The Sun.
London, England, 1860-11-20 00:00:00

SIR JOHN TRE.LAWNY AND KIS CON-
STITUENTS.

UNITED KINGDOM ELBOTRIC TELE-
GRAPH COMPANY.

The opening operations of this company, the ob-
ject of which is to reduce telegraphing throughout
the kingdom to as~iillingrate, and to carry the
principle out through the agency of the canals
running through the country, commenced yester-
day morning by the planting of the first poles in
connection with the telegraphic wires in the
neighbourhood of Shepherd's-bush, on the Uxbridge-
road. The poles were planted respectively by
Lord Alfred Churchill, E. W. Chenley, Esq., and
Col. Elsey, and after the ceremonial the directors
and their friends dined together at St. James's-hall,
Regent-street, to celebrate the commencement of
the works.
It appeared that the system of a uniform shilling
rate of telegraphy was originally ssggested by Mr.
William Adrews, then in the employment of the
Submarine Telegraph Company, and was carried
out by him between London and Dublin. Mr. Allen,
proprietor of the Caledonian Mercury, had obtained
a bill for the construction of the underground wires,
and Mr. J. Robinson, C.E., had a concess;on from
all the canal companies in he kingdom for the use
of the banks. The result was that a company was
formed to carry out the uniform shilling telegraphic
system through the instrumentality of Mr. Alex
ander Crossley, one of the late Under-sheriffs of
the city of London.
Admiral Sir H. Leeke, the chairman of the com-
pany, presided at the dinner. He was supported
by Lord A. Churchill, Colonel Elsey, A. A. Croll,
Esq. ; F. Doulton, Esq.; the Rev. Walter Mitchell,
Dr. Mackay,,G. A. Sala,'Esq. ; J. Robinson, Esq.,
C.E.; Wm. Andrews, Esq.; Alexander Crossley,
Esq. ; Admiral Fitzroy, Henry Pownall, Esq. ; R.
Smith, F.R.S., of Manchester; — Chater, Esq., &c.
Upwards of 50 gentlemen sat down to dinner.
The cloth having been removed, and the usual
loyal toasts having been proposed and duly
honoured,
The toast of " The Army and Navy" was re-
sponded to by Col. ELSEY and Admiral FITZROY.
Mr. POWNALL, in proposing the toast of the
evening, namely, " Prosperity to the United
Kingdom Electric Telegraph Company," observed,
in allusion to some remarks by Admiral Fitzroy,
that he had been so unnerved by the startling
statements he had heard with respect to iron-
coated vessels, terrible arms and projectiles,
which were to supersede or destroy the vaunted
wooden walls of old England, that he was hardly in
a frame of mind to treat of matters relating to the
peaceful affairs of life. (Hear, hear.) But he
must endeavour to compose himself in order to
consider a matter which had nothing to do with
the destroying of 100 men where formerly only a
dozen were wounded, but was designed to promote
civilisation and humanity throughout the world,
and which could only be said to interest the army,
the navy, or even the volunteers in so far as it
would afford them the means of communicating
with those who were dear to their affections, or
with whom:theyhad business to transact. (Cheers.)
The original plan of the company was to apply to
telegraphy the principle which was sanctioned by
Government when it applied it to the postage of
the country with the most gratifying results. As
the uniform postage had made letter writers of the
million hitherto unaccustomed to correspondence,
so he trusted that the uniform is rate of telegraphy
would introduce the habit of corresponding by
telegraph amongst all classes of the people. He
only feared that it might excite the jealousy of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, who would say, " But
your net will not only catch all the large birds—
the shilling messages—but you will rob me of my
penny letters." (A laugh.) In conclusion, he
begged to propose " Prosperity to the United
Electric Telegraph Company."
The toast was drunk with enthusiasm.
The CHAIRMAN, in returning thanks, remarked
that Mr. Pownall had taken a toast that belonged
to him, but he did not regret the change, as much
more had been said in favour of the company than
he (the chairman) would have ventured upon. He
congratulated.the company on their prosperous po-
sition' and he gave full credit to Messrs. Robinson
and Andrews for their respective ideas upon which
the company was founded. The gallant chairman
having recounted some instances of the hardships
of dear telegraphy, concluded by expressing his
sanguine hope that the present undertaking would
be a complete success.
Mr. DANIELL then gave " The Canal Interests
of the United Kingdom," to which Mr. R. Smith,
of Manchester, responded.
Sir S. DONALDSON then gave " The Health of the
Chairman and Directors," to which Sir Henry
Leeke responded.
Mr. Douli on then gave " The Press," to which
Dr. Mackay responded in an effective speech.
Lord A. Churchill gave " The Officers of the
Company," which Mr. Robinson, C.E., acknow-
ledged.

