The Sun.
London, England, 1866-04-06 00:00:00

- THE SUN, LONDON, FLIOAY EVENING, APRIL 6, 1866.

LAW INTELLIGENCE—(This Day).

SHERIFFS' COURT.
(Before Mr. Lovejoy.)

CARRIERS' VANS AND STREET BLOCKADES.---A NO VEL ISSUE.

-MOSES T. BAXENDALE (PICICFORD AND CO.).
This was an action to recover damages alleged to have
been sustained through non-delivery of certain goods
within a reasonable time.

Mr. Beard appeared for the plaintiff, Mr. Joyce repre.
renting defendants.

Upon the part of the plaintiff it was stated that he gave
notice to the defendants to collect four packages of goods
for carriage to the country. Upon the note delivered with
the goods were the words, "Must go by this night's mail."
The goods were handed over to the defendants' van on
Wednesday afternoon, and should have reached their des-
tination by half-past seven on Thursday morning. They
were not, however, tendered until the Friday morning,
and so plaintiff lost the sale. He therefore claimed
damages from tho defendants.

Mr. Joyce contended that his clients were not insurers,
nor did they guarantee any particular train. In the pre-
vent instance, however, the delay was caused by a circum-
stance over which the carrier could have no control. Ou
the way to the railway station the van had to pass through
Whitechapel, and at one particular spot a blockade delayed
its progress for some time.

Mr. Beard thought that some delay ensued through the
mode adopted by defendants in collecting parcels, and.then
repacking them in other vans for conveyance to the sta-
tion.

31. r. Joyce said he should rest his case upon the cause
" Hadley v. Ravendale," and urged that carrriers were not
liable for delays.
His Honour said the case was one of great public im-
portance, and he should reserve judgment.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.—This Day.

BOW-STREET.

SELLING 6D. FOR 4D.—Three ill-favoured young fellows,
named John Bilsborough, Henry Baker, and William
Franks, were charged with conspiracy to obtain money
by false pretences.
Sergeant Gordon, of the C division, deposed, about half-
past 6 o'clock yesterday afternoon I was in Garrick-street,
St. Martin's-lane, in private clothes, when I saw the pri-
soner standing on a box addressing an assembled crowd,
chiefly of children, and offering for sale some rings, pro-
fessing to give a 6d. with each, and only charging the
customer 4d. He was crying, " Who'll buy a 6d. and a
ring for 4c1." The other prisoners were standing by and
handing him the rings as he wanted them. Several boys
paid him 4d. each, but in each instance he folded up the
ring in the paper, and by sleight of hand dropped the 6d.
into his sleeve. As he appeared to fold it up in the paper
the customer thought he had really obtained the 6d. as
well as the ring for 4d., but on opening the paper found
that it contained only the ring. One boy, now present,
had only ld. for which he purchased, as he supposed, a
ring and 2d., but as with the 6d., the 2d. was passed into
the prisoner's sleeve. Several of the boys complained that
they had been cheated, and several bystanders,
myself amongst the rest, took the matter up,
upon which they all ran away. I don't think they
knew that I was a policeman. When they ran away
Bilsborough snatched up the box, and after they had got
a little distance, handed it to Franks. I pursued them and
overtook them near the Charing-cross Railway station. I
took Bilsborough in custody, and ho resisted so violently
that but for the assistance of Sergeant Monckton, the
detective officer on official duty at the station, I could not
have secured him. Monckton took Baker in custody, and
I afterwards took Franks at the door of the station-house,
whither he had followed us. There was a fourth man,
whom they call their cashier, but he got away.
B ilsborough—Did not the policeman tell us to go away ?
Witness—No ; there was no policeman there but myself.
Bilsborough—Do you mean to say that anybody com-
plained of being " taken in ?"
Witness—Yes, and one poor little fellow, about 7 years
old, was crying because his mother had sent him with 4d.
to buy bread, and he could not get the broad because you
had " done" him out of the money.

