The Sun.
London, England, 1859-01-07 00:00:00

FRANCE AND AUSTRIA.

The note inserted in the Conetitutionnel relative
to the words used by the Emperor at the Court
reception on the occasion of New Year's Day, con-
cerning the relations between Austria and France,
are briefly remarked on by several of the Paris
journals. The Patrie expresses itself as follows :
" These words commented on at the Bourse,
produced a certain sensation and caused a fall in
the funds. As it always is the case, they had been
misrepresented and exaggerated, and the comments
made certainly went beyond their real bearing.
Public opinion will now form a more correct judg-
ment on these words, which announce officially
a state of things already known, and which recon-
cile so well the sentiment of national dignity with
elevated sentiments of propriety. Every one, in
fact, was aware that our relations with Austria
were not as friendly as 'formerly. The important
point is, that the Emperor considered it necessary
to say so on such a solemn occassion. But any per-
sons who imagine that they can detect the indica-
tion of a rupture in such language are, in our
opinion, quite mistaken. All that can be found in
it is a regret inspired by the moderation of the
policy adopted in France, and a reserve com-
manded by her fueling of honour."

The Univers, on the same subject, says
" The regret which these words express will be
felt by all who consider the alliance between France
and Austria to be a pledge of peace in Europe, and
the most assured guarantee against the attempts of
Revolution."

The Union seems to incline to the opinion thal
a note inserted in the Constitutionnel cannot well
be estimated at any great value. The official jour•

nal, it remarks, is silent on the subject, and the
Government has several times announced that in no
case did it accept for its organ any journal but the
Moniteur. Our contemporary goes further, and

quotes the note published on the 4th December in
the official journal, in which the public is warned

not to attach too much importance to statements

made in several journals of Paris relativetothe cool-
ness of relations between France and Austria. The

