The Sun.
London, England, 1861-11-05 00:00:00

TirE SUN, GONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, NOVEYIBER 5, 1861,

by the balls striking the ground. I claim the
honoar of killing the man who killed Nelms. Two
of us fired at the same time, but I am satisfied that
my shot took effect. One of .our men got 340 dols.
in cash. William E. M'Coy took a gun from one of
the enemy; another took the Zouave major's hat ;
others took coats, hats, caps, swords, and a fine pair
of navy pistols. One of our men captured a fine
German.silver horn."

The New York Tribune gives some particulars
respecting the Bermuda, which' recently ran the
blockade off Charleston :

"We have learned the following important facts
respecting the English steamer Bermuda, which
recently ran the blockade into Savanah. The cap-
tain is named Tessiere, and lives in Savannah. An
English sea captain was on board also, who took
command when other vessels were in sight. Her
orders were to make Fort Hatteras and hoist a
private signal, which would be answered, and, if
not answered, to go to Savannah. She made
Hatteras and hoisted her signal, which was
not answered, causing great alarm. Just then au
English war vessel hove in sight, and she repre-
sented to them that she was in distress, being out
of water, and then they learned that Fort Hatteras
was in the hands of the Federal forces. She then
made for Savannah. She made Tybee Light at 2
a.m., ran by the fort, and sePing no vessels put
about and ran in. She was met off the light by a
flotilla, which escorted her up to the city amid the
ringing of bells and firing of guns. Her cargo was
18 large rifled guns, two Whitworth 124-pounders,
one of which was immediately sent to New Orleans,
7,500 Enfield rifles, 18,000 Belgian rifles, wit'a
fixed ammunition to all of them, 90,000 first quality
shoes, 90,000 overcoats, besides quinine, morphine,
thread, needles, &c. A return cargo of cotton was
prepared for her, but the populace stopped it, say-
ing she should take no cotton to England. She
was loaded and ready for sea on the 4th of this
month with a cargo of rice, naval stores, and a. few
bales of cotton. Two other vessels with sunder
cargoes were daily expected from England."

proceedings which I have thus related took place. But it
does seem necessary to state, for the information of the Go-
vernment, that Congress is by the Constitution invested
with no executive power or responsibility whatever, and, on
the contrary, that the president of the United States is, by
the Constitution and laws, invested with the whole execu-
tive power of the government, and charged with the supreme
direction of all municipal or ministerial civil agents, as well
as of the whole land and naval forces of the Union, and that,

invested with those ample powers, he is charged by the
Constitution and laws with the absolute duty of suppressing
insurrection as well as of preventing and repelling invasion;
and that for these purposes ho constitutionally exercises the
right of suspending the writ of habeas corpus, whenever
and wheresoever and in whatssever extent the public safety,
endangered by treason or invasion in arms, in his judgment
requires.

The proceedings of which the British Government com-
plain were taken upon information conveyed to the Presi-
dent by the legal police authorities of the country, and they
were not instituted until after he had suspended the great
writ of freedom, in just the extent that, in view of the
perils of the State, he deemed necessary. For the exercise
of that discretion he, as well as his chief advisers, among
whom are the Secretary of War and Secretary of State, is
responsible by law before the highest judicial tribunal of
the Republic, and amenable also t• the judgment of his
countrymen and the enlightened opinion of the civilised
world.

A candid admission contained in your letter relieves me
of any necessity for showing that the two persons named
therein were neither known nor supposed to be British sub •
jects when the proceedings occurred, and that in every case
subjects of her Majesty residing in the United States, and
under their protection, aro treated during the present trou-
bles in the same manner and with no greater or lass rigor
than American citizens.

The military prison which was used for the temporary
detention of the suspected parties is a fort constructed and
garrisoned for tho public defence. The military officer
charged with their custody has declined to pay obedience
to the writ of habeas corpus, but the refusal was made in
obedience to an express direction of the President, in the
exercise of his functions as commander-in-chief of all the
land and naval forces of the United States. Although it
is not very important, it certainly is not entirely irrelevant
to add, that, so far as I am informed, no writ of habeas
corpus was attempted to be served, or was even issued out
or applied for in behalf of either of the persons named ;
although in a case not dissimilar the writ of habeas corpus
was not issued out in favour of another British subject, and
was disobeyed by direction of the President.