Admiral Fitzroy then proposed " Mr. Allen's
Health," as the promoter of the company, which
that gentleman responded to; and thus ended the
proceedings of the evening.
The dinner was of a superior character, and the
manner in which it was served up reflected the
greatest credit upon Mr. Donald, the proprietor of
the establishment.

BANKERS' CHEQUES AND DRAFTS.

A correspondent writing to a contemporary,
says :—" Much inconvenience having been lately
experienced in the commercial world in conse-
quence of a new regulation having been made (by
whom lam at a loss to know) respecting bankers'
cheques, I shall feel obliged by your allowing me
to call your attention to the same. It appears
that now all cheques which are made payable to
order' must be endorsed by the payee himself, and
cannot, under any circumstances, be endorsed by
procuration. Now, I wish to point out to you the
very serious inconvenience which arises from this
apparently uncalled-for change. Supposing any
person to whom cheques are made payable to
order' to be abroad, or at any distant spot, and
where he cannot be easily communicated with ; his
return must be waited for before such cheques can
be cashed, because no other person than himself
can endorse them, thus causing a great risk. This
new regulation appears to me to be the more ex-
traordinary, as it does not apply to the signing or
endorsing bills of exchange or signing cheques—
all of which can be done by procuration ; and why,
let me ask, cannot the same rule apply to ordinary
cheqUes ? There is also another plan respecting
cheques which I would recommend as a safeguard
to all persons engaged in business, which is, that in
addition to crossing them with the name of their
banker they should mention their own as well
across the cheques ; thus, supposing a cheque to
be drawn in favour of James Smith. and his bankers
to be Barnett and Co.—across the cheque should
be written, ' Mr. James Smith's account at Messrs.
Barnett and Co.'s."

On the same subject the writer of the Times'
City Article makes the following observations:—
The question raised some time back as to the re-
sponsibility of bankers in paying checks drawn to
order, on the signature of a person pretending to
hold a procuration is likely to remain without a
definitive settlement. The facts which induced pub-
lic attention to the matter were as follow :—An
action .was brought against the Bank of England
to recover the amount of a check drawn payable to
order, and endorsed by a person purporting to sign
by procuration from the payee, but which procura-
tion was denied. The claim was based upon the
view that the 19th section of the Act 16th and 17th
Victoria, c. 59, which protects bankers from respon-
sibility in paying checks purporting to be endorsed
by the payee, did not extend to checks purporting
to be endorsed by anotherperson by procuration. The
action came on for trial at the London sittings in
July last, when Mr. Baron Martin held, without
argument, that the enactment referred to extended
as well to cases of endorsement by procuration as
to those purporting to be by the payee in person,
the object of this proceeding being to obtain a deci-
sion of the full Court upon the question of law in
the current term. It appears, however, that the
plaintiff has decided not to carry the case further,
and that the law must therefore remain in its pre-
sent unsatisfactory state. At the same time it may
be remarked, that few persons can doubt that the
immunity to the bankers conferred by the Act was
intended, to be complete. The clause which, in con-
tradiction to the entire spirit of the statute law of
the kingdom, exempts bankers from a liability to
which all the rest of the community are bound to
conform, furnishes the worst example of petty class
legislation witnessed in recent times, but so long as
it is permitted to remain it will be advisable for the
public to regard it in all its stringency.

