The Sun.
London, England, 1861-06-11 00:00:00

'MPER

THE SUN,', LONDON, TUESDAY ',EVENING, JUNE 11, 1861.

tion of Ireland was most deficient, and he hoped that the
committee would consent to take one seat from Lancashire
and give it to Ireland. He had no doubt the case as against
Chelsea and Kensington was still stronger than it was
against South Lancashire. He hoped the house, taking a
survey of the entire of Ireland, would agree with him in
thinking flat that country had not its fair share in the
representation, and that they would consent to strike the
clause out of the blll which proposed to give an additional
member to South Lancashire, and that they would ',give
that member to Ireland.
Sir G. C. LEWIS said, if he understood the hon. and
gallant member's motion aright, he proposed to expunge
the southern division of Lancashire, and to substitute an
additional member for the county of Cork. Now, compari-
sons were odious, and he (Sir G. C. Lewis) would not insti-
tute any. But thus much he must say, that the four seats
now vacant were caused by the disfranchisement of English
boroughs, and that the view taken by the Government was
that those four seats ought to be distributed amongst Eng-
lish counties and boroughs. There was no narrow or sec-
tarian feeling in that. The Government simply thought
that in the distribution they ought not to disturb the exist-
ing proportions into which the representation of the United
Kingdom had been divided. (Hear.) The representation
of Ireland had been fixed by the Act of Union, and it had
been further modified by the Reform Bill. If the Govern-
ment had 40 seats at their disposal at present, and were re-
allotting them, then, indeed, they might take into their
consideration whether additional members might not be
given to both Ireland and Scotland, But, under the
circumstances, they felt themselves bound to assign the
four seats exclusively to English counties and boroughs.
That was an equitable and reasonable view of the case.
(Hear, hear.) Therefore without disputing the argu-
ment that Cork, under other circumstances, might bo
entitled to an additional member; yet seeing that four
English seats were vacant, the existing proportions of the
representations could not be disturbed by the Government.
He hoped that, in saying this, no member from Ireland or
Scotland would think the ground the Government had
taken untenable, or that it implied and national prejudice
or ill-feeling towards their country. In dissenting from
the motion, he begged to remind the house that the popu-
lation of South Lancashire was 2,428,000, and that it had
increased during the last ten years by 397,000.
Mr. P. URQUHART said that he had been somewhat
surprised at the reasons assigned by the right honourable
gentleman the Home Secretary, for wishing to confine the
vacant seats to England. Heretofore it had been often de-
clared that Ireland was an integral part of the British
Empire, and thk,z it rra. " tb.<,
Kingdom, and yet now the whole of the four seats were to
be distributed exclusively amongst English counties and
boroughs. Lancashire had plenty of opportunities of
making her grievances known, but Ireland had not. It
ha,a been said by an eminent authority that Ireland was
entitled to 150 representatives. At all events, there were
anomalies in her representation which ought to be remedied.
