The Sun.
London, England, 1858-04-06 00:00:00

THIt SIZIN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, APRIL 6,

jority of b.onourable members ' • and, secondly, on
accou:nt elf its greater simplicity as compared with
the co m.7,aeting Bill. /low, respecting the first of
these allegations, we can only say that it'rests upon
a most violent and untenable assumption. The
division i in which the house, by a majority of 150,
passed the first reading of Lord Palmerston's Bill
by no means expressed any approval of the scheme
it contained, or even of the principles on which it
was founded. How, indeed, was it possible for the
Legisis.ture either to approve or condemn a measure
which they had not seen, upon such loose data as
could bo collected on the spot from the ministerial
exposition of its provisions, and without time for
any deliberate consideration? On this very ground
it has become an accepted canon of Parliamentary
esage, that 110 vote on a motion for leave to bring
in any Bill shall pledge either the house collectively
or members individually, as to their course with
respect to its subsequent stages. Ner did the
terms of the question, on which Lord Palmerston
took "the sense of the house" when first laying
his measure before the Commons, imply an opinion
of any sort as to its merits. The division took
place on Mr. Baring's amendment declaring that
the time was unfit for legislation on the subject.
The majority, whereof the ex-Premier's supporters
make so much, decided no other issue than that of
time. It was then ruled—so far as a t•ingle vote
could determine anyquestion so importatitand com-
plicated—that some new system of Indian adminis-
tration should forthwith be organised. This decision
was recognised by Mr. Disraeli as having prompted—
it might almost be said compelled—the present
Ministers to undertake the task of framing a bill
for that purpose. But as regards the selection of
any particular system or proposition for effecting
the object iu view, the House was left altogether
unfettered ; and the so-much talked of "majority"
could be as justly claimed by Lord Ellen borough
in support of Bill No. 2, as by Lord Palmerston
in approval of Bill No. I. These considerations
aro so obvious that we should not have ventured to
recapitulate them were it not that we find the ex-
Ministerial organs still dwelling upon the argu-
ment, that the House has actually committed itself
to a formal sanction of the Palmerstonian measure.

The second allegation, that of " simplicity," is
more feasible. But the superior merits thus im-
parted to the Bill No. 1, would be far better ap-
preciated by the Ministers of a despotic Sovereign
than the subjects of a free State. Lerd Palmer-
ston's proposed " Council of Eight," all nominated
by the Crown, is, no doubt, much more simple in
construction than a body of eighteen members, all
of whom must possess certain qualifications, while
half of their, number are to be elected by popular
constituencies, variously composed, and differing
considerably as to their numbers and condition.
Just in the same manner must we allow that a
sheer despotism is more simple than any form of
constitutional government. There may be coun-
tries where this quality would be recognised as con-
ferring an incontestible superiority. We do not,
however, suspect that it wilt obt tin very extensive
approval in the British House of Commons.
It seems to be understood on all sides that the
" trial point" between the two Bills will lie in their
respective schemes for the composition of a Council
for India. Other provisions relate either to prin-
ciples on which every one is agreed—such, for ex-
ample, as the appointment of a fourth Secretary of
State for the Administration of Indian Affairs, with
his official staff and parliamentary responsibilities
or else to details which may be altogether left for
determination by the House itself, when the clauses
of the accepted measure are debated in committee.
We are required, therefore, to examine, as the
House will have hereafter to discuss, not merely
the original constitution, bat also the subsequent
functions and powers .of this Council. Wheo the
framers of the Bills have got their respective
Councils, what do they propose to make of them ?
Here we find the real distinction between the two
propositions. Lord Palmerston, when suggesting
a body of only eight nominated members, evidently
contemplates converting it into a mere " Board."
The Council for India, under this system, would
belong to the same class of adtniuistrativerfunction-
earies as the Board of Admiralty, the Junior Lords
of the Treasury, or the chiefs of Departments in the
Colonial-office. The so-called Councillors woull
degenerate into mere Commissioners—differing
from the officials above-mentioned only iu the
circumstance, that as they were forbid to sit in the
House of Commons, they could never be subjected
to inconvenient cross-examinations ; and as re-
tiring from office at certain prescribed intervals,
they would always be induced to consult the varying
aspects of the political barometer, so as to secure
re-appointment at the end of their term, rather than
address themselves independently and consistently
to promote the well-being of our Indian Empire.
With a Council thus organised, where would be the
check on the Minister, or the responsibility to
Parliament I Who knows now, or knowing, could
alter the proceedings of the Treasury, the Admir-
alty, or any matter of practical detail ? Certainly
not the House of Commons Ass tiled on such
points, the Minister is always able either to elude
the difficulty, or to involve the question iu such a
cloud of official mystery as to baffle the most per-
severing pursuit. Some curious earreipondence
has, indeed, been lately published respecting the
competitive plans for the eonstruclion of new public
offices, showing that between two departments of
the same Administration " my Lords" were able to
defy the power and ignore tho remonstrances even
of a Chief Commissioner of Works, Such, and
worse, would be the position of Lord Palmerston's
eight Councillors, since they would enjoy more com-
plete shelter from parliamentary interference, and
at the same time be more subject to political in-
fluences.