Union then says :
" Is there not between the note of the 4th ult
and the words which are said to have been uttered
on the 2d inst., a contrast which requires some
explanation ? What new facts, what recent com-
plaints have modified the relations which the former
note authorised us to believe were favourable, and
which, according to the Constitutionnel, are no
longer as friendly as formerly ? Moreover, is it
necessary for us to point out the gravity of such.
language, on an occasion so solemn as a reception
at the beginning of the New Year. At a time when
the public expression of a predominant idea is
extremely rare, is it necessary for us to remark
what a commotion may be caused in Europe, first
at Vienna, and particularly in Italy, by the
knowledge of words so significant, if they really
were uttered ? Far be it from us the desire to
exaggerate anything ! The event, besides, if it be
true, is too remarkable not to lead to comments,
and not to be exposed to assume by particular in•
terpretations greater proportions. We cannot,
however, avoid thinking and saying that more au-
thentic information than that of the Constitutionnel
is necessary, in order to enlighten the public mind,
and to make it sufficiently acquainted with the real
state of the case."
The Siecle, while referring to the note of Dec. 4,
like the journal we have just quoted, differs from it
in the amount of gravity which it attaches to the
words attributed to the Emperor. It considers the
case a serious one, its language being the follow-
ing :
We were aware of the language which the
Constitutionnel here repeats in a manner that may
be regarded as official. The exact text appears to
us no less grave than the version which had been
in circulation. We have always been of opinion
that frankness is the best policy, and we are nowise
inclined to find fault with the Chief of the Govern-
ment for expressing in plain terms the state of the
relations existino. between France and a foreign
Power. The Emperor's words differ essentially
from the note inserted in the Moniteur of Dec. 4,
1858, and on referring to it our optimists will find
it impossible to deny that the state of our relations
with Austria has taken an unfavourable turn within
the last month."
The same journal contains an article on the little
effect produced by the Conference of Paris on cer-
tain points which it was expressly designed to
regulate. The writer commences in this way
" The work of the Paris Conference appears to
-us far from satisfying either the expectation which
the grandeur of the war in the East had excited,
or the legitimate desires of the generous popula-
tions whose destinies were placed in its hands.
However, the aversion of certain powers to the
realisation of the wishes of the Roumains was so
great and so decided that we thought ourselves
very fortunate in seeing these powers half van-
quished in the Conference, and obliged to adhere
to the principle of the union and the practical ap-
plication of the immortal principles of 1789 at the
extremity of Europe, under the eyes of Austria and
Turkey. But, like the Roumains, in not rejecting
absolutely the convention of August 19, and accept-
ing it as a compromise between the old world and
the new—between what we desired and what our
adversaries opposed—we have done so with certain
reservations."
The Siecle then goes on to observe that all trea-
ties are valuable only in proportion to the man-
ner in which they are executed; and that judging
of the treaty of Paris by that rule—looking
at the manner in which it has been inter-
preted by Turkey for the Principalities—and
by Austria with respect to the Danube—the
decision must be come to that it has proved
altogether insufficient, and that something more is
called for. Our contemporary then refers to the
calm and dignified attitude which, it says, Mol-
davia and Wallachia are now observing in spite of
provocations designedly made in them in order to
excite disturbances, and points to the conduct of
Servia, where the electors have declared that they
intended to provide for their own Government, and
not to permit the intervention of foreign powers.
Such an example, the Siecle observes, may prove
exceedingly tempting, and measures ought perhaps
to be adopted to prevent its spreading. The article
then proceeds in these words :
" Under such circumstances, the idea of re-opening
the Conference of Paris seems to have occurred to
several of the Powers at the same time. The Con-
ference would not only have to direct its attention
to the United Principalities, Servia, and Candia, but
other interests besides those of the East would have
to be definitively settled, if the wish is to prevent a
desperate struggle. Notwithstanding all we see in
foreign journals and in some French ones, we will
not prejudge anything. But before the Conference
meets, if it is to meet, we conjure Europe not to suffer
storms to gather, when proper foresight may easily
disperse them. However great the endurance of a
nation, patience has its limits. For the last three
years the Roumains have cherished the hope,
grounded on promises made to them, that the hour
of their political deliverance was at hand. There
is reason to fear that, weary of the pressure of
every kind that bears upon them, and especially of
the moral yoke which Austria would fain impose,
they may imitate the Servians, and at once seize
upon the rights which certainly belong to them.
Can any one suppose, for instance, that men of spirit
can patiently submit to see the Austrian Chancel-
lery dispute even the title of United Principalities,'
admitted by the conference, and reject unread all
documents bearing that title ? Can it be supposed
that a nation,
.just endowed with a constitution,
will suffer it to be immediately called in question ?
Every instant witnesses some new menace either
from Austria or from Turkey. Such a state of
things evidently cannot last. The Moldavians and
Wallachians must either be really their own masters,
as the majority of the conference decided, or else
fall into the hands of Austria or Turkey, after being
rescued from Russia. In this last hypothesis, let
Austria or Turkey dare to seize them, and we shall
see what will happen ; but let some decision be
taken at all events. '

THE SCOTTISH HOSPlTAL.—Yesterday a special
general court of the governors and members of this cor-
poration was held at the hall in Crane-court, Fleet-street
—Dr. John Webster, F.R.S., in the chair. The object
of the meeting was to take into consideration a plan pro-
posed by Professor Donaldson, the architect and surveyor
to the institution, for the erection, under the name of
the Scottish Corporation Buildings, of a new establish-
nient on a plot of ground at the corner of Chancery-lane
and Carey-street, the price of the freehold land in question
being £ll,OOO, and the cost of the erection of the proposed
bnildings, £12,000; giving a total of £23,000; providing
for that sum a hall, chapel, public offices, suits of cham-
bers, and other conveniences, in the Scottish style of archi-
tecture. A long discussion ensued as to the expediency of
appropriating so large a sum out of the total stock of
£38,000 now standing in the name of the corporation, and
ultimately, the report of the committee, declaring that it
would be inexpedient, was adopted. A resolution was
also adopted appointing a committee to consider the
charter and bye-laws, with the view of ascertaining
whether the mode of relief should not be so altered and im-
proved as' to suit the requirements of the present times.
It is proposed, we understand, at the sugestion of Major
Adair, the hon. secretary of the corporation, to establish a
" Burns' Benevolent Fund," in connection with the foun-

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT—Jan. 6.

