was carrying his
own. A Select Committee was appointed accordingly,
and before this• Committee the Government Bill
was brought of Tuesday morning, with three
eminent counsel to support it. When it came,
however, to Mr. Mowatt'a turn it was discovered
that the standing ordi rs had not been complied
with, and the Bill consequently became inadmissible.
The Hon. Member appealed to the House on Wednes-
day for such a suspension of these regulations in his
own case os had !requently been granted in others, and
Mr. Hutne's plain sense was heard in a suggestion, that
"on a question ofso much importance, effecting the in-
terests of 2,000,00) people, it would not be unreasonable
to re!ax the strict rules of the House." So meat people
would think, but Sir George " felt himself bound" to
refuse this dispensation, and the House went w ith the
Minister. Thus tae Cabinet Bill goes before the Com-
mittee with all the strength of Government at its back,
while a Bill, couessedly better in theory, arid only
needing the test of inquiry, is thrown overboard on a
point of form. Dees this look like an honest desire to
uo the best fur thecommunity without fear or favour?
Sir George Gre3 eescribed this reference to a Select
Committee as •` the course which Bills of this nature
must follow," implying that competing proposals thus
received the judicil consideration of a disinterested few.
We have no desire to impugn the uses of Select Com-
mittees in general.or to question the Hon. S.cretary's
knowledge of Parliamentary usages ; but we assert,
without any hesitation, that as things are now pro-
ceeding the interests of the public will be left to
tally unprotected and the great fundamental question
absolutely unnoticed. That question, as Sir George
Grey well knows, is whether our water supply
should not be altogether excluded from the objects of
commercial enterpese, and provided for the common be-
nefit at the general charge of the community. Nay,
the Hon. Secretary hiusseit answers the question in the
affirmative, and defends his own measure un the express
grounds that it does fulfil this desirable condition to as
great an extent as is practicable in the conflict of inte-
rests around us. H 3 declares that whereas Government
represents the people, his Bill subordinates the water
traders to Government as simple "contractors," and he
professes to expect a proportionate improvement in their
doings. As tar as professions go, Sir George is plausible
enough; in fact the broad principles of action are so
clear, that they cannot be denied even by Sir William
Clay himself. The fault of the Minister is in his obdu-
rate tenacity of purpose against reason shown. He
has been taught by plain argument that the companies
will not be contractors under his scheme, but prin-
cipals ; that the rating of ordinary dwelling-houses
will not be appreciably lowered, and that the
general domestic use of water must remain almost
as costly and therefore as imperfect as before. He
has been told, in plain words, that the community
whose interests he pretends to be advocating, see the
consequences Deere distinctly than hheself, and are
strongly set against the measure. He has been shown
by plain evidence that no legislative control can be ex-
pected to be permanent over such a commercial
corporation as he would now create, and he has
been asked by what agency a department of State,
already overburdened with duties, proposes to superin-
tend a concern of such magnitude as actually
io transcend, by his own argument, the powers of mu-
nicipal admiuistration. To none of these appeals has
he vouchsafted the smallest reply, but has " referred the
question to a Select Committee," as relieving him at
once cm any further responsibility. We need spend
but few words in proving to the common sense of our
ratepayers that their interests are absolutely sacrificed
by such a proceeding as this.

