The Sun.
London, England, 1859-03-14 00:00:00


said, " My heart is my only priest, and it sanctifies
to me the remembrance of my love, and makes
Eliza holy." A meeting of such a kind—and
there was proof of no other—was far more con-
ceivable than that a married lady, who for 13
years had led an irreproachable life, should dedicate
a single day of her life to adultery, and never seek
a repetition of it. This was not the usual history
of an adulterous connexion, but savoured more, to
say the least of it, of a farewell meeting, sought in
the belief—which the defender entertained, and
which she expressed to her stepmother at the time
—that Dr. Gordon " was dying," and under the
impression, however delusive, which the witness
Ellen
make a
eaxpdressed to her, that " she would
affectionate wife to her husband
says
dutiful
t sheifu l
n
when she came back," and " that, although he had
not the first place in her heart, still she would do
the best she could to make up for it." He was far
from denying either the folly or the impropriety
of the meetinF. These were sufficient to
give it an unsatisfactory character. But, on the
other hand, the consciousness of these features
in it sufficiently accounted for the cloak of relation-
ship said to have been cast over it, and many of its
other incidents, without the necessity of supposing
adultery. His lordship then referred to the evi-
dence as showing that still greater freedoms ap-
peared to have subsisted between the pursuer and
Ellen than even between the defender andDr. Gor-
don. The pursuer and Ellen slept habitually in
adjoining rooms with the door open between.
When he was ill she lay in the same bed with him,
when she was ill he kissed her and cried over her
from morning to night, and the very flannel
chemise next her skin was taken off and replaced
by his very paternal hands. He was not disposed
to think that there was any guilt in all this.
He did not believe there was ; but surely
one must pause before leaping to the con-
clusion of guilt in the one case any more than in
the other. His lordship concluded by referring to
the correspondence and evidence as showing the
high character of Dr. Gordon, and as showing that
his were not the letters of a man writing for the
ear of a wife whom he wished to debauch. On the
whole, he was not, on moral grounds, prepared to
affirm the defender's guilt, and certainly he could
not do so as matter of legal evidence.
The Lord President also gave his opinion at some
length in favour of the defender ; and
The Court, by a majority, recalled the interlocu-
tor of the Lord Ordinary and refused the divorce.

and contended that there was not a particle of
evidence of expressed malice on the part of the
prisoner against the deceased, nor was any sug.
gested. He did not appear to have ever known or
seen him before. As to the evidence in support of
implied and general malice the exhibiting of the
dagger to the policeman and to the woman before
he met the deceased rather contradicted the
proposition, for had he brandished about his dagger
and threatened the policeman it would have been
the policeman's duty to take him into custody, but
the policeman's conduct showed plainly that no
such construction could be placed on the prisoner's
acts, and the woman accosted by him never pre-
tended that the prisoner had threatened her with
the dagger, or that she was alarmed at what he
had done. The evidence in support of the charge
of murder therefore failed. The learned counsel
then contended that the facts proved showed that
the deceased in his half-drunken state had stopped
the prisoner, who, being a stranger to him, was
probably alarmed ; other two men, Norton and
Hawksworth, having come up at the same time,
coupled with the fact of the vicinity of a number
of narrow streets and passages close to the place
where the prisoner had met the deceased, where
people might be concealed, and the time being past
midnight, gave reasonable ground for such alarm.
These circumstances and his fear of garotte rob-
beries might have led him to suppose that he was
about to be attacked, and have caused him to draw
his dagger-knife for protection, and if, in the con-
flict which afterwards occurred, the deceased
received a stab which unhappily had resulted in
death, the homicide fell rather under the law which
excused and justified homicide when committed
under the apprehension of a felony being committed,
and in necessary self-defence, than under the legal
decisions which made homicide manslaughter. He
submitted that the circumstances warranted this
view, and if the jury were of that opinion they
ought to acquit the prisoner altogether ; but if they
were of opinion that the knife had been used while
in the hot blood of a contest under circumstances
such as had been proved, then he submitted that at
most the offence was manslaughter, and not murder.
The learned Judge then summed up. He in-
formed the jury that the life of the prisoner was in
their hands, and if they returned a verdict of
guilty, he would have to be left for execution. His
lordship then read over the evidence. From the evi-
dence of the first witness it appeared the deceased
was a quiet industrious man, but fond of shaking
hands when a little elevated by drink with persons
with whom he came into contact, a habit which
might be obnoxious to persons who did not know
him. All homicide is murder, for precious is the
life of a man in the sight of the law. If life is lost
r n a quarrel then the offence is manslaughter. If
the prisoner had killed the deceased by a kick while
scuffling, he would be guilty of manslaughter ; and
what distinguished this case from one of that de-
scription was, that he used a deadly weapon. If
the prisoner drew out the knife before the scuffle,
intending to use it in the scuffle, then the crime
would amount to murder. He thought it would only
be fair for the jury to assume that the knife was
shut up in the pocket of the prisoner when he came
into contact with the deceased, and the only ques-
tion left for them to decide was the circumstances
under which he drew it out, whether with malice
aforethought, or whether in the heat of blood. If
under the former circumstances, it would be their
duty to find him guilty of murder ; and if under
the latter circumstances, of manslaughter.
The jury then retired, and, after an absence of
about fifteen minutes returned a verdict of guilty of
manslaughter.
Several previous convictions for felony have
been proved against the prisoner.
The learned judge proceeded to pass sentence.
He said the prisoner's offences sank into nothing-
ness when compared with his present heinous
offence. He had had a very narrow escape with
his life, for if the jury had brought in a verdict of
guilty, he would most certainly have been left
for execution. The prisoner was guilty of
manslaughter of the most aggravated character,
if not of murder, and it was absolutely
necessary that the carrying and using of
daggers and bowie knives, which he had hoped
were almost unknown in this part of the country,
should be punished with the severest penalties of
the law. He should therefore sentence the pri-
soner to penal servitude for the natural term of his
life.

