The Sun.
London, England, 1858-08-05 00:00:00

make a man condemn himself out of his own mouth.

We are going further in the same way, ourselves.
The party may not be interrogated in the name of
the law by a public, functionary, but he will be
pumpyl by a policeman pretending to be a prisoner,
and duly handcuffed to keep up the cha-
racter. There are detectives ready for any work,
however dirty or sneaking. If a man, bit by
the green-eyed monster, conceives a jealousy- of
his innocent wife, he can have her watched night
and day, and her most secret proceedings chronicled.
A husband may also watched—if he is in trade,
a record kept by the so-called protection societies of
all his acts. These things are dcfcndcd ; but, as we
have already stated, they arc opposed to every Bri-
tish principle and British feeling. We should deter-
mine to act in the constitutional spirit exhibited by
the venerable judges of the land, and in every in-
stance that occurs repudiate the " spy system" in
whatever form it may be brought under our notice.
On Tuesday, a man named RICHARD RASALEICH
was tried at Bodmin, the chief evidence against him
being that of a policeman, who got himself hand-

cuffed and placed in the same cell in order to worm
out his secret, or, as he himself declared, "to -find
out if there was any other party connected with the
prisoner." Baron WATSON commented with just
indignation on this extraordinary proceeding,
wisere a man went under false pretences to
a prisoner. A magistrate should caution a pri-
soner, but a policeman led him, and might pos-
sibly be inclined to strengthen the unfavourable
points. Policemen have, generally speaking, a quick,
lively, and technical sense of guilt. They reverse the
sound axiom of the British law, and are disposed to
consider " every man guilty until hi. innocence is
established." They seek to communicate their own
suspicions to the jury, and too often look upon the
conviction of an innocent prisoner as a triumph of
their art.

It is true that all the fallacies that have been ut-
tered on this subject should be disregarded. Men
should not be unnecessarily tempted into crime, traps
should not be laid for their reception, nor should there
be a perpetu.d watch kept in order to ascertain whether
sme error or wrongful act may be discovered. Let
Englishmen act in a becoming manner, and get rid
of the entire tribe, whose business it is to create mis-
chief and litigation. If they benefit by information
thus unfairly obtained, they may rest rsurcd that
they themselves will be victimised in turn. Al-
though conscious of perfect innocence, they will
not like to have all their private habits ferretted out
and duly recorded to satisfy the curiosity of neigh-
bours. 'We may wonder at the gimlet:holes bored in
the doors and wainscoates of Continental Hotels ;
but can we say that the bearer has been fully with-
drawn from our own eyes—that we are not equally
guilty so long as we encourage the objectionable system

Uis Excellency the Minister for the Netherlands
has returned to town, from visiting the Marquis and Mar-
chioness of Westminster at Eaton Hall, Cheshire.
- -

His Excellency the Bavarian Minister has left
town, on a visit to Mr. 11. T. Hope, at Deepdene, near

Docking, Surrey.
The Duke of Cleveland leaves town early in the
ensuing week for his shooting quarters in the north. The
Duchess and Lady Augusta Ponlett go to Brighton for a
few weeks before repairing to Roby Castle for the autumn.
The Duke and Duchess of Manchester left town
yester.lay for Hiuchingbroke, near Huntingdon, on a visit to
the Earl and Countess of Sandwich.

The Duchess of Buccleuch and Lord Chas. Scott
are staying in town. The Duke and Ladies Scott are at
Beaulieu, near Southampton.
The Duchess (Dowager) of Norfolk has arrived
on a visit to the Marquis and Marchioness of Westminster,
at Eaton Hall, near Chester.

The Marquis of Hartington, M.P., left town on
Tueslayto join the Duke of Devonshire at Milnethorp e,

Lancashire.

FATAL RAILWAY ACCIDENT.—An inquest was
held on Monday evening, by Mr. Rutter, county coroner,
on the body of John Dooley, aged 21, a dyer, living in
Rowhill-square, who was killed whilst attempting to '
cross the railway at the Ordsal-lane Station, Manchester,
on Sunday morning. The principal witness was John
Hart, one of the gatekeepers at the Ordeall-lane Station,
where there is a level crossing. He stated that he was on
night duty on Saturday night, and that about seven minutes
after one o'clock on Sunday morning he saw the de- \
ceased running at a rapid pace down Ordsal•laae towards
the crossing. At that moment witness saw the mail train,
which leaves the Victoria Station at one o'clock, approach-
ing, and he waved bis lamp towards the deceased, at the
same time shouting to him to stop. He continued, how-
ever, to rue forwards, and as the train bad arrived almost
close to the station, witness held out his arms to keep him '
hock. Upon this he left the footpath upon which he had
1 been running, and proceeded on the roadway towards the
rails, from which he was distant the n only a few yards.
After hesitating for a moment be attempted to cross tic
line, hut the balers of the train struck him, throwing him
forward, and the fire-box coming in contact with his body,
it was badly mutilated. The engine-driver and the fire-
man, when close to the station, saw the deceased on the
rails, and did their best to save his life by Pounding the
danger whistle and stopping the train, but be appeared to
take no notice, and although the steam was immediately
shut off and the brakes applied, the train could not be
stopped until it had pat,sed over him and partly entered
the station. When taken up the deceased's body smelt
strongly of beer, and it was ascertained from his wife that
he came home intoxicated at 11 o'clock on Saturday night,
that he afterwards drank more beer, and that about one
o'clock on Sunday morning he left his house with the
intention of going to his sister-in-law, in Regent-road, to
invite her to dinner on that day. It was while on his way
to her house that the accident occurred by which he lost his
life. During the inquiry, it was stated that during the day
four gatekeepers are stationed at the Ordsdal lane crossing,
and two at night. The gates on each side leading from the
cart road are nasally left open, but they are not used by foot
passengers. On this occasion the deceased left the footpath,
and ran thr ugh the large gate used for carts, which was
then open. The gateman on the opposite side witnessed the
accident, and eorrohorate,l the evidence of Hart as to his
' having wed every eir,rt to prevent the deceased from cr.ss-
t ing. The jety returntd a verdict of accidental death, hut
. animadverted very strongly upon the dangerous condition
of Ibis crossing, and requested the coroner to lay the matter
before the railway department of the Board of Trade, with
a sugazestion that a new road, to supersede the level creasing
over the line, shoald be carried underneath the railway.—
I Manchester Guardian.