Iu the Council of Eighteen, proposed by Lord
Ellenborough, a very different principle is recog
nised. From is mere magnitude this body would
exercise a far higher degree of influence over the
Minister of the day. But, in addition to their
personal importance, nine members being elective,
wonll wield the power conferred on them by their
constituencie4. This is a distinction whose value,
we may add, does not depend on the actual num-
ber or prescribed qualification of the constituent
body. It is a difference of kind rather than degree.
A. c,uncillor nominated by the Crown has abso-
lutely no right even to remonstrate should his
opinions be overset by an autocratic dictum from
the Minister of the Crown. Where can he appeal
—since the same power to which he owes his own
appointment has also set a superior over his head ?
But an elected Councillor, under such circumstances,
appeals to his constituents, be they many or few ;
and, through his constituents, to public opinion.
This is the principle on which Lord .Ellenborough's
bill claims an essential pre-eminence over Lord
Palmerston's scheme. The particular mode in
which, or the electoral body by which, the nine
members of Council shall be chosen, are matters
for future consideration, The Government have
pretty plainly intimated their perfect readiness to
accept any modification in the proposed measure
which the house might think proper to indicate.
In this deference to the opinion of Parliament, her
Majesty's Minister's cauuut be charged with tres-
passing on the boundaries of official consistency.
Supposing, for instance, that it should be expedient
to abandon the proposal for electing five members
of Council by the 101. householders of five cities
and towns, the change thus oocasioned would Le
far less important than that introduced into the
Reform Act by the celebrated " Chandos Claus,"
which the framers of that measure nevertheless
felt it quite within their competence to adopt rather
than sure ender their bill or resign their offices.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.-April 5.

MANSION-HOUSE—VT. H. Chadwick was
brought before the Lord Mayor, charged with
havingrobbed his employers, Messrs. Smith, Elder,
and Co., the extensive publishers, of No. 65, Corn-
hill.

Mr. Wontner appearad for the prosecution, and
stated that the prisoner had been in the service of
the firm about two yeals-and-a-half, and had com-
mitted in the house a series of robberies during that
time ; that he had beer. treated most liberally, and
that suspicions having keen entertained that he had
abused the confidence roposed in him, Jarvis, the
City detective officer, had been directed to watch
him, the result of wLich was the discovery that
plunder had been committed by him to a serious
amount. The prosecutors having in their employ-
ment 150 persons, cxusidered it to be necessary to
make an example of any of their servants whom
they found to be guilty of acts of dishonesty, and
had determined to pursue that intention in the
present instance.

