The Sun.
London, England, 1859-05-05 00:00:00

COURT OF . COMMON PLEAS.

Sittings at Nisi Prius in London.—(Before Mr.
Justice Williams and a Common Jury.)
COOPER V. LLOYD-ADULTERY AND CONDONATION.

This was an action to recover £l2 for board and
lodging supplied to the wife of Captain Lloyd, R.N.,
who denied his liability.
Mr. Laxton and Mr. Patchett appeared for the
plaintiff, and Mr. O'Malley and Mr. Francis for
the defendant.,

Mr. Lawton in opening the case said that the
action had originally been brought in the Lambeth
County Court, but had been removed at the instance
of the defendant into the superior court, upon the
ground that important questions of law were in-
volved in the case ; and, indeed, the question of
adultery and condonation of adultery must arise.
Mrs. Lloyd married in 1847, and after a few
weeks' residence with her husband in the island
of Jersey he went to the East Indies on service,
and was away for three years. During his absence
disputes took place between some members of
his family and Mrs. Lloyd, and she in con-
sequence left Jersey and went to her brother,
at Fort George, Inverness. Whilst there she
became acquainted with Mr. Winslow, with whom
she committed adultery, and a child was born.
When Captain Lloyd returned his wife visited him
at Chatham, and having confessed her fault her
offence was condoned, not only by Captain Lloyd's
forgiveness, but by his sleeping with her after-
wards. The learned counsel then detailed the facts
deposed to by the witnesses, and he also referred
to passages in letters written by Captain Lloyd,
to show the captain's knowledge of what had taken
place. In one dated December 12, 1852, and ad-
dressed to Captain Wragg, Mrs. Lloyd's brother,
he said that he had seen Mrs. Lloyd, " and ulti-
mately succeeded in eliciting from her that she had
had a child by Mr. Winslow ;" and he added, " she
confessed what she had done, which I have in her
own handwriting, and I forgave her." In another
letter addressed to his wife the captain said, " What
a twofaced blackguard your brother is, to let a
sister of his nourish an illegitimate child to my
disparagement, morally and pecuniarily speaking ;"
and the learned counsel explaine 1 that this was an
allusion to the fact that Captain Wragg, in order
to screen his sister, had said that the child, which
was in his house, was his and not hers.

Mrs. Sarah Winter, the plaintiff, was examined,
and said—l have married my present husband since
the commencement of this suit. In February last
year I let some apartments, No. 4, Smirk's•road,
Old Kent-road, to Mrs. Lloyd, at 7s. 6d. a week.
I have boarded and lodged her ever since. My
claim up to the commencement of the suit is £l2.
Mrs. Phillis Lloyd—l was married to the gentle-
man who is now Capt. Lloyd in 1857. I lived with
him two months in Jersey, and after that he left for
service in India. He had a sister and his mother
close by our house in Jersey ; and after he had
gone differences arose between me and his family.
It was quite the talk of the island. I had a boy by
Captain Lloyd, and when that child was about ten
mouths old I left Jersey, and went to Fort George,
the residence of my brother, who is in the
invited
by Artil-
lery. I saw my husband akhatham—l thing in
December, 1852, or January, 1853. I was
by him to go to Chatham. He wrote to me to
go to the Sun Hotel, and he would meet me. I
arrived there, and found he had engaged a room
for me. I stayed there that. night. I afterwards
went to other lodgings in Chatham. He asked me
to give him an account of the tiinuenfl had been
, but
absent, and hinted that I had been unfaithful,
he said what hurt him most was my want of confi-
dence in not confessing to him, and that if I did
.
confess he would forgive me. He did not say the
last part, but he hinted it. He took me to Ham-
mond-hill, Chatham, where his son was, and it was
there that I remained
first day he stayed N
and then went with
-
.tba week or more. On the
in writing that I hadobhe me at the hotel until even-
ing,ie sn ship.unfaithful
afterwards contradicted letfoesisliemd
,tobuhim
I
it. I told him I had had
a child, but not by Mr. Winslow. He read over
the written confession twice. I was seated in an
arm chair. He came and knelt down at my feet,
andlforgive kissed me on the forehead, and said, "Phillis,
you; and will receive you as my own
dear wife, the same as if this had never happened."
He tore the paper, and said, " I tear this up, that it
shall never bear witness against you." After he
tore up the paper we had a long conversation toge-
ther. He said he was afraid of its getting wind in
the service, but if, putting our two heads together,
we could arrange any plan so that it would not
be known, he should be very glad. We accordingly
arranged between us that I should go to France
with the two children, remain there some time,
and when I returned say the child was so much
younger than he really was. He asked me
if Mr. Winslow was the father of the child.
I said he was. He said lie was a rich man, and
ought to pay well for his folly; and he also said
that if he had sufficient money to go out on half-
pay he would go on the continent,
that I had L2O and I should go
with him. Hearing that, I said 0
a year, and then, as I tell you, he settled that I
should go to France with the children. I i, in.
ferred" that Mr. Winslow allowed me that, but it
was not the truth. I had £4O a year allowed me
by Mr. Winslow. Captain Lloyd offered me money,
but I declined to take it. I had left my wedding
ring and all the trinkets which my husband had
given me at Jersey: At Chatham my husband
placed the wedding ring again on
slept with me one night during my stay at Chat-
ham. It was the night after he gave me the wed-
ng ring, and the following morning I left. The
following morning. he .had ch. my finger. He
cli
changed his mind ;• he
thought I had better not remain at Chatham, but

