The Sun.
London, England, 1835-10-10 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, SATMIDAY, OCTOBER 10, 1835

is notorious to every man of ordinary intelligence or in-
formation. The Duke of Cumberland, the loyal sub-
ject and the affectionate and beloved brother of the
King, was denounced as " a white whiskered bigot,"
and " a mighty liar." The Protestants of Ireland
and those English and Scotch Protestants who feel a
special sympathy with the oppressions, the insults, and
the dangers to which their Irish brethren are exposed;
were denominated " a gang" " one great companions
ship of liars." The weak, contemptible, and exploded
fable of a plot to alter the succession was impudently
revived, for the purpose of telling the mob—and such
a mob—" what mere child's play it would be to them
to fling the Orangemen—aye, and unarmed to, into
the sea." The Duke of Wellington was described as
a man whom nature designed for " a stunted corporal,
and who had attained his height of military dignity,
not, like Napoleon, by individual merit, but, in some
degree, by chance." The Marquis of Londonderry was
proclaimed " a maniac ;" the Earl of Wicklow, " a sim-
pering silly Lord ;" and the Earl of Limerick, .a landlord
who starves his tenants. But it may be doubted if
either the insults and calumnies upon individuals,
however exalted, or the malignant attempts to inflame
the passions of the most ignorant classes of the people,
were the portions of Mr. O'Connell's speech which
will generally be considered as the most complete dis-
qualification of the speaker for the society, we will not
say of the representative of the Sovereign, but of any
honourable or honest man. Mr. O'Connell having
committed these offences against decency, order, and
truth, proceeded to show, by more direct evidence, and
with great apparent pride and ostentation, that political
or private confidence cannot be reposed in him with
any degree of safety ; that it will be nothing to him,
whenever it suits his purpose, to reveal, to any mob
whom he may chance to address, the confidential con-
ferences which have taken place between himself and
Lord Mulgrave on the affairs of the Irish Government,
whose movements he directs, and whose patronage he
distributes. This peculiarity in his moral consti-
tution he exhibited with manifest exultation and de-
light. The conferences to which he was admitted by
Lord Althorp, and Lord John Russell, and Mr. Spring
Rice, and, if there was truth in what he said, Lord
Stanley, on the subject of the Irish Reform Bill, were
trumpetted forth as a matter of boast, as if they had
not been confidential. We do not know what the
'special intention of Mr. O'Connell might be in de-
livering such a speech at this particular moment, but
the effect of the speech was exactly as if he had said, in-
so many words, " I am determined to let Lord Mul-
grave, and all the world, know what manner of man
I am. It is now my greatest triumph to display my-
self fully, and, thus unfolded, to have it in my power
to say that, such as I am, the Representative of the
King of England dares not spurn, reject, nor offend
me." Nothing, indeed, can be more clear than that,
at this moment, Mr. O'Connell is pursuing more vi-
gorously than ever his determination to detach Ireland
from the Government of Great Britain. He knows,
if the drivellers whom lie keeps in place do not, that
a Government which every man of sense, honour, or
spirit must despise, cannot long maintain its autho-
rity ; and it is evidently his purpose to reduce the Bri-
tish Government in Ireland to this degraded and hope-
less condition.—Morning Post.
If Mr. O'Connell's late mission has done no good
to the House of Lords, or to Toryism generally, it has
not been without its advantages to the Journals iden-
tified with that cause. It has afforded them materials
for many a diatribe, with which to grace their columns
in the absence of other topics, which might serve as a
conduit for the discharge of their coarse abuse. And
never, it must be admitted, did their talent for vitupe-
ration, appear to greater advantage than during the
time which Mr. O'Connell took to perform his tour.
Not a single term in the sweet vocabulary of Billings-
ante did they omit in speaking of him and his princi-
ples. They seem, indeed, to have completely ex-
hausted their stock, ample as it was, of this pe-
culiar species of rhetoric ; for now that they have
begun to transfer their vituperation from him to Lord
Brougham, every one must see that, however " will-
ing the spirit," there is a miserable falling off in ef-
fect. Lord Brougham must by this time have
found out that of all the hopeless tasks which a hu-
man being could undertake, decidedly and beyond all
comparison the most hopeless, would be that of pleas-
ing the Tories. If he speaks occasionally, when
speaking is almost unavoidable, he is " a quack,"
" fond of notoriety at any price," " restless," " loqua-
cious," and a thousand things beside. If he is silent
for some time, the worst motives are assigned for that
silence. Since the close of the Session he has not ap-
peared in public. Of course there must be some par-
ticular reason for this. It cannot be from a love of
repose after the unusual fatigues of the last very arduous
Session. It cannot arise from tfie prosecution of those
literary or scientific pursuits of which he is known to
be so peculiarly fond. Neither can it have its origin
in the circumstance of the special opportunity having
offered itself since the close of the Session to address
any assemblage of the people. Oh, no. Either of
these reasons, but especially all of them combined,
would account satisfactorily enough for the silence
of any other man, though he had been much more
in the habit of speaking at public meetings than
Lord Brougham. But they will not explain his si-
lence. Well, then, one would think that the most that
could be said about the matter would be, that there is
something very mysterious in it. That certainly would
be the most rational conclusion, according to the above
premises ; but it is one which will not do for a Tory.
Nothing is mysterious to him. What is a mystery to
others, is clear to his optics as the noon-day sun. The
Tories have accordingly discovered, beyond all doubt,
the cause of his Lordship's late silence. And what is
it ? Why, he has made certain proposals to Lord
Melbourne for his return to office, and he now awaits
an answer. May we take the liberty of asking our
Tory contemporaries at what particular time Lord
Brougham made these proposals to the head of the
Government ? Was it immediately after the close of
the session ? Then Lord Melbourne must not be very
hasty in his decisions ; nor Lord Brougham so impa-
tient as his enemies represent him, if he can have
waited with patience so long for an answer. Or were
the proposals made but a few days ago ? How hap-
pens it, then, that his Lordship . was equally silent
during the space that intervened between the time of
making them, and the close of the session ? These
are questions which the Tory journals may answer at
their leisure. We tell them, in the mean time, that
there is not a word of truth in the report.—Morning
Advertiser.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