Mr. Henry Samuel King, a partner in the firm,
said—From suspicions which I entertained of the
prisoner's conduct, I gave directions to the police,
and on Saturday night, at about seven o'clock, the
prisoner was brought to me by Jarvis, the detective
officer. I said to him, "I know why you were
brought back, Mr. Chad wick ; you have been
robbing us." He said, "It's no use denying it, I
have." I said, " You have some of our property
up-stairs." He said, " I have," and I wont with
him up-stairs, and he opened his drawer with a
key and took out four or five books, and said,
"Those are your property." I told him to get his
bag and unlock it, and he took it from a cupboard
and unlocked it, and took two more books out, and
then he placed some.other books down, and admitted
that they were ours. The officer took a pocket-
book from him, and the prisoner said " That is your
property, I took it on Friday," and then the officer
produced some postage stamps, and the prisoner
said they belonged to the firm. He was then taken
to the station-house. I have since that time ex-
amined a number of the books which are produced
by the officer, which I believe to be our property.
The prisoner said he had left some at his house, and
also some at the house in King William-street.
Jarvis (the detective officer) said—On Saturday
night I took the prisoner into custody as he left
the premises of his employers, and brought him to
Mr. King. At the station-house the prisoner gave
his address, and I went there, and found 64 printed
books, which I now produce, and several parts of
works. I found upon the prisoner's person a pocket
book, which I produce, and also 12s. 6d. worth of
postage stamps. I siw him take from his drawer
four books, and from his bag four others, and from
a shelf in the same room two others in a parcel.
I have since obtained five other books from a house
in King William street.
The prisoner, upon being asked whether he wished
to say anything, said, " No, no."
Committed for trial.
James `Minden was charged under the following
circumstances :

Policeman 101—At half-past tan o'clock on
Saturday night I was in Leadenhall-street, and I
saw two men there. There was some talk between
them about skeleton keys. The prisoner joined the
men, aMd I went over and took him into custody
with this ba.dc, t in his possession. I asked him
what he had there, and he said his own clothes, and
nothing belonging to me. I found that the basket
contained tw© pieces of pork and two pounds of
mutton chops. The prisoner then said he was
going to take the chops to Messrs. Lockyer and
Davis, and the pork to the same place, and that he
was in the employment of Messrs. Bannister.

Mr. Edward Bannister, partner in the firm of
Messrs. Bannister, of Threadneedle-street, butchers,
said—The prisoner has been in our employment
some time, and we never suspected him of die-
honwity. We have pork like that produced. Tne
prisoner had to leave some ohops at Messrs. Lock-
yer's, but no pork. I believe the plrk to be ours.
The Lord Mayor—Had he any right to take the
pork from your premises ?
Witness—Not at all ; we have been watching
two men who have been lately lurking about our
premises. The prisoner is respectably connected,
and always had an adequate allowance of money.
The Lord Mayor said the prisoner had been de-
tected i❑ very good time, and if the couversati
about the sk-leton key were to be considered as an
intimation of future operations, very probably Mr.
Bannister bad reason to congratulate himself upon
what had taken place.
The prisoner—l was not certain whether it was
pork or mutton that bad been ordered, and I took
the pork at the same time to see which it was.
The Inn' Mayor—You shall go to the House of
Corr,ctiin for one month.—Committed,

MKRLBOROUGH-STREET.—Mathew Junes,
a respectably attired young cluntryman, was
charged wi h knowingly uttering a false note on
the Leicester and Leicestershire Bank for 51., and
thereby defrauding one George Mason, of No. 6,
Castle-street.

The prosecutor said he was a turf commissioner
and telegraph agent. On Saturday night last he was
at the bar of a public-house, when the prisoner
came in, and ffrcing himself into conversation, very
much preised him to lay the odds on a particular
horse entered for the Newmarket Handicap.
Mr. Leadley, the chief clerk, asked what the
prosecutor meant by describing himself, among the
rest, as a telegraph agent
Prosecutor replied' that his telegraphic business
was chiefly of a spoiting character ; he transmitted
bets on turf matters for gentlemen, in a similar way
to Stock Exchange affairs. The prisoner, having
teased him very much to have a bet with him, fol-
lowed him out of the house, and still continuing,
offered a 30s. bet on the forthcoming race. He
added, as he was a stranger, he would stake the
money with him. Prosecutor at length consenting,
received from the prisoner the 5/. country nAe pro-
duced, and gave him 31. 103. difference, and the
prisoner went away. Prosecutor subsequently
found the note was good. for nothing. On taking
the note the prisoner said, to prosecutor, "It is a
Lsieester6hire note, but you will find it all right. I
have three or four more of them in my pocket."
Prosecutor, ho we ver, foundit "all wrong," and gave
information and a descriptiom of the prisoner to
police, and the prisoner was la consequence traced
out and taken into custody.

