The Sun.
London, England, 1860-02-15 00:00:00

~.71,1E:1E SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVEIVINO, FEBRUARY 15, 1860.

chan to ken place in the imperial intentions since that
time. If the noAt earl told them that negotiations were still
going on, he had not another word to say, but should wait
the production of the correspondence for further explana-
tion. The publi a press of Europe, especially the French
papers, which w. are Cupposed to be under such strict con-
trol, spoke of the propc'sed annexation without hesitation as
a thing virtually decided, and therefore he hoped that her
Majesty's Government would take the earliest opportunity
of satisfying Parliament aod the country on a subject which
was causing so much anxiety. The other question was of
less importance. He wi shed to blow whether Mr. Corbett
had attended the reception of S:emor BuoneorApagni, not
being officially accredited to the'Frovisional Government,
and if so, whether he had done.so on his own responsibility,
or whether subsequently they had written to him any opi-
nion on his conduct ?
Earl GRANVILLE said, in answer to the first question,
that negotiations were still going on, which would render
the giving of all further information inconvenient. With
respect to the second, Mr. Corbett h.ed received only the
usual instructions.
Earl DERBY said it was important that the Foreign-
office should have some information as to so remarkable a
diplomatic act as the attendance of Mr. Corbett at the re-
ception.
Lord WODEHOUSE said that Mr. Corbett could not
have attended the reception in an official capacity, inasmuch
as he had no credentials to any Government. When the re-
volution took place, and the Grand Duke left Florence, the
noble earl opposite, then Secretary of State for Foreign Af-
fairs, instructed Mr. Scarlett to resume " officious' rela-
tions—that was his own word. Mr. Corbett remained, but
in no official capacity, and no act of his could amount to a
diplomatic recognition of the provisional government.
When a provisional government was established for the
maintenance of law and order, Mr. Corbett maintained
"officious" relations with it, but he did not remember his
having reported his attendance on the reception. There was
no precedent of a Secretary of Legation, under such cir-
cumstances, compromising his Government by attending a
reception.
The Earl of MALMESBURY thought that if Mr. Cor-
bett had attended the reception on his own responsibility,
he had acted officiously in another sense. (A laugh.)
The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH said that this annexa-
tion question was one of European importance, and he ques-
tioned the right of Sardinia to give France Savoy without
the consent of the powers which gave Savoy to ker. It
would be remembered that in 1814 Sardinia retained nothing
but Sardinia, which was secured for her by our fleet, and
Genoa was subsequently added to neutralise the influence of
France, then considered to be so injurious to Italy. Any
annexation now would be an act of treachery towards her
allies. It would be a further act of treachery to all these
states of Central Italy which had shown such confidence in
the King of Sardinia, and which had desired to have him
for their ruler. Savoy was the frontier of Italy, and all
those states which expected at no distant period to be added
to Piedmont were as much interested in the annexation of
the territory of Savoy and Nice as Sardinia itself was.
They were told of the strategical importance of Piacenza ;
but if the King of Sardinia had the option of giving up
Savoy to obtain Piacenza, and of keeping Savoy and giving
up Tuscany, he would decide upon retaining Savoy, if he
understood his future position. He (the noble earl) felt
deeply on this question, and he hoped that at no distant
time they would have an opportunity of a regular discus-
sion upon it.
The Marquis of NORMANBY, in reply, said that the
French Ministerwrote home for instructions as to attending
the reception of Signor Buoncompagni, and that he (the
noble marquis) could not of course say what was the answer
he received. It was certain that Mr, Corbett was the only
member of the diplomatic body that was present on the oc-
casion.
The motion was then agreed to, its terms being altered
so as to include the papers up to the present time.
Their lordships rose at 10 minutes past 8.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—(YESTERDAY.)
The SPEAKER took the chair at four o'clock.
NEW MEMBERS.
Mr. HUTT took the oaths and his seat for Gateshead, on
his re-election, and Mr. COWPER also took the oaths and
his seat for Hertford.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
The following bills were read a second time :
Birkenhead Railway (No. 2) ; Bolton and St. Helens
Road ; Burnham Tidal Harbour and Railways ; Doncas-
ter and Tadcastor Road; Faring-don Railway; Greenock
Harbour ; Lincoln's Inn ; Mid-Sussex and Midhurst Junc-
tion Railway Deviation; Milford Haven Railway and Docks;
Norwich Corporation Markets, &c. ; Oswestry and New-
town Railway (Branch Railway; &c.) ; Oxford, Worcester,
and Wolverhampton, and Severn Valley Railways ; Peters-
field Railway; Tenbury and Bewdley Railway; Ulster
Railway and Corporation of Belfast ; Upper Mersey Dues,
Purchase, and Conservancy; Wexford Free Bridge; and
Widnes Gas and Water.
PETITIONS. _ _

