The Sun.
London, England, 1857-04-20 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, MONDAY EVENING, APRIL 20 1857,

concerns quietness and general order, the proceedings of
totes by ballot, on Thursday, were a complete triumph
over the antiquated style of voting. If vote by ballot-is
so un-English as Dr. Palmer emphatically declares it to
be, it has this advantage, that men record their decision
in sober earnestness and with proper dec•irum, instead of,
as heretofore, in the midst of excitement, and when the
mind was almost incapacitated from judging in a calm
and rational spirit, But the real object of the ballot—
to give the electors a fair opportunity of returning the
most eligible candidates—has been already so fully real-
ised by the late elections for the Central and Southern
Provinces, that we have very little fear for the result of
Thursday's election."

and we may expect to see the French nation, under
the sway of its present intensely selfish vices, dwind-
ling more than under the guillotine of the Ter-
rorists, or the desehting waros of the ti,st Nap, dean.
Her d, dining populatio❑ is the reproachful record
against her.

THE INEQUALITY OF THE POOR-LA TV

RATES.

(Prom the times.)
Whatever may be the general prosperity of the
' nation, it is pretty clear that a certain amount of
pauperism must be considered permanent in the
metropolis and the great towns. Even in the At-
lantic cities of America there are the aged who
cannot work, and the journeymen of depressed
trades who cannot get work, to be provided for.
This great capital and its suburbs, with nearly
3,000,000 of people, must therefore expect to have
its perpetual multitudes of unfortunates, who must
be maintained by those who are able to make a liv-
ing. The question of Poor-rates is, therefore, one
of the most important which can affect the house-
holder. That the inevitable burden should s:t
equally on all, the constant drain exhaust no one
more than another, is a matter worthy of the most
careful legislation. But how stauds the case in
London ? Is not every one aware that in cert sin
parishes the Poor-rate is but a trifle—that, in fact,
there are no poor to be supported—while in others
the householders are burdened with a most oppres-
sive impost'? It is well known that sometimes one
street lets be't-r than another adjoining it, simply
because the former is in a parish of respectable resi-
dences and well-to-do shops, while the other belongs
to a district which contains some nest of poverty,
squalor, and crime. But, not only are parishes of
what may be assumed as epril wealth unequally
taxed, but the working of the system is to give to
those that have, and to take away from those that
have not. , It is evident that the parishes which are
the most free from paltry tenements will be those
inhabited by the richer classes, while the poor will
live among those who are almost as poor as them-
selves. The wealthy will therefore he freed from
a burden of which the industrious and .s•ruggling
cannot get rid. The rate in the pound for differ-
ent parishes in London varied in the year 1856
from 7fd. to 3s. 4d. And which were the parishes
that presented this strong contrast ? The
' rich, aristocratic, and Royal parish of St. George,
Hipsover-square, paid the 71-d. ; while St. George's-
in the-East paid the 3s. 4d. Of the lightly-taxed
parishes we may mention St. James's, Westmins-
ter, rated at 101(1. ; Paddington, at 71d. ;
ton, at ls. fashionableor respectable loca-
lities ; while, on the other hand, we have Shore-
ditch rated at 3s. ; Whitechapel, at 2s. 74d. ;
Bethnal-elven, at 3s. 2d. ; St. Gerirge's, South-
wark, at 2s. 11d. ; Rotherhithe, at 3s. OW. ; and
so on. It is evident, therefore, that those districts
in which the poor have their dwellings are con
demned to pay a much higher rate than the more
fortunate neighbourhoods which have beets swept
of inferior tenements. The consequences of suc'u
a sytem are obvious. The poor are employed all
over the metropolis, and yet there are on'y certain
districts in which they can live, it being the direct
interest of the parish, the landowner, and the