The prisoner, who said if the note was bad he did
not know it, was remanded till Wednesday next.
Alexander Rose was on Monday, the 22d ult.,
charged, on the evidence of police-constable C 71,
with stabbing a woman in the head with some in-
stt ument whereby she was placed in great danger,
and unable to make her appearance then in sup-
port of the charge.
The constable deposed that he was going his
rounds through Princes-row, Soho, about half-pa=t
12 on the previous Saturday night when he met a
woman known to him as Elizabeth Cullie, who was
bleeding profusely from the head ; she was, in fact,
covered with blood, and groaning as if in great
pain and weakness. He raised her up, and 03, as
intelligibly as she could, told him she had been
stabbed by a man. As it was close by he ltd her
to No. 5, Princes-court, where she at once, on
entering, pointed out the prisoner as the man from
whom she had received the injuries. There was a
vast deal of blood over the floor of the room. The
prisoner was then taken into custody and the in-
jured woman to the hospital.
This being the earliest day the woman could be
permitted out to give evidence she made her ap-
pearance against the-prisoner as the complainant.
Her head was bound up and she was accommodated
with a seat during the time she gave ln-r evidence
because of the extremebodily weakness under which
she was labouring. She gave her evidence with
great difficulty.
Complainant, on being sworn, said—My name is
Elizabeth Cullie, and lam a widow. I had been
living with the prisoner for three years on and off
—the last time for about three months. 1 had
again left him for about a week before the assault.
On 'Saturday, the 20th, last mouth, in the evening,
I had occasion to go to him at his lodgings, in
Princes-coutt. What took place on my reaching
hi 3 room I cannot-recollect. I had had something
to drink, and sat down on the foot of the bed.
What my forgetfulness arises from Ido not know,
but believe it to be from the injuries I received ; but
cannot say positively. I received a violent blow from
the prisoner on the he ad,and lost a large quantity of
blood in consequence. I lost my consciousness, and
on coming to myself found I was in the hospital.
I do not know what instrument the blow was given
with.

The prisoner, who mole no remark, was r minded
for anifher w:ek, and she woman conveyed hack to
the hwpital, of which she still remains an in-door
patient.

H.A.MMERSMITH.—Mrs. Leuningbam, a lady
residing at 43, Rutland-gate, Knightsbridge, was
summoned to answer the complaint of Geo. Forest,
a cab-driver, for refusing to pay 6d., the remainder
of a fare.

Defendant did not appear, but was represented
Ly her husband.

Complainant deposed the. he frequented the cab
stand in Charles-street, Trovor-square, and was
called off on this occasion to tike up at No. 43,
Rutland-gate. He drove defendant to the Oratory
at Brompton, and upon the lady alighting she gave
him 6J. Ho told her the fare was ls,, but she
answered that sho never paid any more than 6d.,
and walked away. Thiswas a common occurrence
of the lady, having cabs for that distance, and not
paying more than 6d. lie had taken, her two or

three times, and all the cabmen on the stand knew
her. The distance exceeded a mile.

Mr. Ingham askrd the driver if he had measured
he distance.

Complainant said he bad, and found that it was
70 yards over the mile.
Mr. Lenningham said he had made inquiries and
found that it was a bard Gd. for the distance, and
he had given instructions for the is. to be given in
future, as it was the proper fare.
Mr. Ingham then made an order for the payment
of the Gd., with 7s. costs, being 2e. 6d. for each day
the cabman attended, and 2s. the summons.
The money was immediately paid.