Several petitions were presented against the abolition
of church-rates ; in favour of Parliamentary reform ;
against legalising marriage with a deceased wife's sister;
against the London Corporation Reform Bill, &o.
LYME REGIS ELECTION.
The petition against the return of the member for Lyme
Regis was withdrawn.
TELEGRAPHIC CONTRACTS.
Mr. SMITH gave notice that on the 28th inst. ho would
draw the attention of the house to this subject, with the
view of founding a motion on the same.

He also urged at considerable length the ordinary argu-
ments in support of his motion.
Mr. R. LONG seconded the motion, urging that the
grant to Maynooth was ono of the first of those yieldings of
principle to expediency by which Sir Robert Peel broke up
the Conservative party.
Mr. P. O'BRIEN denied that this was a religious
question, and urged that no case had been made out for the
withdrawal of the grant.
Mr. HENNESSY denied the charge made by Mr.
Spooner of disloyalty against the priests of Ireland, and
especially during the recent meetings in that country, and
he read extracts from speeches from the archbishops and
bishops expressive of their loyalty to the Crown. If Mr.
Spooner were prepared to give up tithes in Ireland, and the
regium donum, ' he would promise him the grant to
Maynooth would be given up also.
Mr. CARDWELL urged that the principle laid down by
Mr. Spooner for the withdrawal of this grant would equally
, apply to the exclusion of all Roman Catholics from partici-
pating' in the Parliamentary grant for education. He
trusted that by an immediate and decided division the house
would check the first step towards unsettling tie religious
institutions of the country.
Mr. NEWDEGATE and Mr. HADFIELD having
spoken against the continuance of the grant, each from his
own peculiar point of view, the latter amidst considerable
interruption,
Mr. RPOONER briefly replied, and the house divided.

For the motion . _ .
128
Against it lB6
Majority against it
TRINITY AND ST. JOHN'S COLLEGES
(CAMBRIDGE.)

Mr. POLLARD-U RQUHART moved that an humble
address be presented to her Najesty, praying that she will
be graciously pleased to withhold her consent from certain
portions of the statutes of Trinity and St. John's Colleges,
Cambridge, now before Parliament, relating to the compul-
sory ordination of the college master, the compulsory ce-
libacy of the senior fellows, the removal of fellows who
have openly seceded from the Church of England,
the filling up of the vacant places in the seniority by
the master and the remaining seniors, and the dele-
gating to the masters and seniors exclusivery all
rules respecting the attendance of the under-
graduates who are not members of the Church of Eng-
land at the college chapel ; and that her Majesty will
be graciously pleased to give such directions as to her may
seem fit, to refer the above-mentioned statutes to the Cam-
bridge University Comm.ssioners.
Mr. BAINES seconded the motion; he urged that
Dissenters should be alloyed to enjoythe fellowships which
were intended to be the reward of merit, and which were
unconnected with ecclesiastical functions.
Lord STANLEY said that the commissioners of Cam-
bridge University had no competency under the Act of
1856, under which they were instituted, to deal with the
question of the exclusion of persons other than the mem-
bers of the Church of England. The only mode of settling
that question would be by a bill in Parliament, as by act
of Parliament the exclusion was created. If it had been
proposed by any of the commissioners to give a license for
ncn-attendance at chapel, on the ground of conscientious
objections, it would not have been within their power to
have earned their object. lie had no alternative but to op-
pose the motion.
Mr. WALPOLE said that the questions involved in the
motion had been deliberately brought before Parliament,
discussed, and distinctly negatived, and it was very incon-
venient to raise them again in the form of the present mo-
, tion.

After a few words from Mr. BRISCOB and Mr. NEwn--
GATE, the motion was withdrawn.
Mr. CLIVE obtained leave to bring in a bill for the re-
gulation and inspection of mines.
Mr. WHITESIDE obtained leave to bring in a bill to
amend the medical acts.
The house adjourned at half-past eight.

LA TV INTELLIGENCE.—Feb. 14.