builder to destroy the kind,of hou-es inhabited by
the labouring classes. Thus, not only are the sol-
vent inhabitants of the poor parishes taxed exorbi-
tantly, but a burden is imposed on the poor them-
selves—the burden of living in places far from their
work, and wasting time and strength in pa-sing to
and ire. An "Association for Promoting the
Equalisation of the Poor-rates and Uniformity of
Assessment" observes in its address that the pre-
sent laws are unjust and cruelly oppressive, their
effect being that in those parishes where property
is of the greatest rateable value the charge for poor-
rate is so light as to be only nominal, while, on the
contrary, in those parishes where the houses are
small, and where the labouring man can find a
residence, the poor-rate is most oppressive, vary-
ing from 3s. to 45., 5s , and even 10e. in the pound
per annum. In the former case it will be found to
be only 4d., 3d., 2d., and in a few instances only
id. in the you d for the year. All these facts
point to something like a general rate for the entire
metropolis ; and there is, indeed, much to be said
in favour of such a scheme. London is a city of
an extent out of all proportion to the other towns
of England, and it is the onlylarge city in this part
of the kingdom. It might, then, be not unfairly
considered as an exceptional region, and, as it has
its Central Criminal Court, it might be furnished
with its General Poor-Law Board and rate. But
there are, on the other hand, many difficulties.
The metropolis has been well described as not so
much a city as an aggregation of neighbourhoods.
The gentry and tradespeople of St. George's and
St. James's, of Belgravia and Tyburnia, have as
little to do with the manufacturing population of
Lambeth and Southwark, the maritime race of
Wapping and Blackwell, or the vast labouring
population of Bei hnal-green and its neighbourtiood.
In fact, London is a metropolis properly so called,
with its Court and Legislature and administration
of justice; but it is also a great seaport, and a
great manufacturing city. To throw all these to-
gether, arid tax each individual according to the
wants of the whole, would be pretty much as if
Liverpool, Manchesterjand one or two favourite
watering-places were united to support the poor of
the whole. It would be conceding the principle of
central as opposed to local rating ; and, were it
established for London, it might soon be demanded
for the entire kingdom.
But leaving this great question aside for the pre-
sent, we think much may be done by the parishes
themselVes. There la no doubt that at present there
exist great inequalities, from the system of fititious
rating which prevails. Instead of rating all houses
equally some are made to pay on their rack-rent,
some on two-thirds, and some on not more than
half. It is evident that this is an inherent defect
which will render ineffectual any scheme for
au equalisation of burdens. Even were London
united for rating purposes, the inequalities
for rating would exist as here•ofore so long as s .me
parishes or parts of parishes were only half-rated,
while others paid up the full rental. It is certainly
1 great hardship for St. George's-in-the East that
property-tax value should be 106,469/., while its
poor-rate assessment amounts to 153,2971.; also for
Bethnal-green and Whitechapel that a similar ex-
cess should appear ; while St. George's, Hanover-
square, with a property-tax value of 1,027,580/.,
should only be assessed at 694,3801. We find that
this rich parish is not only lghtly rated from the
absence of poor, but that the nominal rating is in
reality much less, from a low fictitious value being
substituted for the real value of the property.
Under the present system this nominal rating is no
test of the real burden on the parish. Until, there-
fore, uniformity of assessment be attained, either
lay the voluntary action of the parishes or by the
interference of the Legislature, there can be little
hope of a practical equalisation of poor-rates ; and
the great Metropolitan Union, with its general rate
of ls. in the pound, must remain a vision of the
future.