They were remanded for further examination.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.

STABBING BY A VOCALIST.—SamueI Mockford, a young
man, described as a vocalist, living in Warren-street, Fitz-
roy-square, was charged before Mr. Knox with violently
assaulting Mrs. Emma Foster, of 9, Charlton-street, Fitz-
roy-square, by stabbing her in the arm with a dinner-
knife.

The prosecutrix said—While out with my husband
last night, we called at the Marquis Cornwallis, Warren-
street, to have some refreshment. The prisoner came in
and called for a glass of soda-water. The landlord served
the prisoner, and left a knife on the counter. The prisoner
abused the landlord, and took up the knife from the
counter to stab at the landlord. 'A person came out of the
parlour and tried to prevent the prisoner using the knife,
and the prisoner then stabbed her right through the arm,
and threw the knife across the bar.
Mr. Knox—Was the prisoner drunk ?

Prosecutrix—He was tipsy, sir. Tho knife wont through
my shawl and dress. I went to tho hospital last night and
had my arm attended to, and I am to go there again when
I leave hero. My arm is cut right through. The prisoner
is a stranger to me.

The Prisoner—l have no questions to ask. I was tipsy,
and had been out all day, and went into the public-house
to get a glass of soda-water.

Mr. Wm. Harding, landlord of the Marquis Cornwallis,
Warren-street, said—The prisoner, about ten o'clock last
night, came into my house and called for a bottle of soda-
water, and I served him. I left the knife on the counter,
and directly after the prisoner called lino a fool. I asked
him why he did so, and he replied, " You. are not only a
fool, but a fool," and he took up the knife and stabbed
over the counter at my face. A person came out of the
parlour and tried to take the knife from him, but the pri-
soner jerked his arm, and stabbed the prosecutrix in the
arm, and then threw the knife over the counter, it just
missing my daughter. The prisoner was then given into
custody.
Mr. Knox—Was he drunk or sober ?
Witness-- He was a little the worse for drink, but not
so much but that he knew what he was about.

Police-constable J. Strickland, 91 E, said—About half-
past ton last night I was called to the Marquis Cornwallis
in Warren-street, and the prosecutrix gave the prisoner in
charge for stabbing her. The prisoner, who had been
drinking but was not drank, said he would fall on his knees
for mercy.

The Prisoner—l think I must have been drunk. I have
lived in the neighbourhood four years, some time opposite
the witness's publichouse. I have no recollection of having
committed the offence. I do not know the prosecutrix, and
I ha're no animosity towards any one. I will make the
prosecutrix any recompense I can while her aria is bad.
Do not send me to a prison.
Mr. Knox—lt is a serious charge, and I rust see the
prosecutrix out of danger before I decide in the case. I
shall remand you for a few days, and the doctor can then
rep ort in the case.

Extraordinary Charge of Abduction.

Yesterday Qhristian Olifiers, aged 65 years, who was de-
scribed as a general merchant, of No. 14, Tredegar-place,
Bow-road, but who is alleged to be an extensive pickle-
merchant, with a manufactory in Crispin-street, Spital-
fields, and who has offices in the City, was brought before
Mr. Partridge, at the Thames Police-court, charged with
taking an unmarried girl named Elizabeth Tolley, under
the age of sixteen, from the custody and possession of her
parents, and against their consent.