gip.

go back to my lodgings in London with the child.
I have never seen Mr. Winslow since I confessed
to my husband.
Cross-examined—l let the house in Jersey for
£1 ls. a week. I will swear nv husband did not
send me £4lO whilst he was in India ; £l3O in
1848, £lO5 in 1849, and £175 in 1850. I might
have received the former sum, but certainly not the
latter.
Mr. O'Malley—Was it at Inverness that Mr.
Winslow became the father of your child ?
Witness—l have not said it was Mr. Winslow's
child.

Mr. O'Malley—But he was the father ?
Witness—He was not. I will not tell you who
was the father. Mr. Winslow did allow me £4O
a year.

Mr. O'Malley—What for ?
Witness—Because I was poor and in want. He
never offered to allow me £lOO a year. There was
no bond prepared for that purpose. I asked him if
he would allow me more than £4O a year, and he
said he could not.
Mr. O'Malley-IVby did you ask him to allow
you more than £4O a year ?
Witness—How could I exist on that. He allowed
it ine for friendship. He
of my brother. was a most intimate friend

Mr. O'Malley—You say he is not the father of
the child P
Witness—No, I did not.
Mr. O'Malley—Then what do you say ?
Witness—l say I refuse to answer the question ?
Mr. Justice Williams—You most unquestionably
said so. Do you say he is the father of the child?
Witness—Am I bound to answer that question ?
Mr. Justice Williams—Yes, why not ?
Witness—Well, then, I will tell the truth; hdlg.
He allowed me the £4O a year for the support of
the child. He may have given me as much as £3OO.
I may have had £5OO, including the money for
some railway shares, which Mr. Winslow sold for
me. Mr. Winslow had a wife and family living
with him. He visited at my brother's house and I
visited at his. After I left Inverness Mr. Winslow
saw me in London. My second child was born in
Dublin. I went to Belgium before I went to Dublin.
During this time Captain Lloyd's child was with my
aunt in Jersey. I went up the Rhine. I was on the
Continent two months, and I was in Dublin five or
six months before I was confined. Mr. Winslow
paid the expenses of these journeys. He went
with me on the Continent, and afterwards to Dub..
lin. He did not remain till the child was born.
Ido not know where he is now. He was in Ger-
many when I last heard from him. That is more
than two months ago. Ido not know whether it
is three months. I have not seen him since two
months before the birth of my child. Mr. Winslow
and I lived together. I cannot recollect where,
but I think it was at the Bedford Hotel. It was
nine months before the child was born. The child
was baptised at Greenwich as Edwin Isidore
Lloyd. When Mr. Winslow lived with me I
passed as Mrs. Winslow. I was in Paris for three
years, and I paid my own expenses. I had money,
and I did embroidery. In the latter part of 1856
I lived at Grey's-cottage, Nelson-street, Greenwich,
and was confined of my child there. Capt. Lloyd
is the father of that child. I told Captain Lloyd
of it on board ship.
Mr. O'Malley—On your oath, did Capt. Lloyd
ever know of it till this moment ?