It the Government Bill satisfied the desires of that
community %hose wants it professes to consuls, the con-
test would be fairly conducted between Sir George
Grey's advocates on behalf of the public, and other
counsel on behalf of the traders whose monepuly it was
intended to destroy. But the Government measure
represents no such popular opinions ; it is op-
posed by . the whole metropolis, and, as Sir George
wus told in the House by the metropolitan Mem-
bers, "is abosolutely detested out of doors." Thus,
the public interests being deprived of their proper
advocates are left without any advocates at all, end no
issue whatever will be raised on the points which most
concern the rights, health, and comforts of the metropo-
litan community. Whether the average water rate
should be 11. 7s. per house, when an unlimited supply
could be furnished for 6s. Bd. ; whether we should de-
pend for a prime necessary of life on a commercial
company under nominal control ; or whether some pub-
lic machinery could nut be contrived for the occadon, are
questions which may never once be raised. The issue
will simply be Grey or Clay—nine c ,mpanies or one
company—a virtual monopoly or a legal monopoly. Sir
George Grey'd Bill proposes to detract something from
the absolutism of the companies—the companies protest'
to resist the attempt; and the Select Committee will de-
cide between these orthodox combatants. But where,
in all this jarg n of figures, forms, and pleadings, will be
the interests of the public? For the measure which the
Home Secretary is resolved on forcing down the throats
i,f our citizens he retains three able counsel, and ten more
are engaged to fight to the death for the claims of the several
proprietaries. But where, in the defalcation of their
proper protectcre, are the counsel for the people at large?
Who is to show that though the companies' system is
bad the Secretary's is little better, and that no water
trading should be tolerated at all ? We shall have a
table covered with specimens and statistics, an army of
chymists tendering scientific evidence, and a swarm of
engineers with sections and plans, though all the while
neither engineering nor chymistry bears one bit upon
the true question. We all know very well that a
water supply could be furnished for 100,0001. a-year
or thereabouts, and that it will be time enough, as
Sir George Grey himself acknowledged, to discuss the
best sources of draught when the machinery of admi-
nistration shall have been organized. What we want,
therefore, to learn is, why we are to be taxed 300 per
cent. on an article of first necessity, and pay 420,0001.,
or even 320,0001. a-year, instead of 100,0001.; and of
this information we see just no promi:e at all.
The squabble will be, whether we are to pay
a shilling with our right hand or our left—whether
we are to hand over our half million per annum to the
confederated companies or to the company consolidate.
It is six on one side and halt a dcz-n on the other.
Very ingeniously did Mr. Edwin James aver that he
" trusted to prove that the Government preamble could
be adopted without detriment to the private interests so
largely represented in that room." We will be bound
he proves it most completely. The " private in-
terests" so largely represented both in and out
of " that room" are the very interests most
cared for in the Government Bill, and it is with
these that the interests of the public are palpably at
variance. Our case, therefore, must now depend upon
ourselves. We have neither advocates nor solicitors,
neither "seventy representatives" nor ten eminent
counsel;" and we have to contend, too, with that very
power which should be standing uc in stead against all.
But we have a good cause and a good spirit to back it,
and if monopoly is ever to win another battle in these
times, it will riot be, we are very sure, against the con-
victions and desires of the ratepayers of London.

LA W INTELLIGENCE.
C0171(7' OF COMMON PLEAS, June 25

(Nisi Pfill3 Sit Lings for INl,d,iksvx, tietore Lo:d Chid
Ju•tic•F JERVIS )
COFFEY V. BARNARD.

This was an action on the case to recover compensa-
tion in damages for injuries sustained by the plaintiff in
consequence of the negligent and improper construction
of a stand on the Epsom race course, belonging to the
defendant, which tell during a race; the plaintiff and
others who were standing upon it being thereby seriously
injured.
Mr. Sergeant Wilkins and Mr. Bramwell were counsel
for the plaintiff; and Mr. James, Q.C., and Mr. Lush, for
the defendant.