VICE-CHANCELLORS' COURT.
(Before Vice•• Chancellor Stuart.)
REID v. STEARN.-THE GOLD DUST ROBBERY.
Mr. Bacon, (1.C., and Mr. W. K. Wigram ap-
peared for the plaintiffs in this suit, which was in-
stituted under the following circumstances :—ln
Feb., 1856, the defendant Stearn, who was a licensed
victualler, deposited with Messrs. Reid and Co., of
Liquorpond•street, brewers, of whom he was a custo-
mer, £5OO, at the same time telling them that the
money was not his own. Messrs. Reid and Co. hating
afterwards reason to believe that the £5OO were the
proceeds of the gold dust robbery committed on the
South Eastern Railway in 1855, for which J. Bur-
gess was tried and convicted at the Central Criminal
Court, paid the money into court, and filed a bill
for the purpose of ascertaining to whom the £5OO
belonged, by which they prayed that the different
claimants—namely, Stearn, John Burgess as trustee
under a deed of assignment of the personal estate
of James Burgess, the Crown, and the South
Eastern Railway Company—might be ordered to
interplead. The two defendants, Stearn and John
Burgess, had by their answer disclaimed all right
to the £5OO. On the part of the company it was
contended that it was not a proper case for an
interpleader suit, as the company were quite willing
that the money should be paid to the Crown ; and
it was submitted on behalf of the Crown that the
Crown could not be called upon to interplead, but
that as the railway company were s illing the
court might at once order the £5OO to be paid to
the Crown.

Mr. Malins, Q.C., and Mr. I. T. Humphrey lip-
pearod for the railway company; Mr. Wickwas for
the crown ; and Mr. Southgate for the defendant
Stearn.

The Vice-Chancellor said the right of the plain-
tiffs to file a bill of interpleader (several claims
having been made to the £500) was clear. Two of
the defendants; having disclaimed, the only claimants
before the court were the South-rastern Railway
Company and the Crown. It had been contended
that the gold-dust had been sent by tho railway
company, who, as carriers, had the custody of it ;
and it had been proved that the indictment at the
trial at the Central Crix.inal Court was for stealing
gold dust the property of the South-Eastern Rail-
way Company. That, however, did not give them
a legal title. On the other hand the crown claimed
the £5OO as the property of a felon. The court
could not, without further investigation, decide
the question as to whom the £5OO belonged,
and therefore the crown and the railway com-
pany must be decreed to interplead. The bill must be
dismissed as against Stearn and Burgess who had
disclaimed, with costs to be paid out of the fund,
and inquiries must be directed to ascertain whether
the £5OO, or any part thereof, was produced by a
sale of the gold dust stolen by James Burgess, and
whether the gold dust was at the time of the rob-
bery in the custody of the South Eastern Railway
Company, and to whom the same belonged; and
also whether the South Eastern Railway Company,
or any other person, had become entitled to the
money, or to any and what part thereof.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
Sittings at Guildhall.—(Before Mr. Baron Martin
and a Special Jury.)
MORGAN AND ANOTHER V. THE LONDON DOCKS
COMPANY-THE WINE AND SPIRIT TRADE-
ALLEGED FRAUDS IN THE LONDON DOCKS.
The declaration charged that the plaintiffs had de-
livered to the defendants certain valuable wines, to be
securely and safely kept, and that the defendants
so received them, but through negligence the wines
had been adulterated, and materially deteriorated,
and a large quantity had been lost. The defendants
pleaded not guilty, that the plaintiffs did not de-
liver the wines as alleged, and that the defendants
did not accept them.

The case -excited a great interest amongst the
wino and spirit trade, a great number of whom
were present during the proceedings.
Mr. Edwin James, Mr. Phipson, and Mr. Nor-
man were counsel for the plaintiffs.
Sir F. Kelly, Mr. Groves, Mr. Giffard, and Mr.
Murphy represented the defendants, the London
Docks Company.
Mr. Edwin James said, that the plaintiff in this
action, the Messrs. Morgan, were wine merchants
of the highest respectability in the city of London,
and were large exporters of first-class wines.
The issue which the jury bad this day
to determine was one of extreme import-
ance, not merely to the community of the
City of London, but to the public at large who
were consumers of wine.