OXFORD CIRCUIT.—STAFFORD, March 12
CIVIL COURT.

(Before Mr. Justice Crompton and Common Juries,

EARP V. TOMKINSON.

Mr. Huddleston, Q.C., and Mr. Davis appeared
for plaintiff; and Mr. H. James for the defendant.
The plaintiff in this action, Mary Ann Earp, was
the eldest daughter of a respectable police-constable
in this county, formerly residing at Audley. The
defendant, George Tomkinson, was a wheelwright
and joiner by trade, living with his father, who was
a small farmer and malster, in the same neighbour-
hood, having eight children. The present action
was brought against him by the plaintiff to recover
damages for the breach of a promise of marriage ;
in answer to which he pleaded, first, that he did not
make the promise, and, secondly, that a reasonable
time for f
ulfiling it had not elapsed before the
action was brought.
It appeared from the evidence of Mrs. Earp, the
plaintiff's mother, that the defendant had made the
acquaintance of her daughter at one of those " tea
parties" for which the neighbourhood of Audley
and other parts of this county are noted. It was in
the month of October, 1855, that the defendant first
saw " Mary Ann." At that time he was about 30
years of age, and, in the opinion of his intended
mother-in-law, " not very bright." Mrs. Earp was
also of opinion that the defendant was "father soft,"
and, she added, that he was " a bigger fool than a
rogue," expressions of opinion at which, of course,
everybody laughed. The defendant, being then 30
years of age, "rather soft," and a joiner by trade,
fell in love with Mary Ann, who was said to be
very pretty, and the latter, being only 20, naturally
fell in love with him. All this having taken place
at the " tea party," and the defendant having, at
his own request, been introduced to the plain-
tiff, he became her admitted suitor. Another
young man, whose name we spare to mention,
was rejected by the plaintiff in favour of the
suitor who was " rather soft," and " a bigger fool
than a rogue." The defendant continued his atten-
tions to the plaintiff, particularly at the " tea par-
ties" given at the National School for charitable
purposes ; and he also made it his practice to visit
her at the house of the police constable, her father,
every Sunday night. It was not long, under these
circumstances, before " George, the joiner," and
" Mary Ann, the policeman's daughter," entered
into what is termed a " contract of marriage." This
was clearly proved, not only by the mother of the
young lady, but also by her sister Eliza, who
seemed to have a special insight into the nature of
the contract, arising from the circumstances that
she was also being courted by. another young man,
and all four were in the habit of walking out and
going to tea meetings together. It was soon arranged
that the defendant was to marry Mary Ann " at
the next Audley wakes ;" but the deceitful joiner
broke his promise. " The Audley wakes" came,
" but the joiner, false was he." The contract was
again renewed, and Christmas was appointed for
the wedding ; but Christmas worked no charm, and
again the marriage was fixed for " the Audley
wakes." Thus matters went on till, it was said,
Mary Ann became ill.. The reason was that the
defendant had given her up, and two nights after
he came again, and said he had promised not to call
any more, but he had called that once to bid her
good bye for ever. Mary Ann became ill, and a
change of air was recommended, and tried. This
seemed to touch the " joiner's" heart. He came to
Eliza, who told him how ill her sister was, and that
it was all through him, because he would not keep