Several Englishmen had owed their seats in the house to
Irish constituencies, who were ready to do justice to the
claims of those who did not belong to their creed or country.
Mr. NV. PATTEN expressed a hope that the Govern-
ment would not assent to the motion, the arguments in
favour of which were about the most extraordinary ho had
ever heard. It was said, for instance, that whereas
Ireland at the time of the Union was allowed 100 repre-
sentatives, to which five more were since added, she
was entitled to a far larger number, because her popu-
lation had increased. But the population of England
had increased three-fold more than that of Ireland, and
yet, not only was the representation not increased, but the
five members given to Ireland were absolutely taken from
England. (Hear.) The honourable and gallant mover's
suggestion was to take away a member from South Lanca-
shire and transfer him to Cork. But what was the fact?
The county of Cork had 16,000 voters and two representa-
tives. South Lancashire had nearly 20,000 voters, and if
the vast extent of her population were taken into account,
it would be found that, instead of (having too many repre-
sentatives, she had not her proper number. The important
town of Burnley, for instance, was altogether lost sight of
on the present occasion, though its claims upon the house
and the Government had heretofore been admitted. The
town of Salford, too, had very strong claims indeed, as
compared with any other borough, and its claims would
doubtless have been well and ably advocated by the chair-
man (Mr. Massey), but for the position he occupied in that
house. The right hon, gentleman the Home Secretary had
dealt with the whole subject in such a manner as placed the
merits of South Lancashire beyond question or doubt.
(Hear, hear.)
Mr. SCULLY contended that the county of Cork was
not sufficiently represented. He quite admitted that
parisong were odious, and, upon that :account, he would
not enter into a contrast between Cork and Lancashire,
but it was impolitic on the part of the Home
Secretary to raise such a broad and manifest line
of distinction as he had between England and
Ireland. They had always been told that Ireland was
part of the United Kingdom, but now, when it suited
the purpose of the Government, the sister country was
treated as a separate nation. Irish members had been
bribed to carry the Act of Union, and some of them were
glad that they had a country to sell. The calculations of
Lord Castlereagh was that Ireland was entitled to 108 seats.
He personally would not like another member for the
county of Cork, for he would rather not have a colleague at
all—to say nothing of the chance of a contest. (A laugh.)
It was difficult enough to keep one's own seat at times, but
it was much more difficult to keep a colleague in order.
(Renewed laughter.) He objected to the mongrel of na-
tionality which called members from Ireland Irish members,
for they were members of a British Legislature and were
British legislators. Notwithstanding his personal feeling,
however, he considered the present a fair opportunity for
giving an additional member to Ireland, and if that
were done, the claims of Cork were undoubtedly good.
The liberality of Irish Roman Catholic constituencies in
returning Protestants deserved the favourable notice of the
House.