THE VACANT ALDERMANIC GOWN.—The place of
nomination of the several candidates to represent the Ward
of Walbrook in the Court of Aldermen has been changed
from the Bay Tree Tavern, St. Swithin's-lane, to the School-
room, Oxford-Court, Cannon-street. The election will take
place, as already stated, on Thursday next, at two o'clock,
ad the polling cm the followiag day,

On Saturday evening Sir John Trelawny, one of
the members for Tavistock, addressed his consti-
tuents at the Bedford Hotel. Mr. THOMAS
Nictiou.s was called upon to presiae.
Sir JOHN TRELAWNY, on coining forward, was
received with loud cheering. He spoke at consider.
able length, and we has e only space for an abstract
of his address. He said : It has been oaen remarked
that the House of Commons does nothing but talk,
and very little in the way of substantial improve-
ment. I think this is not quite reasonable, as after
all you must not say that because there has been
little legislation there has been no success. Parlia-
ment is a sort of mill of ideas, in which there is found
chaff as well as grain ; and perhaps after all it would
be wrong if you said no speeches are useful but those
which are rhetorical and amusing ; it would be a mis-
fortune to lose speeches in a short compass containing
good counsel, calculated to carry weight when
brought,to bear upon public opinion. I see sometimes
carpish criticisms in public papers on such speeches ;
but really unless Parliamentwere to pay attention
to some of the hints given in matters of detail in
short speeches before measures were carried
through Parliament, we should have very bad
legislation. After all you ought not to feel dis-
heartened that in the late session so much was not
done as you were perhaps sanguine enough to ex-
pect. I observe in looking at the list of the
statutes that there were no less than 154 public
general acts passed during the late session of Par-
liament. I know some of them were measeras of
detail and routine, and could hardly pretend to be
deemed measures of great importance or originality.
Still there were a considerable number of measures
which you would have been very sorry to miss, and
the country would have been injured if these acts
had not been passed. Among these acts are the
acts relating to tbe budget. It was considered that
the budget introduced by the Chancellor of the
Exchequer was a very important one ; there were
circumstances connected with it which were cer-
tainly very much to be regretted, and disputes
arose between the two Houses of Parliament with
regard to the repeal of the paper duty. The French
treaty, for instance, some persons think, was a
compromise of the doctrines of free trade, though I
must confess that it did not strike me in such a
point of view. I think you will bear me out that
on my former visit I said it would be well for the
two countries—France and England—if some
step' were taken to increase the trade between
them, and thus prevent the wars which we so
much deplore, and I then mentioned the article of
wine. It did so happen that we had, shortly after
this, an intimation that there would be an alteration
of the wine duties. I was one of those who sup-
ported her Majesty's Ministers not only with re-
gard to the wine duties, but throughout the
budget, not taking exception to mere details, in
which there might have been small errors, but
taking the scheme as a whole, and the result is that
neither I nor those of my constituents with whom
I have been in communication have had occasion
to regret the course so pursued. (Cheers.) With
regard to the census, you will recollect there was a
great deal of excitement, and I was one of
those who did not agree to the clause calling on per-
sons to state their religious creed. (Hear.) It
seemed to me to be contrary to the genius of the
British nation that people should be called upon at
the point of the bayonet to state what form of reli-
gion they held. (Cheers.) There was another act
—the Annuity Tax—the principle involved in
which is very much the same as in the case of the
church rate. I very much doubt whether the act
passed to settle the annuity tax difficulty will be a
success. My opinion is that fixing the rate as a
police rate in Edinburgh will not be satisfactory.
There will be just as much objection to the annuity
tax as before, because the principle objected to
will not be touched; already the banner of opposi-
tion has been raised, and I am afraid that law will
not be a success. With regard to the failures—we
had among these the ballot, the repeal of the paper
duties, and the church rates. Now, with regard to
the former, I voted for the ballot as usual. (Cheers.)
I voted also for the application of the ballot speci-
ally to the two boroughs—Wakefield and Glou•
cester ; that was on the motion of Mr. Duncombe,
so that I had two opportunities of voting for secret
suffrage. (Cheers.) With regard to the paper
duties, it is really a very serious question, and one
which produced a great deal of discussion, and will
do so again. It is a most grave and important
matter, and it seems to me it was passed over toe
lightly. We are at present paying about £4,000
daily in taxes by the authority of the House of
Lords. The. House of Lords thought fit to reject a
material part of a budget passed by the House of
Commons, which, I believe, had not been done for
400 years before, except in matters of trifling im-
portance, and this will certainly produce a great
deal of ill feeling, which I am afraid will last for
a long time to come. It produced its points in the
last session of Parliament, because, towards the
end of it, several measures came down which were