At the South Melbourne election the following
were the words of the returning officer, on declaring
the poll— _

"I hope one day all will be in favour of the ballot, for
the ballot never wilt be overturned. The report of its
successful operation here will go borne and strengthen
the hands of the popular party in England, who are
working towards the same great end."
That it will do so is beyond a doubt. The arrival
of Mr. Nicholson in England at this particular mo-
ment, with the Victorian Ballot law in his hand,
and the narrative of the first elections held under
it., is to be regarded as a most auspicious event for
the popular came. The Society for promoting the
Bsllot (the most useful polit'cal association we are
acquainted with) is entitled to our applause for the
judgment with which it Las availed itself of the
presence of the Australian reforniet to give a fresh
impulse to the question. It is well done to make
the public as extensively acquainted as possible
with the achievements and• experience of such a
man.

Let us mention one or two more points in which
Mr. Nicholson informs us that secret suffrage has
already verified the predictions of its advocates.
Personal c knvassing is, of course, absurd under the
ballot, and we are not surprised to learn that it
ceased almost entirely at Victoria with open
voting.

" It was a remarkable fact that in Victoria eanvassing
had almost ceased to exist. It was the practice there for
candidates to address public meetings such as the pre-
sent, but private solicitation was all but entirely abo•
llshed. In many cases candidates had declared that
they did not canvass, and that was the reason_ why they
were popular. A letter from Mr. Kerby, in the Mel
bourne Argus of Oct. 11, said :—' The ballot being now
the law of the land, ought to be carried out with strict
integrity. An advertisement emanating from Mr.
M4Dermott's committee invites the electors to hear him,
as be has altogether abstained from a personal
canvass, "so unfairly adopted by other candidates."
If such has been the case' I quite agree with him in
denouncing such proceedings, and am therefore
anxious to let the public know that, as far as I am con-
cerned, the charge cannot be brought against me, and I
challenge any elector, if I, in any one instance, Erectly
or indirectly, resorted to such a practice. I would much
rather, by using fair means, be an unsuccessful candi-
iste, than the reverse, and a suc7.essful one."
Observe also another operation of the ballot-box.
One of the notorious and worst effects of the pre-
sent unprotecte I state of the franchise in England
is the virtual political annihilation at every election
of multitudes who, being placed in the dilemma of
voting at the hazard of their personal interest, or
abstaining from voting at all, choose the latter side
of the alternative, and might therefore just as well
be disfranchised by positive law. It will be worth
inquiring what proportion of the electors of the
United Kingdom left their franchise unexercised in
the e!ections which gee now just concluded, and the
Ballot Society would do well to collect and publish
the facts. We have no doubt that the number will
be found very considerable, mid just as little that
its magnitude is chiefly to be ascribed to the state
of the law, which mocks men with privileges only
to be used at risks to which poiitiJal extinction is a
preferable evil. Now, here is what we are told of
the effect of the ballot at Melbourne, actually more
than doubling the effective constituency; for elec-
tors that dare not vote might as well nut exist at
all ; the law gives them a barren right, which the
ballot-box alone can convert into a practical advan-
tage.

7. It might be said, when all this quietness prevailed,
that there was not sufficient interest taken in the elec-
tion. But what was the fact. An election took place at
Melbourne some time before the last general election.
Tb, number of the constituency was about equal on the
two occasions. At the first election a large amount of
money was spent by both candidates, of whom he (the
speaker) bad the honour of nominating one, and then
out of the 8,000 electors, but 2,000 recorded their
votes ; whilst at the last election, under the operation
of the ballot, out of the same number of electors, and
accompanied by no noise or excitement, those who re-
corded their votes numbered over 5,000. In South
Melbourne only twelve electors failed to record their
votes. In another a very remarkable and almost un-
exampled circumstance occurred, for there only one
et, otor did not record his vote ant of the whole district.
It was manifest that, however much peop:e were pressed
or driven to the poll, under a system of open voting,
they were influenced by considerations of various kinds,
and many of them made it their business to get out of
the way so as to escape from voting. Now, however,
under the ballot they recorded their votes in more than
double proportion they did brinerly. "

THE DEPOPULATION OF FRANCE.

RUSSIAN RAILWAYS.

Messrs. Baring, Brothers, and Co. have issued

heir Rusian Railway prospectus, and their name

is the only English one comprised in the board of
direction. The sum they ask from Loudon capital-

its out of the 12,000,0001. first to be raised is
2,000,0001., instead of between 3,000,000/. and
4,000,000/., as originally contemplated. The sum
iu Paris having likewise been reduced, ,it is to be
presumed an estimate more accurate than that
originally entertained has been formed of its pro-
bable reception. The statements now put forth
fail to modify any of the features, already com-
mented upon. The guarantee,. after allowing for
sinking fund, is to be only 4 11-12ths per cent, the
working expenses, in the face of universal experi-
ence, are put as low as 45 per cent., and the diffi-
culty as to crossing the marshes with which the
country abounds is simply disposed of by the state-
ment that they:" will be avoide& by a proper selec-
tion of the route." The number of miles to b., con-
structed are 2,535, at a cost 'of 16,5111. per mile, or
about 43,000,0001., and the whole must be made
within 10 years. It is not stated in what quarter
the extra proportion first intended for London and
Paris is now to be allotted. The Prussian public,
who aro best qualified to form an opin.on of the
pr. spects of the enterprise, both commercial and
political, are understool to be disposed to limit
themselves to the modest amount of 200,0001., or
less, although the proposed extension of the Wareaw
line to their own frontier and the intimate business
connexions of their backers and others with St.
Petersburg might be supposed-to operate in its fa-
vour. Upon the Court of St. Petersburg and its
agents the duty of making up the deficiency from
the failure on this side will therefore apparently
fall, and the advices for the next few months will
perhaps desctite the eagerness with which the mer-
chants of that capital, who usually never put out
their money at a less interest than 10 to 12 per
cent., aro seeking to be allowed to contribute.
With regard to the prospect of the 2,000,000/. being
taken in London it must be inferred that Messrs.
Baring, before they istued.the prospectus for that
reduced amount, were able to ealeu!ate that it
could be made up by their own subscription and
that of personal friends who would feel it incum-
bent on them to afford assistance.. The first pay-
ment is to be 61. per share, and the period for ap-
plications is from the 28th of April to the sth of
May. The contractors stipulate for 6 per cent. of
all profits beyond the guaranteed dividend and
sinking fund.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.-April 18.