MANSION-HO USE.

Yesterday a case of considerable importance came on
before the Lord MAYOR, in which Mr. Bodkin appeared
for the prosecution, and Mr. Charles Phillips and Mr.
Clarkson for the defendant.
Aaron Cohen, of No. 5, York-terrace, Old Kent-road,
was charged with having received a great number of mil-
lers' sacks, well knowing them to have been stolen or un-
lawfully obtained possession of.
Mr. Bodkin, in stating the circumstances, as they were
afterwards detailed in evidence, said that the millers and
flour dealers were constantly sustaining heavy losses from
the plundering of their sacks, and that although ninety
good sacks belonging to Mr. Kidd, the prosecutor in this
case, were traced to the defendant's possession, that per-
son treated the matter lightly, and merely said that he had
had them of Mrs. Palmer, a dealer in marine stores, with
whom he had frequently done business in the rag line.
Mr. Phillips said that a question of importance arose
here. It was necessary to prove that the sacks had been
stolen before a man could be called upon to account for
having received them.
Mr. Bodkin said that the prosecutor would state that
the sacks must have been lost by felonious acts. They
had been in the possession of his customers, by whom they
ought to have been returned. Instead of being returned
they were disposed of.
Mr. Hobler, the chief clerk—The customers could not
have stolen them if the sacks had been left in their posses-
sion, although they might have unlawfully disposed of them.
The LORD MAYOR said that although no particular per-
son could be charged with the felony it was necessary
that those in whose possession the sacks were found should
clearly account for that possession. Sacks when they were
old and of no use were often sent to the paper•makers, but
in this case the sacks were unexceptionable. His Lord-
ship then decided that the evidence should be heard.
Mr. Samuel Kidd stated that he was a miller at Wam-

pledon, in Surrey. In consequence of information which
he had received he went to Mr. Cohen's warehouse, in the
Great Dover-road, and saw the defendant there. He had