not passed in consequence of the feelings engen-
dered between the two houses. The House of Lords
has assumed the office of the Chancellor of the
Exchequer ; the office of dealing with finance no
longer pertains exclusively to the people's house,
and Mr. Gladstone ceased to be Chancellor of the
Exchequer, the House of Lords usurping the funo-
tions which belonged to him. Now that is indeed
to oppose the British constitution. If that course
be tolerated, if we do not next year retrace that step
and get that precedent obliterated, the British con-
stitution is at an end, as there is no saying to what
length such precedent may be carried in the future.
(Hear, hear.) I would advert shortly to the subject
of church rates. (Cheers.) This subject, I may say,
is one upon which I most honestly and sincerely
endeavoured to bring the litigation parties together.
I endeavour to deal with the subject in all points
of view, so as to see whether a measure way be
passed such as would obtain the assent of all classes.
After a deal of conversation with different parties,
the idea was found to be totally impracticable, and
it seems to be hopeless to think of carrying any
other measure but that I presented. We carried
the measure through the House of Commons, but
were defeated in the House of Lords. You recollect
how many times tkis has passed through the House
of Commons, and how very decided the opinion of
the public has been that church rates should be
abolished. Then I must notice the inconsistency of
those who take an opposite line to me. What do
they do ? They put up an Irishman—Mr. White-
side—to oppose me upon church rates, on the alle-
gation that they are a fixed part of the inheritance
of the church, as sacred as tithes, and on no account
to be touched ; and then they themselves propose a
bill to exempt Dissenters from payment of church
rates. If the law were that of the Medes and
Persians ; if it be true that every man is bound to
pay a church rate, why bring in an act of Pallia-
meet to exempt any portion of the population
from obeying such law ? That is what the
Derbyite Government did; but that is not all.
My Lord Derby was at the head of the Government
which abolished the whole church rate in Ireland
in the name of vestry cess, confiscated the incomes
of ten bishoprics, and altered the, tithe system
by giving up to the Irish landlords one-fourth of
the tithes. Take, I say, one ground or the
other, but not grounds manifestly inconsistent.
If church rates are an inheritance of the church
why exempt any one ? If not an inheritance, why
maintain them ? I sayithe position of Lord Derby's
party is not tenable in argument; there is no argu-
ment in it. Then, again, how can you say that the
church rate was a fixed portion of the inheritance
of the church, and not to be touched on any account,
when the House of Lords, as it did on appeal in
the great Braintree case, solemnly affirmed that no
person was bound to pay a particular church rate
unless it was carried by a majority of the
parishioners present at the time it was made ? If
it was a law that could not be opposed, the obliga-
tion falls on every man equally, and yet the Lords
say the majority may refuse to pay, and the tax
would not be legal unless the majority enforced it.
That then is the unsoundness of the position held
by those who oppose me on this matter of church
rates. I suppose we shall have to fight the good
fight as before, and I suppose by degrees they will
find out there is no way of dealing with the subject
except that I have presented, and I dare say we
shall succeed. But no doubt some bickerings will
arise. It is said that Dr. Foster and the Liberation
Society were the cause of my not getting a larger
majority. A great deal has been said about this in
the House of Commons, and sometimes these gentle-
men have been abused for their exertions. I think
they deserve a great deal of gratitude, for, after all,
they have been candid and out-spoken men, and
although, perhaps, they have not taken the most
politic course, yet no one ought to censure them for
straightforwardness. They openly stated that they
desired ulterior measures, and they stated what
they were. Well, I think that ought to receive
some praise; in that they expressed exactly what
their views were, and there was no deceit about
them. You have heard that we have lately had in
Parliament a discussion upon the salary of the Dean
of York. A. 6 well as I cart recollect, he had about