The Removal of Scotch and Irish Poor Bill was read a
second time.
The Excise and Stamps Bill, as amended, was considered.
The Edinburgh Assessments Bill was read a third time
and passed.

VACCINATION.
Mr. LOWE obtained leave to bring in a bill to facilitate
proceedings before justices under the acts relating to vacci-
nation.
The other business was disposed of, and the house ad-
Jouriaci ftt Aye MUM* t 9 two Vcl9ok,

tory measure till they met that difficulty directly and
frankly. The matter ought to be carefully watched, be-
cause the preponderating power of the urban constituencies
enabled their representatives to impose upon the country
measurers to benefit the towns at the expense of the purses
of the rural constituencies. As the right hon. gentleman
has based his argument solely on the ground of numbers
he must point out that, if he adhered to this ground, the
rural districts were entitled to every increase in the number
of seats. He therefore hoped the house would reject this
proposal by a large majority.
Lord ENFIELD said there were only 15boroughs which
equalled Chelsea in rental. He thought no other borough
was so well entitled as Chelsea to an increased share in the
representation.
Mr. DISRAELI said before they came to a division on
this important clause it was really necessary that they
should be satisfied with the data on which the Government
based their conclusions. He certainly must say that he was
astonished at some of the figures which had been given by
the right hon. baronet. If he had quoted them even from
memory the house would not have attributed it to defective
memory, but when he came down to the house armed with
official documents, the discrepancies were all the more sur-
prising. It was true the right hon. baronet had cheerfully
accepted some corrective suggestions that were offered, but
the fact remained that the data of the Government were not
to be depended upon, and it was upon the correctness of
these figures that the right hon. gentleman rested the whole
of his defence of this clause. The right hon. baronet said
the population of Birmingham was 112,000, and afterwards
correcting himself, said it was 212,000, whereas it was nearly
300,000. (Hear.) Then, again, he stated that the popula-
tion of Liverpool was 290,000. He must say he was asto-
nished at that figure. Whatever mightbe the ultimate effect
of the American war upon that city, he thought the dimi-
nution within the last ten years must have been very extra-
ordinary, and on reference to the last census, he found that
the population of the Parliamentary borough of Liverpool
was 443,000. (Hear.)
Sir G. LEWIS said two series of returns had been made,
and he had only received the latest return that day. He was
not aware that there were two series of returns, and that
from which he copied was the superintendent-general's. Ho
however thought that the right hon. gentleman would find
that the figures which he quoted were correct.
Mr. DISRAELI—No doubt the right hon. baronet
quoted correctly ; but then, although they were the same
names, they were not the same numbers. They had, how-
ever, certain statements founded on numerical facts, and it
was really no excuse for the right hon. baronet to say that
hf■ fienrea were correct_ For instance' it was stated that the
population of Manchester was 220,000, but he found it in he
320,000. Now, taking the Parliamentary population, it
seemed to him that the hon. baronet was altogether mis-
taken. The right hon. baronet, however, instead of taking
population, had laid other grounds before the committee.
Now he (Mr. Disraeli) must say it was no ground to say
that, according to population as the right hon. baronet stated
it, so ought to be the distribution of members. The conclu-
sion, then, that the right hon. baronet arrived at with re-
spect to Chelsea, as compared with Liverpool, Manchester,
and Birmingham, he (Mr. Disraeli) had shown to be utterly
erroneous. (Hear, hear.) Well, then, upon what grounds
did the right hon. baronet propose to proceed ? The right
hon. baronet had chosen his own ground ; but they had a
proposition by the hon. member for Northamptonshire before
them which was deserving the most serious consideration of
the committee, while, on the other hand, that proposed by
the Government they had not brought forward a single
argument to support. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. LOCKE thought the right hon. gentleman had not
made out in any way a case against the proposition of the
right hon. baronet (Sir G. C, .Cewis). The right hon. baronet
had stated that the population of London had increased
within the last few years to an extent of 400,000, which was
not only a large amount of population but a greater increase
than that of an* other country. The inference, therefore,
was that in the appropriatipn of seats a member should be
given to Chelsea and to Kensington. (Hear, hear.) Now
what was the ground upon which it was proposed to dis-
tribute the, members? Why, simply on the ground of
population. (Cries of " Divide, divide.") Hon. members
interrupted, but he, as a metropolitan member, had a
right to be heard. (Hear, hear, and Divide, divide.)
Ho assured hon. members who were interrupting him
that it was not his intention to sit down until ho sue-
eeeded in obtaining a hearing. (Hear, hear, laughter,
and cries of "Divide.") He repeated that population was
that upon which they should go—(hear, hear)—and he
contended that the metropolis was entitled to an additional
member. (Hear, hear.)
Sir J. GRAHAM said with reference to the remark