previously been at Trigge's wharf, and saw there forty-eight
of his sacks, with his name upon each ; there, and at the
wharf, be was told where to find the defendant. He told
the defendant what he had found at the wharf, and that he

wanted to see whether he could find any more. He, how-
ever, saw nothing of any consequence. The defendant upon
being asked where he got them, said at last that he must
have bought them of a Mrs. Palmer. They had been some
time lying at Trigge's wharf, having been refused by Mr.
George Venables, of Cookham, near Maidenhead, paper-
manufacturer. There were also at Trigge's wharf some
sacks belonging to a miller named Sharpe. Witness was
in the habit of sending his flour to bakers in sacks, and it
was the business of the bakers to return the empty sacks
to the collector who was sent round for them.
The LORD DiIAYOR—Do you keep a regular account of
the sacks ? Witness—No ; we send round a collector,
who returns to us an account. He does not know the
number of sacks be has to collect from each baker. It is
not the custom of the trade.
Mr. Hobler observed that it was usual with the journey-
men bakers to bang the flour out of the sacks, and to make
beds of them for themselves.
The LORD MAYOR—Did you consider the baker respon-
sible for the sacks ? Witness--We never charge them,
but leave it to the collector to gather them.
Mr. Phillips—Did you not search as long as you pleased
in the defendant's premises? Witness replied that no ob-
jection was made. The defendant afterwards sent to him
thirty sacks more. Witness had about 10,000 sacks alto-
gether, and his customers were responsible for deficiencies.
The LORD MAYOR—Do your customers pay for the use
of the sacks ? Witness—Provided we get them back
again they do not. There is a penny a sack given by our
collector for all that are returned, and we give him two
pence halfpenny a sack for collecting. I cannot say where
I saw any of the sacks in question, nor the customers to
whom they had been sent. 1 believe the baker gets-the
penny, and not his journeyman. How many I have lost I
cannot say, but my losses in sacks I expect cost me about
2001. a year. They are greatly increased of late.
Mr. Phillips—Yes, we pay for all that in the loaf.—(A
laugh.)
Mr. Bodkin—What do you mean by making the bakers
responsible ? Witness—lf we prove that they have not
returned the sacks they have to pay for them. I pay
2s. 7d. each for them, and these are as good as new.
Richard Britten, clerk at Trigge's wharf, deposed that on
the 20th and 22d of July he received bales which appeared
to be old rags, addressed to Mr. George Venables, of Cook-
ham. Mr. Venables brought with him, as was the practice,
a gentleman from Alderman Venables' house, to examine
the bales which lay on the wharf, and be rejected them. At
the side which was cut open there appeared coal sacks.
Mr. Kidd appeared at the wharf afterwards.
Robert Dear, foreman of Trigge's wharf, deposed that
the bales which had been rejected by Mr. Venables lay on
the wharf until the outside rotted, and then it was seen
that they contained flour sacks.

Benjamin Messenger, collector of sacks to Mr. Kidd, de-
posed that he received 2id. per sack for collecting, and he
paid a penny a sack to the baker. He never made away
with any of those sacks. Witness stated that the master
bakers kept the penny a sack ;he did not know why. He
did not know how many sacks a baker might have belong-
ing to those for whom he collected, except at times.
Mr. PHILLIPS said it was no wonder the sacks were lost,
when the system was so loose and unmethodical ; but it was
ridiculous to charge his client as a receiver of stolen goods
under these circumstances.

Messenger added, that he saw several torn sacks, on
which were the names of a great many millers. Amongst
the names were Fell, Charrington, Durant, Ever, Hutton,
Clements (not a miller), \Vilden, Appleton, Kidd, Smith,
Grey, Freeman, Champion, Derth, &c. He was present
when Mr. Cohen was spoken to, as to the manner in which
the flour sacks got into the bales, and the defendant said
that he did not know how they got there. The sacks were
packed in open work netting, but they were wrapped up
inside the netting.
The LORD MATOR—You say that the defendant said he
did not know how the sacks got into the bales ? It is most
extraordinary how they got there without your client's know-
ledge (to Mr. Phillips).
Mr. Piiiims—My client has a great number of ser-
vants, and cannot be supposed to know everything that oc-
curred in his extensive business.