" GOUGH V. LEES."—Having recently mentioned
the current report, whiei had appeared in various news-
papers, that ill the recent trial of Gough v. Lees the counsel
fur the latter had consented to the vertifet wi'liout the
authority of his cheat, we have been requested, in justice to
the barrister referred to, to publish the fuilowing letter ad-
dressed by him to a resident of Manchester, in answer to
one ( f inquiry as to the fact :—" Mitilaad Circuit, Derhy,27th
July. Sir,---I had heard, but not seen in print, that Dr. Lees
has stated that the course taken by me on his behalf on the
trial of the action by Mr. Gongtt, was without his authority.
Inasmuch as he was in court, sitting under me, and I took
the course I did after repeated communications with him,
and ultimately with his assent (without which I could bare
done nothing), I did not regard the reports I heard of
what others bad read in newspapers, which I did notice,
as of any moment. I have had no communication from
Ur. Lees, or any person an his behalf, since the trial. The
imputation that I acted otherwise than out of a simple
regard to the interests of Dr. Lees, or with any under-
standing with Mr. James Inconsistent with my duty to my
client, is one which I do not think it worth my while to
combat, and which I am sure would not be attempted to
be put upon me in the presence of any to whom I am
known. The mere fact is, that, in common with two emi-
nent members of the bar, who_ were associated with me in
Dr. Lee's defence, I was of opinion that to persist in
endeavouring to justify, with the evidence we had, the
libels complained of, would have resulted in a verdict fur
an amount of damages which would have been absolutely
disastrous to Dr. Lees ; and I urged upon him most
strongly the propriety of withdrawing from the case in the
manner adopted—unless, indeed, the parsons who seemed
to Ne aiding him in the matter were prepared to pay for
him any amount of damages, with costs, that the jury
might award. Otherwise, if Dr. Lees were not in n condition
to protect himself', by payment out of his own resources, from
the consequence of an adverse verdict, his only resort would
be the Insolvent Court, where lie would infallibly incur a
lengthened term of imprisonment before he could be dis-
charged from a debt so incurred. These considerations were
strongly urged by me upon Dr. Lees, and ultimately his
consent was given that I should withdram frcm the further
defence of the case. If I had failed in inducing Dr. Lees
to conform himself to my advice, I should have had no
choice but to proceed ; but my first duty was to tnke
care, if I could, that my client should not, by overcredu-
lowness in his own case, and by inexperience of the
probable chances of a trial at law, be betrayed into his
pecuniary ruin. I am,
1
mla:yottimia%
givenperce sive,Owti tarsiutibn3gi,navi-atibry
great haste ; but I believe
the information you require.-1 am, air, very ebediently,
KENNETH MACA ITLAY. Y.S.—Understand that I had and
have nn opinion whether Mr. Gough was or was not liable
to the charges made by Dr. Lees; but the ground of my
advice to Dr. Lees was, that he was Not provided with any-
thing like adequate proof for the purpose of his defence. Mr.
F. P. Williams, 1, Selby-street, Ardwick, Manchester."—
Manches! er Guardian.
THE BISHOP OF CARLISLE AND THE YORK CON-
vOCATION.—A valued correspondent recalls our attention
to the letter of the 11ev. Will. Dodd, of Lindisfarne, to the
Times (copied in the Record of July 21st), in, which Mr.
Doddattemwp
ittsht orcontrovertthteh e statementsyotk cowic
coat t
i?ne.
t
Bishop
of Carlisle is
jastly observrrl that the case which Mr. Dodd trthkes out is
that of the members of Convc,cation expressing their confi-
dence in Convocation, a thing which in itself proves jest
nothing. Again, Mr. Dodd says that four out of live of the
represent wives of the clergy in Carlisle diccese bad signed
the petition to the Queen, but an examination of the list
shows that (deducting the dignitaries) there are not five re-
presentatives in that diocese.
The Dean of Christchurch and Dr. Acland arrived
at Osborne on Saturday on a visit to the Queen.
Tilt OPEN-AIR SERVICES IN ST. PAUL'S, BER-
M 0 Ni
incumbent,eDeY.
were— BER-
MONDSEY.—These
hlVitteetlovl well-attended
vet el.onsdpee
od.
nLaosnnduan,Lid highly-appreciated
athtii
end
services
seventh time. His subject was, the " Cities of Refuge."
(Nun,. xxxv. 11.) The total ntuatr of tracts distribotA has
Veen 4,W0.