The British Government have candidly conceded, in the
remonstrances before me, that even in this country, so re -
markable for so long an enjoyment by its people of the
highest immunities of personal freedom, war, and especially
civil war, cannot be conducted exclusively in the forms and
with the dilatory remedies provided by municipal laws,
which are adequate to the preservation of public order in
time of peace. Treason always operates, if possible, by sur-
prise, and prudence and humanity therefore equally require
that violence concocted in secret shall be prevented, if prac-
ticable, by unusual and vigorous precaution. lam fully
aware of the inconveniences which result from the practice
of such precaution, embarrassing communities in social life,
and affecting, perhaps, trade and intercourse with foreign
nations. But the American people, after having tried in
every way to avert civil war, have accepted it at last as a
stern necessity. The chief interest, while it lasts, is not the
enjoyments of society, or the profits of trade, but the saving
of the national life. That life saved, all the other blessings
which attend it will speedily return, with greater assurance
of continuance than ever before. The safety of the whole
people has become, in the present emergency, the supreme
law ; and so long as the danger shall exist, all classes of
society equally, the denizen and the citizen, cheerfully ac-
quiesce in the measures which that law prescribes.

- This Crevernment does not question the learning of the
legal advisers of the British Crown, or the justice of the
deference which her Majesty pays to them. Nevertheless,
the British Government will hardly expect that the President
will accept their explanations of the Constitution of the
United States, especially when the Constitution thus ex-
pounded would leave upon him the solo executive responsi-
bility of suppressing the existing insurrection, while it would
transfer to Congress the most material and indispensable
power to be employed for that purpose. Moreover, these
explanations find no real support in the letter, much less in
the spirit of the Constitution itself. lie must be allowed,
therefore, to Prefer to be governed by the view of our organic
national law which, while it will enable him to execute his
great trust with complete success, receives the sanction of the
highest authorities of our own country, and is sustained by
the general consent of the people for whom alone that Con-
stitution was established.

I avail myself of this opportunity to offer to your lordship
a renewed assurance of my very high consideration,

Wir. H. SEWARD,

The Right Hon. Lord Lyons, &c.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.—Nov. 4.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
(Sittings in Banco.)
_

(Before Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, and Justices
Wightman and Blackburn.)

THE QUEEN T. CIIARLESWOItTH, M.P.-THE WAKE.

FIELD ELECTION.

Mr. Mellish, Q,C., with whom was Mr. Maule,
said this was an indictment for bribery, tried before
Mr. Baron Martin, at York, when the defendant
was found guilty on the first count of the indict-
ment only and acquitted on the others. He applied
for a rule calling upon the Attorney-General to show
cause why there should not be a new trial had, on
the ground of misdirection by the learned judge.
The first count charged the defendant with having
paid money with intent that it should be expended
in bribery ; and the other counts charged that he
had bribed certain individuals. In fact the jury
had not found Mr. Charlesworth guilty either of
bribing certain electors or of paying any money
with intent to bribe them, but under the direction
of the learned judge they found him guilty of pay-
ing money with intent that it should be expended
in procuring non-electors to hold up their hands
for him at the nomination. The act did not state
what was bribery, and the question for the consi-
deration of the Court was whether paying money
to non-electors to induce them to attend the nomi-
nation for such a purpose was bribery within the
meaning of the act.
The Lord Chief Justice Cockburn asked if the
jury found on the trial that the money was to be
given to non-electors.
~ Mr. Mellish said there was no evidence that the
money was to be paid to the electors. Mr. Fer-
nandez and Mr. Barff Charlesworth both swore that
it was given to the non-electors. The learned judge
who tried the case made no distinction between
electors and non-electors, and the jury expressly
would not or did not, and disagreed as to their being
any intent to bribe the electors.
Mr. Justice Wightman asked how the jury ex-
pressed themselves in their verdict.
Mr. Mellish—They said they could not agree.
The Lord Chief Justice Cockburn—What, about
the bribery of individuals ?
Mr. Mellish—No. But whether Mr. Charles-
worth had any intention.to expend money in brib-
ing the electors.
The Lord Chief Justice Cockburn—Then why
was he found guilty on the first count?
Mr. Mellish—Because Mr. Baron Martin thought
that the holding up of the hands of non-electors
proved bribery within the meaning of the act, as it
had a tendency to influence the election. Previous
to the election Mr. Barff Charlesworth told the de-
fendant a sum of from £1,200 to £1.0500 for preli-
minary expenses would be required. The defendant
asked what they were, and Mr. Barff Charlesworth
said Fernandez had told him the money would be
required for runners, watchers, and the procuring
of the show of hands. The defendant considered
the matter, and on the following day gave his
cousin a railway debenture of considerable amount,
and a note to Messrs. Beckett to induce them to
open an account for him, but with strict injunction
that the money should not be spent in bribery.
The £1,500 was drawn out and handed over to Mr.
Fernandez, who expended it in the manner pro-
posed. The men were brought from Mr. Charles-
worth's works, and they procured the show of
hands.
_ _ _