The Loan MAYOR—I wish to see Mrs. Palmer, of whom
the defendant says he must have bought these sacks.
Mr. Phillips said that the lady was present, if the prose-
cutor chose to call her as a. witness, but he was not going
to examine her.
Mr. Bodkin—Pll examine her.
Mr. Phillips—Take care how you bring her into trouble
afterwards.

Mr. Prendergast, who appeared as counsel for Mrs.
Palmer, told her to be very careful how she answered.

Mrs. Palmer said she was a dealer in marine stores in

Bermondsey-street. She had had many dealings with the
defendant. Her attention had been called to the sacks in
question. She never saw them till she saw them at the
Mansion-house. She never sold them to her knowledge
to Mr. Cohen. She had sold rags in bags often to him, and
if he got anything of such a kind from her, he ought to
have told her so ; for she never sent anything clandestinely
to him. She had sold to him 1,200 sacks as sacks several
years ago, but she had never sold him sacks as rags.

Henry Clay deposed that he packed for Mrs. Palmer
the bales which she sent from time to time to the defendant.

The LORD MAYOR—Did you ever pack whole sacks
for her ?

LOVE AND A MICHAELMAS GOOSE. Mary
Jones, a pretty, engaging looking specimen of a mantua-
maker, carrying in her hand a defunct goose, applied to the
Magistrates of Henry-street office, for a summons for one
Miss Eleanor Carty, a spinster plying the same trade as
the complainant. Miss Jones, holding up the goose, after
making her curtsey, said, " Your Worships, this' is my
goose ! " Magistrate—Well, and what about it ? Mary
—Foul play, your Worship ; it was poisoned on me. Ma-
gistrate—Pray, how came that ? Why, jealousy, your Ho-
nour ; Ellen Carty gave her a pill or a potion, or somewhat
that way. Magistrate—What was her reason for that
strange act ? Mary—Why, I bought the goose six weeks
ago, and was fattening her up for Michaelmas, to give a
young man who has a liking for me this long time, and in-
deed there's no love lost, a treat next Michaelmas-day. Miss
Carty, who is no beauty, God knows, and she's pock-
marked besides, and might be my mother for age and good-
ness, I'm inclined to think gave my poor goose a dose out
of pure spite. She wants to get inside of me with my
Johnny, and (in a voice between a cry and a whimper said
Mary), that she never shall. Magistrate—Where did you
keep the goose ? In a box on the lobby, please you Wor-
ship. Magistrate—Oh, I suppose the bird died of suffoca-
tion ? Mary—lndeed, its impossible it should die of suffo-
cation ; its the best of good oatmeal and potatoes, and
plenty of them she got. Magistrate—lf you have no bet-
ter proof of Miss Carty's guilt, I cannot give you a sum-
mons. Mary—Then I'll go to Jervis-street Hospital, and
see if the gentlemen there cannot find out the contents of
her crop. I'll have my revenge, if it costs my life. The
disconsolate Mary here left the office, bearing the dead
body of the goose, which to all external appearance cer-
tainly had died of depletion, and not as her jealousy tempted
her to believe. The result of the post mortem examination
satisfied poor Mary of Ellen's innocence, and she came back
to the Magistrates, declaring her mistake, and exculpating
her rival from having had hand, act, or part in the death
of the fowl, and that it was her intention to invite Miss
Ellen to take share of the fowl, if it would keep savoury
till Tuesday next. She left the office curtsying, and wish-
ing the Magistrates a happy Michaelmas.--Dublin Paper.

Witness—l never, to the best of my knowledge, packed
any sacks that were fit for use. I take my solid oath I
never packed a sask like these. I :have sometimes sold
packages by mere weight without opening them.
The LORD MAvon decided that the defendant should
find bail, himself in 2001. and two sureties in 1001. each, to
answer any charge that might be brought against him for
being in possession of the sacks.
The bail was immediately produced, and the justice-room
soon cleared of an immense crowd of journeymen bakers.