Mr. Thomas Morgan, the plaintiff, was then
called. He deposed that his firm had been in
existence nearly 100 years, and had up to 1858 de-
posited their consignments of wine in the London
Docks to the amount .f nbout 1,500 pipes in the
year. In July, 1853, they deposited 20 pipes of
port of the vintage of 1851, and marked with a
star, in the London Docks. The vintage of 1851
was one of the best ever known, and the star
showed it was particularly good. He sold one pipe
in March, 1857, to Messrs. Smith, of Pall-mall, and
the quality was objected to. In December, 1857, he
found it so inferior that he had the wine vatted.
Vatting much deteriorated the value of wine, for in
fact it deprived it of its credentials. He estimated
the loss in vatting fine wine at £2O a pipe,
and as it had to be vatted with another wine
the loss would be in reality £4O per pipe: The
docks estimated the loss at one gallon per pipe per
annum, which he had considered fair. He sold the
other pipe to Mr. Stone, a wine merchant at
Brighton, in August, 1853, who gave orders to
have it cleared, Witness drew a sample in Sep-
tember, 1837, and found it all but worthless. In
October, 1833, he placed in the docks with other
wines upwards of seven pipes of port, consigned
by Gubians, by the ship Montero. It was of the
highest class. In November, 1853, he sold one
pipe to Messrs. Neighbour and Son, of Smithfield,
who returned it in the beginning of 1858 as bad.
It had not left the docks, and was not like port
wino at all. Wine is gauged when it enters the
docks, and re-gauged when it is taken out, and the
duty paid.
Ihe entries in the defendants' books were here
put in, and showed that, although eight samples
and two tastings had been taken from the wine,
the ullage quantity was 115 when it entered, and
the same when regauged five years afterwards.
Examination continued—ln Dec., 1854, witness
received 20 pipes of wine, by the Martello, marked
" TLII," double diamond, shipped for a customer,
Mr. Henley ; 15 of these showed great irregularity
under gauges, and tasted quite differently from one
another, so ho had to take them all off Mr. Henley's
hands. He sold five pipes. Tho rest were vatted
in December, 1850. The loss would be £2O per
pipe, even supposing the wine was identical, but it
would be much more if the wine were deteriorated.
In May, 1854, he docked one pipe of 1851 vintage,
marked " TNS," part of parcel shipped to Messrs. I
Neighbour who made a complaint in 1858 that it
was bad. It was now in the docks, and was very
inferior. The gauge of this pipe when docked in
March, 1854, was 118 gallons ullage, and in March,
1858, when regauged, 117 gallons. On the sth
September, 1854, ho docked five pipes of port of the
vintage of 1851, a very flee wine. He sold four of
the pipes to Messrs. Hugh Smith and Co., of Pall-
mall—two in December, 1850, and two in February,
1857. The other he sold to Messrs. Maitland and
Co. The Messrs. Smith complained of two pipes,
and they were returned on his hands. It was very
inferior, but there was no complaint as to the others.
In January, 1855, he deposited 14 pipes of very
1 fine port, which ought to be worth £7O now, if it
I had not been altered, He sold 11 of these pipes of
wine, and there had been no complaint about them.
Four had deteriorated in value and were higher
coloured. They had to be vatted.
Mr. Phipson—Would you give me the price that
they would sell at ?
Plaintiff—l should not like to buy them.
Mr. Edwin James—Perhaps they would do for
an agricultural meeting. (Laughter.)
Sir F, Kelly—Or perhaps for a meeting at Mary-
lehone, (Renewed laughter.)
Tho plaintiff proceeded to say that in January,
1855, he docked 18 pipes of port, marked
double diamond, which, with other wines, he sold
to Messrs. Lemon, Hart, and Co. in the following
May, at £4O per pipe, and he had to take back the
whole 18 and vat them because they were eo infe-
rior. Again he sold to the same parties 45 pipes
of a stouter bat sound wine, Three were complained '
of, and were, most inferior—almost useless. On the
same day he deposited another parcel ; of which, as
to 10, there had. been no complaint, three had bees
vatted, but were not the subject of this action, and
two were still in the docks, much deteriorated. ne
sold two pipes out of a parcel of 35 of the vintage
of star marked, to Mr. W. Potter, in October,
1850. lie had to take one back in November, 1857,
and had to allow £35 on the other. Mr. Potter
said that the one which was returned was perfect
rubbish, and witness thought he was about right.
(Laughter.) None of the wines whic'a formed the
subject of this action lied loft the docks. The gauge
in January, 18:;5, when the wino was deposited in
the dock:,, was-110 gallons ullage, and when re-
P•^,u,ed in October, 1858, it was still 116
gallons,
Having been in the interim subjected to five samples
and three tastings. The plaintiff deposed further
that in July, 1855, he deposited 10 pipes, which he
sold in November, 1858, to Mr. Reit James, at X 34
per pipe. In a few days he had to take back six
pipes, and had to allow £2O on the other four to in-
duce Mr. James to keep them. The gauges and
the regauges on the lot were the same, although
they had been subjected to samples and tastings.
—ln 1851 he deposited
Examination continued