The Sun.
London, England, 1867-04-06 00:00:00

The Fate of Dr. Livingstone.

The Secretary of the Admiralty has forwarded us
the following for publication
" Commodore Hillyar, in a hitter dated Bombay,
the 13th of March last, reports that her Majesty's
ship Wasp had returned to Zanzibar, from Quiloa,
with Mr. Seward, her Majesty's Acting Political
Resident at Zanzibar, and states that the informa-
tion which that officer had been able to obtain re-
specting the reported death of Dr. Livingstone was
chiefly of a confirmatory nature.
Admiralty, April 5, 1867.

The Times of India, of March 13, states that the
intelligence received from Zanzibar now leaves no
doubt of the death of Dr. Livingstone. The state-
ment of an Arab, named Moose, one of the heroic
traveller's most trusty followers, who, with a few
others of the expedition, returned to the East Afri-
can coast in December, confirms the news that their
leader was murdered. It would appear that Dr.
Livingstone had crossed Lake Nyassa about the
middle of September last, and had advanced a few
stages on its western shore, when he encountered a
horde of savages of the Mafite tribe. lle was
marching, as usual, ahead of his party, having nine
or ten personal attendants, principally boys from
Nassick, immediately behind him. The savages are
said to have set upon them without any provocation
and with very little warning. Dr. Livingstone's
men fired, and before the smoke of their muskets
had cleared away their leader had fallen beneath the
stroke of a battle-axe, end his men speedily shared
the same fate. Moose, who witnessed the encounter
and the death-blow of his master from behind a
neighbouring tree, immediately retreated, and meet-
ing the rest of the party, they fled into the deep
forest, and eventually made their way back to Lake
Nyassa, whence they returned to the coast with a
caravan. When the news of Dr. Livingstone's sad
death reached Zanzibar, the English and other Eu-
ropean Consuls lowered their flags, an example
which was followed by all the ships in the harbour,
as well as by the Sultan. It may be worth while
to remark that Dr. Livingstone himself had a
strong presentiment that he would never return
from the expedition which has terminated thus
disastrously ; and this presentiment he frequently
expressed to the officers of her Majesty's ship Pen-
guin, who were the last Europeans he saw before
starting for the interior.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—This Day.

SHERIFFS' COURT.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Kerr.)
CHAPMAN AND OTHERS V. PARR.
The plaintiffs in this case sued as public officers
on behalf of the London and Westminster Bank, to
recover £lO, an overpayment upon a cheque, which
had been presented by the defendant, who was a
porter iu an establishment in the City.
It appeared that the defendant presented to one
of the cashiers at the bank a cheque for £7, and the
cashier, in the hurry of business, or upon the belief
that the figures represented " seventeen," paid Parr
£lO too much. It was alleged that the cheque was
indistinctly made out, but it was produced in Court
and certainly did not bear out this statement.
His Honour asked the defendant if he had re-
ceived this money.
Defendant—Yes, I did.
His Honour—And what did you do with it ?
Defendant—l spent it.
His Honour—And so you have not got it now ?
Defendant--No, I have not.
His Honour—Well, you received this money,
knowing it did not belong to you, and spent it. Do
not you think that was very dishonest ?
Defendant--Well, you see, I have been a suf-
ferer upon former occasions. It is quite time that
I had this £lO, but I had been a sufferer on a
previous occasion. It is not long ago that this bank
paid me £5 short, and when I applied about it I
could get no redress, as they never recognised any
mistake after the money was taken away. When
I presented this cheque I asked the cashier for £5
in silver, and he threw a bag upon the counter, and
then he threw down twelve bright. sovereigns. I
took this away, recollecting as I did my previous
loss.

His Honour told defendant that he had no right
to repay himself in any such manner. If he bad
any claim against the bank be must bring his
action, but he certainly had no business to keep
the money that had been overpaid to him on the
present occasion. He must therefore repay the ,ElO.
Defendant—l hope your honour will give me
time to pay it.
His honour—Oh ! dear no ; you must pay it at
Once.

Plaintiff's Attorney—When the defendant was
called before the directors of the bank he treated
them and the whole matter with a great deal of
coolness, and therefore I trust your honour will
make an order that the amount shall be paid forth-
with.

His Honour—Certainly, and I shall grant costs.
Verdict for the plaintiff with costs.

LIVERPOOL COTTON MARKET.
(This Day.)

Market opens with a rather irregular tone. Sales
probably 7,000 or 8,000 bales or more.

What Will Lord Derby Do ?

TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.