his promise. The defendant seemed quite touched at
the recital of the mischief he had caused to Mary
Ann's health, and faithfully promised Eliza that, if
her sister would but come home, he would marry
her forthwith. On this assurance Mary Ann re-
turned to her father's house, and the four lovers
took another walk. On their return home, Eliza
was talking to her lover in one room, and ob-
served to him that she could hear the plaintiff
and defendant "making it up" in the adjoining
room. The defendant was now, for the first
time, entertained at dinner at Mrs. Earp's, and
dined there off " cod's head and shoulders." • Still
the joiner would not marry, though, of course,
everything had been got ready. At length the
plaintiff's father, a powerful-looking member of the
Staffordshire constabulary force, was called in to
assist in getting the fatal knot tied. The policeman
being thus called in, defendant began to make ex-
cuses, and said he had got no house. He said he
meant to take a publichouse, but he meant to have
a good one ; and none of those which were men-
tioned to him were good enough. The constable
found three houses, all in good situations, and told
the defendant plainly, by letter, that he must de-
cide, and marry. But as the vacillating joiner would
not, and the policeman could produce no impression
where Mary Ann herself had failed, the constable
applied to an attorney, and directed him to write to
the defendant, and to say that, if he would not
marry the plaintiff without delay, he would be
visited with all the penalties of the law." This
brought the matter to a crisis, and this action was
brought on the 15th of January, 1859, after more
than three years of courtship. It was stated that
defendant had £300 in the savings bank, but no
specific evidence was given on this point, his power
to pay damages being inferred from his being a
joiner by trade and the son of a maltster. It ap-
peared that on Wednesday, the 24 Wit., defendant

called on Mary Ann, and tried to settle the action
for £50 ; and that failing, he proposed to her to go
away with him to Australia, and thus to cheat both
the lawyers out of their costs. This piece of evidence
was relied upon by the plaintiff's counsel as show-
ing that Mrs. Earp meant to have said that the
defendant was " a bigger rogue than a fool." It
appeared on cross-examination that during the
three years of courtship the defendant had never
introduced his love to his father, mother, or sister ;
and suggestions were made that Mary Ann had
gone out at night to meet defendant, and had even
danced with him at the Red Lion, but these sug-
gestions were indignantly denied by Mrs. Earp,
who said she had never heard of such a thing.

Mr. James's defence was that a reasonable time
had not elapsed for performing the promise before
the action was brought ; but that defence was
scarcely relied upon, and the learned counsel con-
tended that his client was only a half-witted idiot,
and the plaintiff's only object was to get the defen-
dant's money. He hoped, therefore, the jury would
give her the smallest possible portion of it.
Mr. Justice Crompton, in summing up the evi-
dence, divested the case of the solemnity and
importance which had been attached to it by the
speeches of counsel. His Lordship said the parties
were persons in a very humble position in life, the
plaintiff being a policeman's daughter, and the
defendant a journeyman wheelwright and joiner,
and he told the jury that they ought to give the
plaintiff temperate damages for the loss she had
sustained by the defendant's breach of promise.
The jury found for the plaintiff—Damages £50.

DOC.KYARD EXPENDITURE.