OLD COURT.
(Before Mr. Baron Martin.)
Francis Higginson, 59, described as a seaman,
was indicted for misdemeanour.
Mr. Giffard and Mr. Talfourd Salter conducted
the prosecution.
Mr. Giffard, in opening the case, said that the
defendant was a lieutenant in her Majesty's navy,
and the complainant was Mr. Alderman Salomons,
one of the magistrates of the City of London. The
charge against the defendant was that of having
committed an assault upon Mr. Salomons, and the
facts connected with the actual offence lay in a very
small compass, but in justice to that gentleman, and
in consequence of the course that had been taken
by the defendant, it was necessary that he should
state some circumstances that had taken place be-
fore the assault was committed. Upon one occa-
sion when Mr. Salomons was discharging his duty
as a magistrate in the City of London, the defendant
appeared before him, and made an application for
a summons against the Atlantic Telegraph Com-
pany to recover penalties for what he alleged to be
an infringement of the provisions of the Joint
Stock Companies Registration Act. His applica-
tion was listened to, but it turned out that there
was no ground whatever for it, and the defendant
was informed so, and upon this he conducted him-
self in such an intemperate manner that Mr. Salo-
mons found it necessary to direct that he should be
removed from the court. The defendant at first
complained of having lost a considerable sum of
money by the company, and it was supposed that
he had been a shareholder, and that he was a loser
by the failure of the scheme ; but it turned
out that he had nothing whatever to do with the
company, and that the only ground he had for the
allegation—that he was a loser in connexion with
it—was that he had made some offers of services to
the company that had not been accepted, and he
had in consequence lost the amount he should have
received if they had been, and which he appeared
to have estimated at the sum of £l,OOO. There
was a great deal of absurdity in the proceedings of
the defendant, and many persons entertained an
opinion that .he was under some delusion ; but,
according to his instructions, Mr. Salomons treated
him with the utmost courtesy and kindness, and
every means were taken to satisfy him that there
was no ground for the application he had made ;
but he was told, at the same time, that if he could
satisfy the clerk, who was the legal adviser of the
magistrates, that he was entitled to a summons,
there was no objection to his having one. Nothing
more was heard of the defendant after this until
the 22d of December, when, as Mr. Solomons was
walking close to Bartholomew-lane, the defendant
rushed upon him, and committed the assault that
was the subject of the present indictment. The
facts of the case were very short, but in consequence
of the course that had been taken by the defendant
on former occasions, he felt it only due to Mr.
Alderman Salomons to say that he had no unkind
feeling against him; that all he desired was to be
protected from personal violence ; and that the
evidence would make out that he had acted through-
out the whole matter, as every one who knew him
would expect him to do, as a gentleman and an
upright magistrate.
Mr. Abraham Cohen, brother-in-law to Alder-
man Salomons, deposed that on the 22d of Decem-
ber he was coming out of the London and West-
minster Bank, Lothbury, in the direction of St.
Bartholomew's-lane, about half-past 3 o'clock in
the afternoon, when the defendant came up to
him and asked if he was Mr. Alderman Salomons.
Witness told him he was not, but that the
Alderman was in the London and Westminster
Bank. About half an hour after this witness
returned to the bank, and met Mr. Salomons coming
out, and they walked together in the direction of
the Bank of England. When they got to the cor-
ner of the street the defendant came up to Mr.
Salomons, and said something to him in an excited
tone, but he could not hear what he said. Shortly
afterwards he heard the defendant say, " What do
you mean by delusions?" and at the same instant
he raised a stick and was in the act of striking Mr.
Salomons with it, when witness seized him by the
arms and prevented him from doing further harm.
He was eventually given into custody and taken to
the police-station.
The defendant cross-examined this witness for
considerably more than an hour upon matters of all
kinds that had apparently nothing to do with the
question before the court. He appeared to wish
to show that, after he had been taken to the station
Alderman Salomons had acted as judge and accuser,
and directed the inspector to allow him to go at
large upon his entering into his own recognisance
to appear on the following morning, and that by
this means he had acted unjustly and illegally to-
wards him, and this, and the refusal of the sum-
mons, appeared to be among the principal griev-