VICE-CHANCELLORS' COURTS.
(Beier° Vice-Chancellor Wood.)
INJUNCTION AGAINST MR. DILLON S ACTING—.
WEBSTER V. DILLON.
The plaintiff in this case was Mr. George Alfred
Webster, the present lessee of &ellen' Wells
Theatre, and the defendant was,Mr. Chas. Dillon,
the well-known actor. The application was on
behalf of Mr. Webster, for an injunction to restran
Mr. Dillon from violating an agreement entered
into between the plaintiff and defendant, and from
acting at Drury-lane Theatre, or at any other
place, without the sanction or permission in writ-
ing of the plaintiff during the twelve nighti 'com-
mencing Monday next, the 20th inst. The agree-
ment upon which the present motion was founded
was contained in a letter addressed by the de-
fendant to the plaintiff, which w is in the fellowing
words :—" My deer Sir—l agree to play for you
at the Sadlere' Wells Theatre, for twelve consecu-
tive nights, commenciog on the 20th of April,
that provided I provide Mr. Barret to play the
old men in the pieces, you will allow me a-clear
half of the gross receipts, 'after you have deducted
201. per night. Provided also that I play among
my pieces the characters of William Tell, Rolla,
and Ingomar." The plaintiff, in his affidavir
in support of the motion, stated that in pursuance
of the above agreement, he had made the necessary
arrangement and preparations for the performance
of Mr. Charles Dillon at the Sadlers' Wells Theatre
fir twelve nights, and that he had gone to consider-
able expense towards producing the several pieces
named in the agreement. That on the 15th of
April the plaintiff received a letter 'written by Mr.
Dillon's direction, in which it was stated that he
(Mr. Dillon) would only act in the play of " Vir-
ginius" at Sadlers' Wells Theatre, on the 20th of
April, and that he should decline to act in any
other play on that evening. That this was a five-
act play, and that the defendant well knew the
plaintiff, could not perf .rm such a play at Sadlers'
Welts Theatre, since he was precluded by his agree-
ment with the lessee from performing five-act plays.
That the defendant threatened to perform at Drury-
lane Theatre on Monday next, and in consequence
of these circumstances lie was compelled to apply
for this injuncti
Mr. Swanston, who appeared for the plaintiff,
cited Lumley v. Wagner as an authority in favour
of the application.
The Vice-Chancellor granted the injunction to
restrain the defendant from playing at any other
place than Sadlers' Wells Theatre during the ordi-
nary hours of performance at that theatre for
twelve consecutive nights, commencing on the
20th April, the Plaintiff undertaking to abide by
such damages as the court should direct.
(Sittings at Nisi Prins, at Weettninster, before Mr.
Baron Watson and Common Juries.)
RANSOM V. BASVILLE—REVELATIONS OF THIS PRINCE
OF WALES CLUB.
This action was brought by the plaintiff to re-
cover 501., as money lent by him to the defen-
dant, who pleaded never indebted, and that the
money was lent for the "purpose of gaming.
Mr. E. James and Mr: Mills appeared for the
plaintiff, and Mr. Sergeant Ballantine and Mr. J.
Simon were counsel for the defendant.
The learned counsel, -vin opening the ewe, said
the defendant had pleaded that the money was
lent for the purpose of playing a game—and then
there was a blank, but he believed it would turn
out that the money was not lent to play any
I game at all. The defendant, in 1e 52, was a glitter-
ig star in the fashion, and the plaintiff was largely
engaged on the turf, and in betting transactions,
and he bad lent the defendant the sum sought to
be recovered at hie request, and he gave the
plaintiff an f 0 U of a Mr. Pitcher for that loan ;
but it turned out that there was a balance due
from the defendant to Mr. Pitcher which would
much more than cover the I 0 U. The defendant
had left his creditors whi n a very large defaulter
on the turf, and had gone to reside in Paris, and
was not found out till a short time ago, when
the present action was commenced against him.
If the defendant's case, as set up, was true, viz.,
that the 501. was not money lent, of course the
defendant would come forward and suppert- it.
The plaintiff was called and said--I was ac-
quainted with the defendant in 1852, and had
known him for 10 or 12 years. I remember the
York August Races Meeting very well indeed ;
and I was at the Prince of Wales Club-house, in St.
James-street, in the eourse of that week. One
night I was in the refreshment room of that dun,
and the defendant cline in after me and said,
" Well, old fellow, lam cleaned out." I had been
playing up stairs, and he said he had asked the
people up stairs to lend him 301., and they had re-
fused, and he said " Would you lend me 301. till
Monday ?" He also said he Wanted it for a parti-