The debate and division upon Lord Clarence
Paget's resolution on Friday last may be taken as
a fair demonstration of public feeling on the subject
of our dockyard expenditure. Notwithstanding
that the proposal itself was conceived to be ineffec-
tually framed, and that attempts were made to
avert the conclusion by representing the professional
merits of Sir Baldwin Walker as involved in the
matter, a majority of 20, in a house of more than
200, was all that could be mustered against the
motion. This is a most significant fact, and we
entirely concur, if not with the terms of the resolu-
tion, at any rate with the purport of the arguments
on which it was based. It is absurd to maintain
that the question carries any attack upon Sir
Baldwin Walker's reputation. That reputation
was acknowledged in language of uniform praise,
and we believe with perfect justice, on all sides of
the house ; and, in fact, if such inquiries as these
implied any reproach, the reproach would have
been conveyed already by the investigations which
Ministers have instituted after their own fashion,
and which they pleaded in bar of Lord Clarence
Paget's proposal. The more sensible course, how-
ever, by far is to disconnect the question from all
personal imputations, and to regard the system
alone as put upon its defence. If the reader, after
perusing what we now subjoin, does not think it
high time this system was reformed we shall be
very much mistaken.
This point of the discussion, briefly stated, is
this, — that -whereas we spend upwards of
£1,500,000 a-year in the construction and repair
of ships of war, exclusive of steam machinery, we
do not get an equivalent return in the standing
efficiency of our fleet. This assertion Lord Clarence
Paget endeavoured to substantiate by an elaborate
analysis of Dockyard accounts for the 11 years
which have elapsed since 1848. According to the
figures he produced, the aggregate sum voted
during this period for the purposes in question was
£19,399,944, while the aggregate cost of the work
actually turned out could not be estimated at more
than £14,000,000, so that in the short space of 11
years as much as £5,000,000 had vanished without
consideration or return. He did not pretend to say
that malversation had been going on. On the con-
trary, he gave the Dockyard officials all credit for
honesty and zeal, and proceeded presently to ex-
plain what he meant in saying that this money—
more than 25 per cent of the whole amount voted
—had been sunk and lost. He traced the deficit
to the capricious and incessant changes of con-
struction which every vessel underwent—to the in-
terminable transformations through which a ship
was carried before she was finished, and to the absence
of definite responsibility by which the system was
characterized. The money for all this work being
voted in a lump, without any specification or dis-
crimination of objets, Boards of Admiralty were
enabled to do just what they pleased, and vessels
were accordingly shortened, lengthened, split, ex-
panded, and converted until their cost became
twice what they ought to have been. This was
done, too, not with old standards alone but with
perfectly new ships. The Howe, for instance,
was only laid down the other day, and yet " the
dockyard people were now pulling her down to put
a new bow upon her." Sometimes vessels com-
menced to measure 400 tons arrived at 700 tons
before they were launched. One frigate, he declared
—a real model for symmetery and beauty—had
positively passed away by transmigration or other-
wise into some state of existence where she could
no longer be identified, and Sir John Pakington
was fain to, confess that he could give no account of
her. This makes a case against something or
somebody. Lord C. Paget thinks it is against the
dockyard system ; Sir C. Napier against the Board
of Admiralty. Sir J. Pakington attributes the
result, or at least so much of it as he admits, to the
rapid progress of naval architecture. The public, we
suspect, will be disposed to take a verybroad view of
the question, and to require money's worth for its
money, without much attention to small items of
recrimination or exuse.