SIR, —I well remember hearing two men speak on
the relative merits of the Whigs and Tories many
years ago. One said to the other, " Whenever the
Tories have been in office they have invariably
brought us to the verge of revolution." His com-
rade quickly replied, " When the Whigs are in
office they as invariably bring us to the brink of
insolvency." How true the last-quoted retort was
let any one, who is not old enough to recall the
history of the last 30 years, just take the trouble to
examine the statistical falling account of our revenue
between April, 1835, when Sir Robert Peel quitted
of lice, when he left a surplus revenue of something
above £7,000,000, and August, 1841, just six and
a half years afterwards, during which time we were
consigned to the bungling management, or rather
mismanagement, of the Whigs. When, in the year
and month above named, Sir R. Peel, on again
becoming First Lord of the Treasury, found a de-
ficit of over £3,000,000, and was absolutely com-
pelled to have recourse to an income tax in a time
of profound European peace ; and direct taxation
had previously to 1842 always been looked upon as
part and parcel of the horrors of war. How equally
absurd is it to say that a Tory Government is neces-
sarily ex necessitate rei opposed to all Reform. If
we come to analyse the matter, all life is a Reform
Bill. Reform means change, and our very existence
is made up of nothing but change, and that too from
childhood to old age. It is a reform when he leaves his
parents and goes to school ; it is another reform
when he leaves school and goes either to the uni-
versity or else embarks upon some profession.
And how great a reform is it when either man or
woman quits bachelorhood or spinsterhood for the
holy estate, and, as we all hope, the happier and
much more blessed estate of matrimony. And
again, what a change when we pass from married
life to widowhood ; when an articled clerk, or
bit student, passes into the attorney or barrister ;
as likewise when medical students become SUI g .ons
or physicians. I might pursue this theme to any
extent—might expatiate upon the policy, the pro-
fitableness, and relative advantages and disadvan-
tages of change in all its various phases. I will,
however, content myself with stating that reform
and change is as certain in the political world as
the rising and setting of the sun, the new and
full moons, and the ebbing and flowing of the
tides, or any thing else amongst those certain
and immutable laws which an all-wise and bene-
ficent Creator has laid down for the everlasting
benefit of his creature, man. What, therefore, is
to prevent our having reform and change (for
reform and change are in themselves necessarily
identical terms) in our body politic and corporate?
It is absurd and wholly ridiculous upon the face
of it to say that a 'Tory Government is neces-
sarily opposed to all reform or change. Having
premised thus much, 1 now proceed to show what
great and substantial reforms we have ever had
from Tory, or, as it has now been the fashion for
many years to call them, Conservative Governments.
How much reform, and how great and numerous
improvements, we have had iu days of yore from
our presentPromier I have in my recent correspon-
dence repeatedly shown you, except I do not re-
member ever having alluded to the brilliant speech
delivered in the old House of Commons in 1824 in
favour of the total abolition of Negro slavery. 1
now pass further back from the reign of our late
monarch, King William IV ~ which was essen-
tially ipso facto a period of 'W higgery to the reigns
of George 111. and George IV., which was as esse n-
tinily ipso facto a period of so-called ultra-Toryis ml
and I there find that during the Administration of
the immortal William Pitt (as we had in the time
of his father, the great Lord Chatham, who had
ever been looked upon as a great reformer and
Liberal ; William Pitt was brought up in a school
essentially Liberal, as Fox was in a school essen-
tially Tory) was ever reforming and reforming our
constitution, and Cobden asserted many years ago
that had not the old French war broken out in 1793,
it had been Pitt's intention to have carried out the
doctrines of Parliamentary Reform and free trade
to a far greater extent than even we have got them
now. Pitt was not only an advocate for, but was
himself the originator of Roman Catholic emancipa-
tion. In that high Tory Government of Lords
Liverpool, Eldon, Sidmouth, Castlereagh, &c., the
Ministers were completely divided upon the ques-
tion of Roman Catholic emancipation, as many
being in favour as against it. Wby, therefore,
should a Conservative Government be supposed
to be diametrically opposed to Reform in
the abstract ? During the two last Adminis-
trations of Lord Derby, as well as during the
five years Administration of the late immortal Sir
R. Peel, more useful reform found their way to
the statute book than during any Whig Adminis-
tration whatever, unless we accept the three and a
half years of the Administration of the late Earl
Grey, the so-called father of Reform, which, as I
have repeatedly remarked to you, in the course of
my correspondence, was by far the strongest Whig
Government England was ever governed by. I
trust, therefore, England will remember, as I have
repeatedly stated, that our present First Lord of
the Treasury was one of the ablest and most influen-
tial members of that very old Reform Government.
I trust Lord Derby's Reform Bill will become part
and parcel of the law of the land in 1867, the same
as his old one did in 1832. Otherwise, should he
meet with any factious opposition in the matter, I
trust he will at once follow the precedents of the
late Earl Grey in 1831, the late Sir R. Peel in
1834-5, and last, not least, his own precedents in
1852 and 1859, go at once to the country, by which
means he will, I trust, obtain as overwhelming a
majority as Lord Grey did in 1831 and Sir R. Peel
in 1841. No change or Reform Bill is more certain
than a change of Ministry, and as the Whigs were
in until last session for 20 years with very little in-
termission (indeed, if we were to except the five
glorious years of Sir Robert Peel's Administration)
for 36 years. Once more do let me entreat the
country to give the Government a fair trial.-1
remain, Sir, your obedient servant,
A LOVER AND OBSERVER OF HISTORICAL
DATES AND FACTS.