The Lord Chief Justice Cockburn—Did it appear
that these men were non-electors ?
Mr. Mellish said it did not turn so much upon
what they were, but what the defendant intended
them to be.
The Lord Chief Justice Cockburn—An election
may be determined by the show of hands.
Mr. Mellish—He will be mistaken at Wakefield.
(Laughter.)
The Lord Chief Justice Cockburn—At all events
it gives him a good start, or is considered to do so,
over his opponent.
Mr. Mellish—The "Man in the Moon" (Mr. Gil-
bert) in his evidence treats the show of hands with
contempt.
Mr. Justice Blackburn—l imagine the payment
of the money is for something beyond the show of
hands.

Mr. Mellish—l submit that is for the jury to con-
sider, and not your lordship. (Laughter.)
The Lord Chief Justice Cockburn—l think it is a
question that requires further consideration. You
had better take a rule.
Rule granted.

defendant's servants. Tho defendant pleaded not
guilty.
Mr. Hodgson was counsel for the plaintiff; Mr.
Hawkins, Q.C., and Mr. Milward, for the defendant.
It appeared from the evidence of the plaintiff that
he had been employed in the month of September,
1859, to make a pair of shoes for a Mrs. Laidlaw,
who was at that time an actress in the employ of
the defendant. On the 26th of that month the shoes
were finished and taken to the theatre by the de-
ceased, who, to get to Mrs. Laidlaw's:dressing-room
had to ascend a flight of stairs from the stage-door
in Bull-inn-court, and then proceed along a dark
passage to the dressing rooms at the back of the
scenes. She arrived at Mrs. Laidlaw's room safe,
but in returning along the passage fell down a hole
which was cut in the floor leading to the property.
In falling she became senseless, and upon her arriv-
ing at consciousness she was conveyed to Charing-
cross Hospital, where she remained for some time
suffering from a wound in the head. At the expi-
ration of about six weeks she left the hospital, and
was attended at her own house by Mr. Wood, and
after being an out-door patient of the hospital she
was obliged to become again an indoor patient,
where she died on the 28th August last. The plain-
tiff alleged that he bad been put to great expense,
and had lost the services of his wife.

The defence
_was that the deceased had no right
to go any where near where she fell down. She
had been warned,not to ramble about the stage, but
on the day in question she had done so, and fell
down the orchestra stairs.

The learned judge in summing up told the jnry
that to find the plaintiff was entitled to damages
they must find that the deceased had a right to be
where she was when the accident happened to her,
because it was a very different thing to a person
falling down a hole belonging to a shop, or in the
public highway.
The jury returned a verdict for the defendant.

SHERIFFS' COURT.
(Before Mr. Sergeant Wheeler.)
THE CONTEST FOR TIIE MAYORALTY.

This afternoon havingbeen appointed for hearing
various summonses, 78 of which had been issued
against Alderman Sir Henry Muggeridge for claims
said to have been contracted by him during the late
contest for the mayoralty, the court was densely
crowded by members of the Common Council,
claimants, and their friends. A respectable jury
of citizens was sworn. The first case called was