Mr. Charles Young, solicitor, conducted the prosecution,
and said the young lady who had been induced to leave
her parents and home was 15 years and nine months old,
and the daughter of people of high respectability. There
was no doubt the prisoner, who was a man of wealth and in
a good position, had induced the young lady to leave her
home, that he knew where she was, and that she was being
concealed with his knowledge and consent. It was a most
aggravated case. The prisoner was a married max with a
family. ' his wife was living, and he had a daughter 26
years of age. He had told Miss Tolley he was to be
divorced from his wife, had sent the young lady a valentine
on St. Valentine's-day, and various presents, and at last
induced her to quit the home where she had been brought
up under the care of kind parents. The charge was made
under the 55th clause of one of the Consolidation Acts of
the 24th and 25th of Victoria, which stated, " Whosoever
shall unlawfully take or caustf to be taken any unmarried
girl, being under the age of 16 years, out of the possession
and against the will of her father or mother, or of any other
person having the lawful care or charge of her, shall be
guilty of &misdemeanour, and being convicted thereof shall
be liable, at the discretion of the Court, to be imprisoned for
any term not exceeding two years, with or without hard
labour." Mr. C. Young then went over all the facts of the
case as proved in evidence.

The young lady had not been found since she left her
parents' house, and they were in a state of great affliction.
Mrs. Elizabeth Tolley, of Addington House, Addington-
road, Bow, said her husband was a collector of Queen's
taxes for the district, and they kept a fancy repository, at
which her two daughters assisted. Her younest daughter
was born on the 12th of July, 1850. She saw her for the
last time on Good Friday afternoon, at half-past four o'clock,-
and missed her about five. Her daughter left her home
without her consent.

Mrs. Elizabeth Buton, a widow, of 14, Tredegar-place,
Bow-road, raid the prisoner lodged in her house, and had
done so for nine minths. She knew he was a married gen-
tleman. She saw the prisoner go into Mr. Tolley's shop on
Good Friday. She had heard the prisoner say he had a
fair young lady, and that he intended to marry her as soon
as he was divorced from his wife. She knew Miss Eliza-
beth Tolley. She was a fair young lady. She had seen
Mr. Olifiers wave his hand as he passed up the garden. He
waved it to the young ladies in Mr. Tolley's shop.
Mr. Geo. Macrae, nurseryman and gardener, of Bow-road,
next door to Mr. Tolley's house, said—l know the prisoner
well. On Saturday night week ho came to my house and
said, " I come to see your wife and thank her for telling
such lies about me." I said, " What of it ?" and he said
the dear girl told him that my wife, Mrs. Macrae, told
her that he was the associate of all the low girls in
the neighbourhood, and that he was always about with
them. I told the prisoner I did not believe anything of the
kind. The prisoner said, "I can show it to you in her own
handwriting. You can take my word as a gentleman for
that, and there are three letters for you to see." The pri-
soner also said it would not matter, as the dear girl
had gone away. The prisoner was very much excited about
Miss Tolley, and said " The dear, dear girl wants me to
take a house for her at Brompton ; it is rather a gay place,
but I think I will let the dear girl have her wish, and take
her to Brompton. lam going to get a divorce on Tuesday
week from my wife, and then I shall marry the dear girl."
Cross-examined—When he came to me on Saturday
night ho was decidedly drunk. I had to take him home
and remove his boots. They were elastic boots, and he
could not put them on again while he was intoxicated.
The prisoner was remanded for a week. Bail refused. 1

SPIRIT OF TEE PUBLIC JOURNAS.