which had been made by the hon. and learned member for
Southwark, he begged to assure him that he (Sir J. Gra-
ham) by no means intended to run the London University
against the claims of Kensington and Chelsea. (Hear,
hear.) When ho gave notice to bring forward a claim on
behalf of the London University, he said that he meant to
support the principle of the Government in giving a mem-
ber to Kensington and Chelsea. He was told that ho was
not blindlypartial to taking mere numbers as the standard;
but it appeared that Kensington and Chelsea had not only
a population of 130,000 but they had contributed to local
and general taxation so much as one million annually.
Now that was a combination of population and wealth, and
on the whole he was of opinion that Government had acted
rightly in proposing to give one member to Kensington and
Chelsea. (Hear.) His hon. friend the member for Norfolk
had referred to the difference in the proportions of the ur-
ban and the rural population. It appeared by the return
just made that there was a vast :increase in the urban as
compared with the rural population, and he (Sir J. Gra-
ham) was sorry to find such was the case, and the fact was
one not to be lost sight of. He thought the present oppor-
tunity should not be lost of making the additions contem-
plated, and he hoped he would never see the day when ad-
ditions would be pressed simply on the ground of popula-
tion without regard to wealth and intelligence. (Hear.)
He would not hesitate to give his vote in favour of Ken-
sington and Chelsea even in preference to the London
University. (Hear, hear, and cheers.)
Mr. WALPOLE said the right hon. baronet who had
just sat down would give his vote in favour of Kensington
and Chelsea, and if that proposal failed, he would then
propose that the seat should be given to the University of
London. Now the Government had recommended the
claims of Kensington and Chelsea solely on the ground of
the increase of population—but the inaccuracy of the calcu-
lation had been pointed out by his right hon. friend Mr.
Disraeli, and ho could not help observing that there was a
fallacy in the argument of the right hon. gentleman (Sir
G. C. Lewis) for he should have shown not that there was
an increase in the population of the metropolis, but that
there was such an increase in the population of Kensington
and Chelsea as would warrant them in giving one member
to these places. The right hon. baronet (Sir 3. Graham)
had told them that Kensington and Chelsea bad not only
a population of 130,000, but that these places paid so much
taxation that they were entitled to have a member. His
(Mr. Walpole's) opinion always had been, that if they gave
a member to Kensington and Chelsea, they should do so by
the division of Middlesex into two parts. The propositions
before them required great consideration, and for his part
he should vote for the amendment of his hon. friend.
Sir G. C. LEWIS said a few words in explanation, and
observed that Kensington and Chelsea had in 10 years in-
creased 30,000, that the increase in the metropolis in the
same period had been 440,000, which was nearly equal to
the population in the Parliamentary borough of Liverpool,
which was 443,000, and more than the population in the
Parliamentary borough of Manchester, which was 338,000.
Mr. BARROW, referring to the statement of the right
hon. gentleman, that the urban population had greatly in-
creased since the last census, while ;that of rural districts
had not so greatly increased, suggested whether that might
not arise from the preponderance of urban members in that
house. (Cheers and laughter.) He did not think a case
had been made out for the proposed enfranchisement,
which he thought most objectionable, and he should cer-
tainly vote against it.
For the amendment
Against it
Majority against Government —lo3
The proposition to enfranchise Kensington and Chelsea
was therefore negatived, and the announcement of the
numbers was received with loud cheers from the Conserva-
tive side of the house.
Sir G. C. LEWIS then moved that the committee do
now report progress amidst loud cries of " Go on, go on."
Mr. AYRTON hoped that if hon. gentlemen were de-
termined to go on, they would allow the subject to be dis-
cussed fully and fairly. If they were not to be heard
patiently they had better report progress.
Lord J. RUSSELL said it would be inconvenient at that
late hour (twelve o'clock) to discuss all the questions as to
the third member for Middlesex, the member for the Uni-
versity of London, the member for the Scotch Universities,
and other propositions which were on the paper. He hoped
they would agree to report progress. (Cries of "Go on.")
Mr. DISRAELI said he thought that the proposition of
the Government was a very reasonable one. They had
brought in a bill of great importance, one of the main pro-
positions of which had just been rejected by the house—
(hear, hear)—and he thought it was but right that they
should require a little time to consider what course they
should now pursue. (Hear, and ironical cheers from the
Opposition.) He would, like to know on what day they
intended to proceed.
Sir G. C. LEWlS—Monday next.
Mr. DISRAELI—That is only a very reasonable delay.
Mr. V. SCULLY objected to Monday next, as he had a
motion for that day.
The Chairman then reported progress.
INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS BILL.
This bill passed through committee.
SUPPLY REPORT.
The report was brought up and agreed to.
On the Motion of Mr. Varazus, the Irremovable Poor
Bill was read a second time.