ances he fancied he had sustained at the hands of
Mr. Salomons.
Mr. J. Mills confirmed the evidence as to the as-
sault, and stated that he saw defendant make a sort
of snatch at Alderman Salomon's face, and when he
drew back he attempted to strike him with a stick.
After defendant was secured he heard him say that
he had intentionally assaulted the alderman, in or-
der to bring his case before the public.
This witness was also examined at great length
upon the same topics as the former.
Alderman Salomons was then examined—He
deposed that on the day in question he and Mr.
Cohen were walking together from the London and
Westminster Bank, when the defendant walked
quickly up to him, and asked if he was Alderman
Salomons. He told him he was; and he then said,
" Don't you know me ? " Witness replied, " You
are," or, "Are you Lieut. Higginson ?" He then said,
" You say that lam a madman ? " Witness re-
plied that he had not said he was a madman, but
that he was under delusions. Defendant said,
" What do you mean by being under delusions ? "
Witness told him he must put his own construction
upon that, and the moment he said this defendant
drew his hand across his face and touched his nose,
and witness at the same moment raised his own arm
and struck up his hand. The defendant was then
about to strike him with his stick when Mr. Cohen,
his brother-in-law, laid hold of him, and a police-
man was sent for, and he was given in charge.
He did not make use of the slightest violence
towards the defendant, and merely endeavoured to
protect himself, and he did not,give the defendant
the least provocation for his conduct.
The alderman was cross-examined by defendant
for nearly two hours. He admitted that he had
told the inspector to allow the defendant to be dis-
charged upon his entering into a recognisance to
appear the next day, but he said that in doing so
he was solely actuated by a feeling of kindness
towards the defendant and a belief that he was
acting under some false impression. The defendant
put a number of questions to show that, in his con-
nexion as shareholder with the Atlantic Telegraph
Company, he had prevented him from obtaining
the compensation to which he was entitled from
that company, and that he had been the means of
suppressing a pamphlet he had written to show
that the Atlantic cable must be a failure, but the
alderman positively denied that there was any
foundation for the suggestions that were made
wit) regard to these matters.
Baron Martin interposed in the course of the
cross-examination, and said that three hours and a
half had been occupied in a case that really ought
not to have occupied a quarter of an hour to dispose
of, and he must request the defendant to put (pies.
tions that had some reference to the matter before
the court, and not continue to inquire into subjects
that were entirely irrelevant.
The defendant, notwithstanding the remark of
the learned judge, continued for a considerable
time longer to cross-examine Alderman Salomons,
but without eliciting a single fact that in any way
altered the complexion of the case.
The defendant then read a long and very well
written statement to the jury in his defence, the
effect of which was that he had patented several
important inventions, and that in 1851 he had in-
vented an electric cable to pass between the Land's-
end and New York, and the Atlantic Telegraph
Company had made use of his invention without
giving him any remuneration. It then went on to
assert that he was persecuted by the alderman on
behalf of the company, because he had made it
publicly, known that the pretended telegraph in
communication between this country and America
was a swindle, and that no message had ever been
sent through. it. The defendant asserted that
he had no intention to commit any assault on
the day in question; but merely desired to speak
to Alderman Salomons, and that he pushed him
rudely-aside, and this, of course, aggravated him.
With regard to any fear of future violence, he
said it was 'not likely an old man like him, who
had had his leg (which he exhibited to the jury)
three times broken in the service of his country,
could be any subject of alarm to a person like Mr.
Alderman Salomons and his brother-in-law, both
of whom were athletic men.
Baron Martin addressed a very few observations
to the jury in summing up. He said the only ques-
tion they had to consider was whether an assault
had been committed, and if they believed the wit-
nesses he did not see how they could return any
other verdict than the defendant was guilty of the
offence with which he was charged.
The jury, after deliberating a short time, returned
a verdict of guilty, but strongly recommended the
defendant to mercy.
Baron Martin said the defendant had clearly
committed an assault, and the only question was
how to protect Alderman Salomons from such a
proceeding in future. It was a very gross outrage
• • •