The plaintiff is a grocer and cheesemonger, carrying
on business at No. I,' Norfolk-place, Marlborough-road,
Chelsea; the defendant is a market gardener and seeds-
man at Epsona, who has for many years been accus-
tomed to erect and let stands fur the accommodation of
the visitors to the Epsom races. On the 11th of April,
1850, the plaintiff and some friends were attending the
races, and took places on one of the defendant's stands,
called " Barnard's stand," for which they paid 3s. each.
The witnesses gave very different accounts of the
numbers on the stand—some saying 500, and others
2 000. During the race for the Great Metropolitan
Stakes the stand fell, and several of the occupants were
severely injured. Amongst other sufferers the plaintiff
sustained a compound fracture of the leg, which confined
him to his bed for several weeks, and has, it is feared,
induced a permanent lameness. It was also stated by
witnesses in his behalf, that during the three months he
was prevented by the accident from attending to his
business his receipts from it fell off 20/. per week.
The jury, after hearing an address from the defen-
dant's counsel, and the Learned Judge's summing up,
returned a verdict for the plaintiff, with 1001. damages.
It, was mentioned in court after the trial that the
plaintiff had previously off: red to take 501,, and that the
defendant would not give more than 201.

She lives wick him as his wife. I paid the balance on
the all,e,tur to ow detelithitit.

Ite-ex4tutn. d—l know that the plaintiff's wife had
been living away trem.him for fitteen years. Piaintiff
toll me old Mr. Go•day was very anxious that he
sh••uld employ his son as hts attorney, instead of Mr.
Ambrose; that he declined to do so, but ultimately old
Mr. Gooday brought his son, and introduced him. The
sale of the reversion to Mr. Garrod for 6,0001, was ad-
mitted. .