TI/ELATE ATTEMPTED MURDER AND
BURGLARY AT ISLINGTON.

Yesterday, it having become known that the un-
fortunate female, Mary Ann Redkison, had so far
recovered as to be enabled to undergo a public exa-
mination, the Clerkenwell Police-court was crowded
to excess, and the roadway and pavement were
rendered nearly impassable. After the disposal of
the ordinary night charges the prisoners Frederick
Strugnell, aged 18, George Quilter, aged 24, and
William Liney, aged 21, all butchers, were brought
up for re-examination.
Mr. Sleigh, barrister, attended for the prosecu-
tion, instructed by Mr. Leyton, vestry-clerk of
Islington; Mr. Beard, of Basinghall-street, de-
fended Qailter and• Liney; and Mr. Lewis, sen.,
appeared for Strugnell.
The unfortunate girl having been brought into
the court and seated immediately before-the magis-
trate's table, Mr. Sleigh requested that Strugnell
only should be placed at the bar.
The prisoner was then brought into court, and
on seeing the poor girl's disfigured countenance
and bandaged head, became apparently much con-
, cerned.
Mr. Sleigh said—l appear before you to-day for
the purpose of completing the case against the pri-
soner Strugnell, who is charged with wounding this
unfortunate girl, whom, I am happy to say, is suffi-
ciently recovered to appear here to-day, with intent
to murder her. The facts of this lamentable case
have been so fully laid before you on .the previous
occasions, that I feel it is not necessary for me to
detain you by going over them again. This unfor-
tunate young woman is frightfully disfigured, but
I. am happy to say that she will recover. I will
just shortly examine her as to the deposition which
she has already made when at.the hospital.
Mr. Lewis asked that the whole of the prisoners
should be placed at the bar, as it was one transac-
tion.

Mr. Beard objected to such a course.
Mr. Sleigh, as counsel for the prosecution, had
carefully considered the whole case, and had come
to the conclusion that the course he proposed was
the most expedient.
Mr. Mould (the chief clerk) then read over the
deposition made by Mary Ann Redkison while in
the hospital, and which was reported in our columns
at the time.
The poor girl having been sworn, was examined
by Mr. Sleigh. She said—When I made that state-
ment I could not see very well. The person I
referred to as Fred. is the prisoner at the bar.
[The witness here cried for some time.] After a
short lapse she continued—He lived with Mr.
Higgins at the same time that I did. The state-
ment which Mr. Mould has just read to me is
correct.
Cross-examined by Mr. Lewis—l have a perfect
recollection of all that took place up to the time I
became insensible. I did not give Strugnell the
knife before I went upstairs for him to protect me
if any one was there. I never touched the knife.
I did not ask him to go upstairs with me after he
Lad been in the parlour. lam quite sure of that.
I said to him, " The street door is open, some one
has broken in and robbed the place; I will go and
see." I will undertake to swear that. My recol-
lection is quite clear on that point. He never went
upstairs with me. I never saw him, nor did I hear
his footsteps behind me. When I came down stairs
I did not take up the chopperifrom behind the door
to chop at him with. I only touched the chopper
to put it behind the door, as I always did. The
knife usually laid underneath the counter with
the other things. It was not with the chop-
per, which I placed against the door after
he came back with the gin. It was on
the opposite side of the shop. I had no
quarrel with Strugnell, not in the slightest, but
up to the moment when he struck me we were on
the best terms of friendship. In fact, we had
been on the best of terms during the whole evening
until he struck me with the knife.
Mr. J. D. Hill was the next witness. He said—
I am the house-surgeon of the Royal Free Hospital.
At a little after 9 o'clock on the evening of Sunday,
the 21st of April, the young woman, Mary Ann
Redkison, was admitted to the hospital, most
severely injured. I saw her almost immediately
after her admission, and she has been under the care
of Mr. Wakley and myself ever since. On examin-
ing her, I found that she had a very extensive lace-
rated wound in the upper part of the face, extending
through all the structures and bones of the nose.
There was a scalp wound on the upper part of the
head, exposing the skull, and cutting through its
upper table. The length of that wound was about
21 inches. There was one more wound on the same
aide, just above the temple, cutting the skull com-
pletely through in an oblique direction, and pene-
trating through to the membranes of the brain. She
had a wound in her fore finger on the right hand,
and one upon the wrist of the left arm. These were
the principal wounds.
ByMr.Barker—These wounds were such as might
have been produced by an instrument like a but-
cher's knife and clever. Those on the head I should
say were inflicted with a clever, and those on the
hand and wrists with a knife.
By Mr. Sleigh—The wounds on the head were of
a very serious character, and much imperilled the
life of the young woman. I believe that for a long
time her life was in danger. The fore finger on her
right hand is impaired, I am afraid, permanently--
at all events some great length of time must elapse
before she can recover the use of it. I did not my-
self observe that the girl's dress was cut in different
places.