We believe the complaint thus made to bd substan-
tially well grounded. That Lord Clarence Paget's
figures should admit of correction is extremely
probable, for anything like absolute accuracy in
such calculations would be out of the question ;
but we need not go further than Sir J. Pakington's
own reply and Sir C. Wood's commentary to dis-
cover that there must be truth at the bottom of the
argument. The First Lord on this occasion intro-
duced us to a definite principle or two. " The
theory," said he, " of our Dockyard expenditure is,
that you can launch every year three line-of-battle
ships, three frigates, six sloops and smaller vessels.
The rest of the Dockyard labour is devoted to fit-
ting ships and accidental expenditure." Here,
therefore, is a piece of official information from
which we may draw some pertinent conclusions.
As it wits stated in this very debate that a line-of-
battle ship costs about £115,000, a frigate about
£90,000, and a corvette about £40,000, all being
first-rate specimens of their class, we find that
three line-of-battle ships, three frigates, and six
corvettes could be built for about £250,000, or
about half our annual vote for these purposes. It is
also plain from these statistics that in the space of
11 years there should have been added to the Navy,
over and above the fleet existing in 1848, as many.
as 33 line-of-battle ships, 33 frigates, and 66 cor-
vettes ; whereas Sir C. Wood's return gives as the
actual addition only 24 line•of-battle ships, 21
frigates, 35 corvettes and sloops, and 22 other vessels.
Moreover, we know that at this moment, or at least
a few weeks ago, our entire strength in ships of
the line was less than that which since 1848 should
have been gained by fresh additions. This leads
us to another inference. It will be observed
that, according to the official statement, little more
than one-half of the annual vote for the construc-
tion and repair of ships is allotted to new vessels,
even supposing this programme to be always fully
carried out. What, then, becomes of all the rest ?
Lord Clarence Paget thought it went for chopping
and changing ; Sir John Pakington says it goes to
" fitting for sea and commissson," or, as he else-
where phrased it, " fitting ships and accidental'
expenditure." We humbly conceive that this ex-
planation is about as little satisfactory as the other.
Knowing, as we do, the nature of the system under
which a ship is pulled to pieces as soon as she gets
into good condition, in order that another ship may
be got into condition and pulled to pieces in her
turn, we are fully prepared to believe that " fitting
for sea and accidental expenses" do indeed, as the
First Lord now frankly admitted, " run away with
the greatest portion of the labour of our dockyard."
But even this is not all. Sir J. Pakington first,
and Sir C. Wood after him, .plainly declared that
the programme or " theory" of dockyard expendi-
ture, as regarded shipbuilding, never was carried
out, and the chief argument, indeed, against Lord
C. Paget's proposition for a stricter regula-
tion in future was 'that such regulation
would never be carried out either. Perhaps
this is the truth ; but we can only say that if
" accidental expenses" are understood to swallow
tho conclusion is just as bad as if all Lord
es fact w
for
swallow i
nu
tpe
nmaonrcee tohf a n
the h anl fa,v
yo
f
outiprhaalaanl dvoint
Clarence Paget's assertions had been allowed to
stand.
On behalf of tb e public, however, we must look
at the matter more broadly still. Here is the plain
fact that in 11 years we have provided just about
£20,000,000 for ship-building, and this, be it re-
membered, is entirely independent of all vacs for
machinery. It represents simply and purely our
expenditure during this period upon timber, masts,
deals, and stores, the wear and tear of these com-
modities, and the labour of artificers employed upon
them. It does not take into account any percentage
upon the dockyard plant, upon those " works,
&c.," which figure so heavily in the estimates,—it
is solely the eost of materials and labour. In return
for this what have we obtained? Look at th
successive emergencies since 1848. When we
wanted to send troops to the Cape what was the
condition of our transports.? When India was in
a flame how 'man ships were at hand to do what
vms done by the Shannon? Our fleets in conjunc

tion with those of France held the seas, it is true,
in the Russian war, but it was by default of the
enemy. We are now told that many of these
ships were of such inferior quality as scarcely to be
fit for action, while our deficiency in smaller
vessels was such that we had to build a whole
fleet of gunboats out of hand. Finally, when
all the war is over, and we are quietly taking stock
of our effects, it is discovered that we are so terribly
deficient in line-of-battle ships as to be driven to
extraordinary efforts to make up the arrear, though
not an excuse can be made for the fact, except that
in one year out of the 11 we built small vessels to a
large extent. We must needs think that a system
which, after 11 years of such expense, leaves the
Navy in need of " complete reconstruction," is a
bad one. We are quite ready to admit, what
everybody declared, that Sir Baldwin Walker is as
good a Surveyor of the Navy as we can have ; in
fact, it appeared from Sir S. Pakington's statement
at the introduction of the Estimates, that this
officer was one of the first to detect the shortcomings
recently announced, and to press urgently for
reform. All this, however, only makes the matter
worse ; for, if even a most efficient Superintendent
cannot keep the system in order, it is clear that
this system must be radically wrong.— Times.