cular purpos', but for what he did not say. I then
gave him three 10/. notes. Monday was the set-
tling day for the York meeting, and this occurred
on the Friday previous. The settling was at Tat-
tersall's, where he promised to meet me on the
Monday. He al erwards said he wanted 201.
more, which I gave him, and he gave me an I 0 U,
accepted by a Mr. Pitcher, for 1001., and he said
he would pay me on the Monday. I did not see
him on the Monday, nor could I find him out, but
my attorney did so, on the Monday I saw Mr.
Pitcher at Tattersall', and he said the def ndant
ought to be ashamed of himself, as be owed hint a
larger sum than the amount of the I 0 U.
Cross-examined—l do not know that Pitcher is a
gambler. The defendant was not drunk when I
lent him the money. The Prince of Wales Cluh is
a gambling-house, but I never met Pitcher there.
I have been to the club once or twice. I cannot
tell who kept it. I mean to swear I don't know
who kept it. There were a great many people
playing there, but I did not know them. I don t
know that they play on the Sunday, as I have:
never been on a Sunday. I was playing " hazard'
there with my own money.
Mr. Sergeant Ballantine—Do you know what a
"bonnet" is ? Don't be delicate. I don't mean a
lady's bonnet. (A laugh.)
Mr. James—Nobody knows what a lady's bonnet
is now ; it is impossible to describe it. (Continued
laughter.)
Witness—A "bonnet'' is a fictitious player. I
had 2001. or 3001. in my pocket when I lent the
plaintiff the money. Iliad been playing that night,
and had been very successful. I was playing at
the same table with tl:e defendant, and he told me
that he had nothing to lose. I did not see the de-
fendant playing. I heard him say that he had
just come from York. When he said he was
" cleaned out," I prPsiime he meant that he had
been cleaned out at York. I won the whole 501.
at the table which I lent him. I began to play
with about 1201. or 1301., perhaps more. I was
living at that time where I am now—namely, at
Church-street, Chelsea. I have no other means of
living than by gambling. I bet on horse races. I
have lived 15 or 20 years as a gambler. I have no
business. lam 43 years of age. I always con-
trived to live by gambling, I was an engraver.
Re-examined—The defendant and I met a good deal
at races. It is a common occurrence to lend money
at I lent this 501. I had nothing at all to do with
the Prince of Wares Club-house, merely going as
any other gentleman might who went to the house.
The defendant was in the habit of playing a good
deal. I met him at nearly every race that I
went to.
The plaintiff's attorney was tl:en called, but his
evidence was not of any importance.
It being intimated that no witnesses would be
called far the defendant,
Mr. James summed up the plaintiff's evidence,
acid contended that his client was entitled to a ver-
dict. The question was not what his charac er was,
but whether his statement was true, or not; and
on the other side no witnesses had been called to
contradict it.
Mr. Sergeant Ballantine then addressed the jury
for the defendant, and submitted thet the plain-
tiff's evidence could not be relied on, and he there-
fore asked them for a verdict for hie client. It had
been said, Why was not the defendant called ?
The reason was because he did not want all his past
life raked up for the amusement of the Court and
public. There could be no doubt that the money
was lent for gaining, and probably found its way
batik into the plaintiff's pocket and the pockets of
tho-e who kept the house. He concluded by ask-
ing the jury for a verdict for his client.
Mr. Baron Watson summed up. Ile thought it
was much to the disgrace and dishonour of the de-
fendan,'s fittniiy that he should have instructed his
counsel to impute perjury and 'cheating to the
plaintiff without bringing forward any evidence to
support those imputations. If they believed the
pl-tintiff'a evidence they must find their verdict for
him

The jury immediately foUnd a i',:rdict for the
amount, claimcci-501.

[ADVERTISEMENT]..-110110Way's_ Ointment and Pills
stiq. unrivalled.—John Winterton, of Empingliam, Rut-
land, takes a pleasure in informing Professor Holloway
of the happy effects he has experienced by the aid of
these inestimable remedies, He was a sufferer fer four
years with an ulcerated leg, and repeatedly under medi-
cal treatment for,thesame, without obtaining the slight-
est alleviation of pain. Having heard of Holloway's
ointment and pills he determined to test their virtues.
After using them for n time, to his
-astonishment and
delight his restoration to btaltli was complete. Sold by
all medicine vendors throughout the world at Profes:or
Holloway's establishment-, 244, Strand, London, and
80, Maiden lane, New York ; by A. Stampa. Constanti-
nople ; A, Guidicy, Smyrna, and E. Muir, Malta.