The nurse, who had accompanied the poor girl
From the hospital, explained that the dress was cut
in several places.
Mr. Sleigh said hp had no further evidence to offer,
and he would therefore ask the magistrate to com-
mit the prisoner Strugnell on the charge of cutting
and wounding with intent to murder.
Mr. Mould then read over the depositions of the
numerous witnesses who have been examined at the
different sittings.
Mr. Lewis then addressed the worthy magistrate
on behalf of Strugnell. He had no doubt that the
magistrate would commit his client to take his trial,
but he (Mr. Lewis) wished to say a few words as
to the particular charge on which he should be
committed. No doubt they all had the greatest
sympathy with the injured young woman, but they
must not forget that justice must be done to the
young man at 'the bar. The young woman had
stated in her evidence that up to the last moment
she and the prisoner were on the best terms of
friendship, and he would ask whether there was
any supposition that his client intended to murder
the young girl. That person had made her state-
ment on oath, and all they had on the other side
was the bare word of the accused. Perhaps if he (the
prisoner) could by the law be allowed to give his
version he might explain the whole matter. He
(Mr. Lewis) was instructed to say that his client
had not the slightest intention of murdering the
young woman. She had stated to the Court
that after the first blow she received she
became insensible, and therefore, he would ask
how could they expect otherwise than that her
memory had become a perfect blank as to what did
really take place ? Under these circumstances he
would ask the worthy magistrate whether the case
would not be fully met by sending the prisoner for
trial on the charge of doing some grievous bodily
injury, without saying that there was any felonious
intension whatever on his part. The number of
wounds in a case of this sort should never be taken
into consideration; for when a man had a knife in
his hand, and using it under circumstances of which
no explanation could be given, he might wield it
ad captanduna, without any idea of injuring any
person seriously. Again he (Mr. Lewis) would
ask, what motive the prisoner could have in mur-
dering the young girl, with whom he had been on
the best terms. They had been drinking some gin
together and the whole scene in the house was be-
tween themselves only ; and how could it be said
that the chopper was not lifted by the young
woman, or that the young man used the knife in
self-defence ? In fact he thought his client's state-
ment the most feasible of the two, and'he would
therefore ask the magistrate to commit the prisoner
only for doing some grievous bodily harm, and not
with any felonious intent.
The magistrate said he could not grant the appli-
cation, and the prisoner must be committed for
stabbing, cutting, and wounding Mary Ann Red•
kison, with intent to murder her.

The prisonerrbaving- been duly cautioned, in re-
ply to the magistrate as to whether
hisetherhheehaadd. anything
to say in defence, merely shook
George Quilter and William Liney were then
placed in the dock with Strugnell, and the whole
three were examined on the charge of the robbery.
The witnesses having been ordered out of court,
Mr. Higgins was called and sworn. He said that
he went out on the Sunday in question at about
three in the F afternoon, and returned about ten
o'clock in the evening, when he found a crowd round
his house. He was told of what had taken place.
When he went out he left an iron box in his bed-
room in which was about £lOO in money, a savings
bank book, and some other articles. On his return
he went upstairs and found the box gone, with some
rings, studs, and other valuables from other parts of
the room. Strugnell and Liney had both been in
his service, and they left at different times. The
prisoner was last in his employ at Christmas, when
he was there for a few weeks on a job. At that
time Quilter, the other prisoner, used to call fre-
quently and see Strugnell and Liney, and they all
appeared on the best terms of friendship.
Cross-examined by Mr. Lewis—When il
Strug 11
was living with witness he did his work well. Strugnell
no fault to find with him, and gave him a charac-
ter when he left.
Cross-eomined by Ur,se~~°d--Hoaoe Liney it