Hannah Ladbrook—l have been living with the plain.
tiff as his wife. He formerly lived at Ipswich, and came
to London about Michaelmas, 1846. He came to 29,
Spencer-street, Islington. I knew old Mr. Gooday. He
was in the habit of calling at plaintiff's. I remember
his introducing his son. I remember a conversation
about the money for the purchase. Old Mr. Gooday
wished plaintiff to take the business out of Mr. Am-
brose's bands, and place it is his sou's. Plaintiff would
not consent. Defendant said he would place it out for
plaintiff, and get 51. per cent. for it. Several other inter-
views took place. At the second old Mr. Gooday asked
me to bring pen, ink, and paper, and leave the room. I
did so. I remember the morning of the 7th lust, Plain-
tiff had some brandy and tea before he got up, and before
he went out he had a glass of brandy and water. Old
Gooday called for him, and told me to give him a glass
of brandy and water, as it would do him good. Plaintiff
complained of being very ill. Old and young Goody
were both to have dined with us that day. Plaintiff
came home about twelve o'clock. Old Mr. Gooday cause
with him. Plaintiff was intoxicated. He did not have
any dinner, but sat in his easy chair and slept. Old
Gooday came again about three o'clock. He walked
into the pirlour and said, " Mr. Puchin has done
wrong here; ho has not secured the money; he must
sign a paper." The plaintiff was asleep. I awoke
him arid told him. He was very angry, and said
he would not sign any more. Old Gooday walked in,
and said, " Well, you've done wrong; you must sign
this paper, or you'll lose your money." Plaintiff said he
would nut sign anything more that day. Old Gooday
said he must, or the money would be lost. He then said,
" You have asked me several times to take wine with
you, and now I will take some." He then told me to
bring some. Julius Bradlough brought a bottle of port
wine up. I was about to pour some into a wine glass.
There was a tumbler on the table, in which the plaintiff
had had some brandy and water when he came home
with old Gooday. Old Gooday took the wine out of my
hand, and filled a tumbler and gave it to him, and said it
would steady his hand. lie drunk it off. I tried to pre-
vent it, but old tiouday gave it to him. He was not in
a fit state to transact business. Old Gooday said he must
have Julius up to see the paper signed. It was not read
over. Old Gooday said there was no time; he must
make haste, or the money would be lust. I did not know
the contents of the piper. Gooday laid the paper be-
fore plaintiff, and at first he would not sign it, and was
very angry. 'Gooday said to me, " You must hurry him
on, or you will lose all the money." Plaintiff then tried to
sign. Gooday said it was done so bad nobody could read
it. Plaintiff was angry, and said " Give it me again then,"
and he then wrote again, bat old Gooday said that
was worse. Julius Bradlough witnessed it. Old Gooday
then gave me three papers, and told me to lock them up,
for they were of great importance. (These were the
three promissory nutes.) Directly Gooday left, plain-
tiff, being very tipsy, was taket, up to bed. After that
I called a medical man in to see him. I think it was
the same evening. I showed the papers to Bradlough.
I did not know what they were. I did not tell plaintiff
about them. I dared not. He was not fit to be told. I
did not tell him for nine or ten days, when I had the
doctor's permission. I remember defendant's afterwards
calling at the house. He asked for plaintiff. I said he
could not see him. He then asked me if I had taken
care of the papers Mr. Gooday had given me. I said,
"Yes, and I was afraid the plaintiff had done wrong."
He said "Why I" I said, because plaintiff' had always
said he should not have the money, and that he must have
known plaintiff was not right by the signature. I told
him plaintiff said the money should be put out on mort-
gage. He said, " Oh, never mind, the money is quite safe;
it is as sate in my tether's hands as mine;" and said 1
need not be uneasy, his father would take care of me and
my children. Another time he said "he had quarrelled
with his tether two hours before he let him have the
money, and he only let him have it to keep
his credit up at the bank." I remember his asking me
a few nights afterwards to let him go up stairs to see
the plaintiff. He went up. I was present at the whole
interview. I had told the plaintiff that morning about
the notes. He went and sat down at the loot of the bed.
Plaintiff said to him, " You are a pretty trusty steward,
you are, to hand that money over to your father." He
said it was quite save. Plaintiff said, "You know it was
to be on mortgage."
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE—I should be sorry to
prejudge this case, brother Shee, but what answer can
there be to it I Suppose this were an application to
strike the defendant off the rolls, it would be very diffi-
cult for him to explain this transaction. In fact, it is
impossible that it could be satisfactorily explained. In-
stead of sanctioning the plaintiff's giving his own father
authority to receive this money, it was his duty, as the
plaintiff's attorney, to have warned him against it.
After this intimation the plaintiff's case proceeded for
a short time, and then a conference took place between
the counsel; atter which
Mr. S.-rgeant BYLES said—My Learned Friend and
myself have come to an arrangement to take a verdict
for the plaintiff with 1,0001. damages. I will only add
that I trust the defendant thought his father was a man
of property.
Mr. Sergeant SHEE—As he undoubtedly was.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE—AII I cep say about it is,
that the defendant, as attorney for the plaintiff, ought
not, under any circumstances, to have acted in the trans-
fer of this money to his father. Even if the plaintiff had
been willing the father should have it, it was the defen-
dant's duty to have taken care that another attorney had
been employed in the transaction.
Mr. Sergeant SEER— Arid all I can say for my client
is that this young man trusted in his own father.
Verdict for the plaintiff—Dam.ges 1.000/.

POLICE IN TELLIGEN CE.
GUILDBALL.

John Thompson, a porter in the employ of Mr. Ilarrif,
of 51, Old Change, warehouseman, was charged with
►tearing about 40 pieces of mousseline de laine, value
about 301, the property of his master.
Upwards of 20 pawnbrokers appeared, and produced a
largo quantity of goods, pledged by the prisoner for
much less than their value.

Mr. Harris said ho had no wish to prosecute the case
any farther, as the pawnbrokers all appeared g to
give up the property without obtaining a conviction
against the prisoner.
Alderman FAREBROTHEA said he could not allow this
case to be compromised. It might be very inconveniet t
for the pawnbrokers to attend upon the trial at the Old
Bailey, but they should be more careful in taking in
pledges that were offered for advances so considerably
below their value. If the pawnbrokers were willing to
give up the property, he would not trouble them all to
go to the Old Bailey, but merely select three or four of
the strongest cases, and commit prisoner for trial on
those only.
All the pawnbrokers consented to this arrangement,
and prisoner was then remanded, to prepare the depo-
sitions.