TIMES.—At the beginning of the Easter recess
Mr. Bright exhibited himself oscillating violently
between his own most passionate instincts and the
politic moderation which was doubtless enforced on
him by his more prudent friends. We know not
which was the less agreeable to listen to—his de-
nunciations of all who differed from him, or the
transparent flattery by which he sought to avert
influential opposition. At Rochdale on IVeduesday
evening Mr. Bright had come to rest in his usual
mean of illiberality and injustice. A foreigner who
knew nothing of our history and political life would
be led to believe from Mr. Bright's language that
half the House of Commons, and a large section of
the more prosperous and educated inhabitants of
England, were as much alienated from the national
interests as the Jacobites of a hundred and fifty
years back, and that there existed in every part of
Queen Victoria's kingdom a numerous and power-
ful public enemy. What purpose is served by
drawing such falsely-coloured pictures of an honest
and legitimate difference of opinion—a difference
which regards methods and details rather than
principles—we cannot conceive. But it is fair to
believe that one who can so misunderstand or mis-
represent the opinions of a large section of his
countrymen cannot be a safe guide for the rest of
them. Mr. Bright speaks in lofty terms of the
share he has had in the production of the bill, and
in rousing the present agitation. " I regret to say
that while the advice I gave to Reformers in
general has been in the main followed, that which
I gave to her Majesty's Government has not been
followed so exactly as I could have wished." He,
however, allows that her Majesty's Ministers have
a right to some opinions of their own, and that if
14 or 15 persons form the Cabinet, and are respon-
sible for the measures which that Cabinet lays be-
fore Parliament, it is but fair that we should allow
them to exercise their judgment, make allowance
for difficulties. and give a favourable consideration
to what they produce. It may prove that if Mr.
Bright's advice had been less followed than it has
been, if some of those 14 or 15 persons had insisted
on abandoning his programme and on dealing with
Reform as a whole, according to the reiterated ad-
vice of the soundest liberal politicians, the prospects
of the Ministry and of their measure would be con-
siderably brighter than at present; but as the scheme,
though altered in details from that supplied to the
Government by Mr. Bright, agrees with it in the
principle of dealing with Reform by a series of un-
connected Bills, thre is nothing left but to defend
it as it stands, and to denounce everyone who opposes
it. The Tories are declared to be either exhibiting a
" more than usual depravity or else a desperate reso-
lution to withstand every proposition of Reform."
Now, it is no business of ours to defend the Conserva-
tive party, which is quite able to take care of itself.
But we may ask what purpose is served by this
senseless railing. Of late, Mr. Bright can never
open his mouth without some invective on " the
Tories" and their criminality. Are we really to
believe that nearly 300 members of the House of
Commons, with the majority of the inhabitants of
our agricultural districts, a large proportion of the
merchants in London and Liverpool and a respect-
able minority, even in such places as Manchester
and Leeds, are depraved, and that in wishing to
have one Reform Bill instead of half-a-dozen they
make a conspicuous display of this depravity ?
Does anybody believe this ? Does Mr. Bright
believe it ? And if such language does not express
the truth, what but harm can come from the use of
it ? No one who reads the Rochdale speech will
have a worse opinion of his tory neighbours, but
if he be a man of refined feeling he will be apt to
conceive an undue prejudice against a cause which
is advocated with such violence and injustice.
" Depravity " is of course not only the quality of
Tories. They have " a consistent and persistent
" hatred.of popular institutions." Their conduct on
the present occasion is " factious to the last degree."
Or else it is " something, if not more immoral, more
selfish and stupid." All this is grounded on the cir-
cumstance that the Tories brought in a reform bill
seven years ago, whereas now they oppose the pass-
ing of a piece of a reform bill. The reform bill of
1849, which it is now generally allowed might have
been amended in committee into an excellent mea-
sure, owed its defeat eminently to the present Pre-
mier, and it is rather hard that any body of men
should be abused from presuming to criticise in turn
the production of their leading opponent. We may
dismiss, as unworthy of serious notice, the specula-
tions of Mr. Bright as to whether the opponents of
the Government measure would be convinced or
merely yield to fear if the working classes were to
throw up their work for a few days and imitate their
fathers in 1832. Mr. Bright lingers fondly round
the idea which he gave to the world in his late let-
ter, but as on this occasion he is purely hypothetical
it is useless to argue the matter. For the present,
at least, all members of the House of Commons, as
Mr. Bright justly observes, may walk among the
working people unharmed. Should platform speeches
produce a departure from this happy state of things,
it may then be necessary to take more practical
account of the new method of influencing the Legis-
lature. We believe, however, that working people
know very well they are not vilified," and that
they have no desire to mob the House of Commons,
or to assault individual members. The speculations
of Mr. Bright on this subject are as baseless as his
expectation that the Tory party will plunge England
into the Austro-Prussian war, or attack the Ameri-
can Union on the fishery question, to get rid of the
reform bill.

