The Sun.
London, England, 1869-04-07 00:00:00

THE AIR OF THE LAW COURTS.

Revelations of the darker side of human nature
nave oxupied a fair share of attention within the
last few days. The murder at Norwich has caused
amazement from its commencement, and bids fair to
came bewilderment to its end. The career of Mr.
Benjamin Higgs has called forth admiration at
his cleverness, wonder at the slovenly way his
employers went to work, and indignation
at his villainy. The revelations of baby farm-
ing have once more raised disgust. The
circumstances surrounding Sheward became more
mysterious than ever. If the letter from Brighton
is a hoax, it is a well-planned one. That Mrs.
Sheward had a lover, one \Vorseltine, and that
he died somewhere about the time of the supposed
murder, has already been announced. We are now
told, further, that just before his death he left his
own family to live with another woman to whom he
was devotedly attached. Was this Mrs. Sheward ?
Mr. Higgs, the great swindler of Teddington,
seems to be not only admired, but sympathised with.
One would think, to read a letter about him in the
Daily News, that he was the victim of some plot
hatched by himself against himself. We are told,
as if in extenuation of his offence, of his numerous
acts of charity. The poor of Teddington absolutely
love him, and some of them would not discover him
to the authorities if a thousand pounds were offered
for his capture. During the panic of 186 G he was
always ready with a helping hand, and averted ruin
from more than one person of position in the
City. A kind man Mr. Higgs was doubtless with
other people's money, but he did not scruple to rush
away from home without a word to his wife. He
did a bit of speculating, it seems, with the funds of
the Central Gas Company, and in one lucky hit
cleared many thousands of pounds. Then he went
hone, gave it away to the poor, in concerts, and in
grand entertainments. Montague Tigg, Esq., in
Mr. Dickens's " Martin Chuzzlewit," though he has
often been denounced as a gross caricature, finds
more than a parallel in Benjamin Higg-s.
Mr. James Greenwood writes to the Star com-
plaining of the decision in the Bow baby farming
case. llere was a woman who had harboured eleven
babies, of whom five had died. The fifth death 's
such that a coroner's jury is called upon to
investizate it. It seems that the non,.
creature had been round ciAztd In its nect,
said bed conisting of an egg box. But what
bad caused its death ? There was nothing to show;
till Mrs. Savill naively explained that in the month
of October she " slipped down," and, falling on the
child, broke its thigh, and that it cried very
much, but she put it to bed, and did not dis-
cover its dreadful injury till next day. And so it was
allowed to languish and die. The coroner sent away
the woman without a stain on her character, the jury
wanted to censure her. Why they were not allowed
to do so does not clearly appear, except that append-
ages to verdicts as a whole are not considered
proper. But the public is likely to do
what the jury could not. That a woman
who keeps a child in straw in an egg box, falls upon
her, and does not attend to her cries until next day,
should be allowed to go away without even a word
of warning, to repeat, maybe, the same thing, looks
very much like misplaced leniency. If babies are to
be "put away," at least let us do it without unneces-
ary cruelty. We do not break the legs of kittens
before we drown them.

THE ARREST OF LOITERERS.
A. story is told in the papers concerning which
Lord George Lennox has given notice of a question
to the Home Secretary, and which is likely to be used
in the debates in the Habitual Criminals Bill. It
appears that a most respectable Scotsman, Mr. Peter
M'Donald, an assistant in the delivery of Treasury
messages, was on the nth of last month, at about
eight p.m., engaged in the performance of his regular
work about town. In the course of his duty he was in
Piccadilly, when one Robert Croucher, police-
sergeant, came up to him, and insisted upon knowing
what he, Mr. Peter M'Donald, was about. He replied,
"_Mind your own business. What's that to do with
you ? You're too officious. They've removed several
of your sort, and they ought to remove you." Ser-
geant Croucher instantly collared the cheeky
" loiterer," and whipped him off to the station.
Peter M'Donald protested in vain. Croucher said
that Mr. M'Donald was loitering, and did not
give a satisfactory account of himself. At the station
he was detained till " the necesmry inquiries were
made," and then he was allowed to go free. This
will probably be used as an overwhelming argument
against giving policemen power to arrest criminals
who are merely loitering. But M'Donald was not
a criminal, and Croucher did not know him as such,
and, therefore, had no right to apprehend him. Nor
would he have a right under the Habitual Criminals
Bill.