POST.—The returns en which the ministerial bill
for the redistribution of seats will be based will be
found, as we have reason to believe, to furnish
some very striking arguments to those who insist
upon the great comparative importance of that
point of the scheme of reform which has been
postponed to the other. We are pretty well ac-
customed to hear of what are called " anomalies"
in our institutions, but there appears to be such a
crop of anomalies in the distribution of members of
Parliament as compared with the population elect-
ing them, as will suffice to startle even those who
are most averse from any change of institutions
whatever; and, without going so far as to assert
that population should be the sole basis for the dis-
tribution of members, it must be admitted that, as
the matter stands at present, representation and
population bear to each other not only less relation
than they should do, but no sort of relation what-
ever. It would seem that of the 202 cities or
boroughs which are represented in Parliament, no
less than 70 possess a population of less than
10,000 ; and of these, 9 have a population of less
than 5,000. Thus there are 132 represented
boroughs with populations above the 10,000 limit,
and 193 with populations above the 5,000 limit.
On the other hand, of unrepresented towns there
are 39 having a population exceeding 10,000, and
no fewer than 126 having a population exceeding
5,000 ; or, in other words, out of 419 towns in Eng-
land and Wales of the same class, the advantage of
representation is conferred upon 193, and withheld
from less than 126. This is the general result, but
on entering into the details they appear still more
startling. Thus, Ashburton, with a population of
3,062, and Arundel, with a population of 2,498,
have each a member ; and Honiton, with 3,301 in-
habitants, has actually two members ; while neither
Torquay, with 16,419 ; Burnley, with 29,700 ;
Chelsea, with 63,009, or Kensington, with 70,000
inhabitants, have any share in the borough franchise
at all. Many counties, too, appear to be unduly
favoured as compared with others. The boroughs of
Cornwall, with an aggregate population of 63,000,
have 10 members between them ; while the York-
shire boroughs, with a population of 617,000, or
just about ten times as much, have but 16 mem-
bers altogether. The Wiltshire boroughs, again
with 95,000 inhabitants, have 14 members ; the
Devonshire boroughs, with 214,000, have 18
members; while those of Middlesex, with 1,800,000
inhabitants, have but 12 representatives between
them. This, too, it must be remembered, only shows
the difference of treatment of such boroughs as are
now represented : and if those at present without
any members at all were added, the contrasts would
be more striking, since the more favoured counties
have in them very few of the unrepresented towns,
which by far the most part lie in the less favoured
districts. It may, .however, be said that, for pur-
poses of comparison,it is not the population, but the
number of registered voters that should be taken.
In that case the results will be found equally
startling, Wells, with 277 voters ; Thetford, with
224 ; Leominster, with 337 ; Honiton, with 228
and Tewkesbury, with 312, return two members
each ; while Manchester, with 21,542 electors ;
Tower Hamlets, with 34,115; and Lambeth, with
27,754, return no more than two ; and Birkenhead,
with 4,563 electors, and Salford, with 5,327, only
send one member each to represent them in Parlia-
ment. It needs no argument to deduce from these
figures the inference that redistribution is impera-
tively called for, and the Government will gain from
these returns more support for the scheme of their
second bill than was afforded by the same means to
the first. At the same time this is not a question
which can be treated on purely arithmetical ground;
and it is neither reasonable nor desirable that the
bill which is promised should aim at an exact pro-
portionment of representation, either to the aggre-
gate or to the elective population of each borough.
Such an attempt, if it were made, would certainly
end in failure, even if submitted to an assembly.c
more enamoured of abstract principles of
j h
eured
e
than the House of Commons, and it is to bo
riPety
that the Government will recognise the p
of introducing a measure in which moderation
enable it
appear sufficiently mixed with justice to
.rpshall
to find favour with practical politicians.