Witness—Yes. It was a girl. Early in 1856 I
came over from Paris to see Capt. Lloyd, and I saw
him at Chatham. I brought my second child with
me. The third child is dead. On the occasion
when my husband forgave the adultery, I told him
that I had been surprised in consequence of having
been drugged by Mr. Winslow, and that I had
never had ally intercourse with Mr. Winslow
except on that occasion on which he drugged me.
I have said that Captain Lloyd remained in my
room all night after I had confessed. That was the
night of tree day on which I had taken poison.
Mr. O'Malley—Had you not taken poison be-
cause he refused to live with you after your
avowal

Witness—For the present he did. That was
why I took poison. I tried to poison myself. My
husband was out walking when I took the poison.
It was laudanum. He gave me emetics. I was
very ill all night and the next day.
Mr. O'Malley—Did you ask him as a dying
request to spend the night in your room ?
Witness--I did not. I did ask him, but I did
not tell him I was dying. The emetics were given
to me immediately. I swear he slept with me that
night. I have a recollection of what occurred. I
do not know the name of the hotel. Ido not know
Chatham. I went back to Paris. I saw him in the
summer of 1857, after my third child was born.
This was on board the Edinburgh. I told him of
the third child. My husband invited me to dine at
the mess. Captain Halstead, who commanded the
vessel, did not turn me out of; II ship. I begged
to see him, because the momen : began to speak
of money my husband changed from being kind,
and said he would give me nothing till my brother
signed the deed of separation. Captain Halstead
spoke very politely, and said ladies were not allowed
to remain on board, and he could not interfere
between man and wife.

Re-examined—My husband corresponded with
me constantly whilst I was in Paris.
At the conclusion of this witness's evidence the
further hearing of the case was adjourned until
Thursday.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.-(THIS DAY.)

MANSION-HOUSE.

A NEW Law OF EJECTMENT.—WiIIiam Curl•, a re-
spectable-looking middle-aged man, was charged with
annoying the neighbourhood of Hand-and-Pen-court, in
which place he resides.

Prisoner's landlord said that Curie occupied a furnished
room in his house. He was the terror of the court, and
threatened to set his room on fire.

The Lord Mayor bound the prisoner over to keep the
peace, and said that if he would leave the apartment to-day
no further steps would be taken.

The prisoner demurred to this somewhat peremptory
notice, but was ultimately induced to agree to the terms.

COMMITTAL OF A DARING AND NOTORIOUS SMASHER.
—John Coleman, a well-dressed man, aged 40, who re-
fused his address, was charged with uttering counterfeit
coin.

John Tangy,
r warehouseman stationer,sthe
of oc
Mr. Barclay,
lalprisoner came to the shop and purchased 36 receipt stamps,
Bkiy saidthat
on to
the 3f
paying for the same with a bad half-crown and a sixpence.
The sixpence was good, but witness did not discover that
the half-crown was counterfeit until the prisoner had left
the shop. Yesterday prisoner again visited the shop and
purchased 36 receipt stamps, tendering a second time a
counterfeit half-crown and a sixpence. On this occasion
witness bent the half-crown in prisoner's presence, and
mentioned the circumstance of the first counterfeit. Pri-
soner gave witness a good half-crown and left the shop.
He was, however, soon brought back in custody of police-
constable, 418. He refused to give a name or address.
A witness named Clegg, in the same employment as the
first 'witness, said that the prisoner passed a counterfeit
florin at prosecutor's shop on the 30th of April.
The prisoner declined to examine any of the witnesses,
and the Mint solicitor, who attended on behalf of the autho-
rities, asked for his committal.

The officer said he found all good money on the prisonor.
Mr. Martin (chief clerk) said the prisoner would not be
committed this time for misdemeanour, but for felony, and
the former convictions would be proved against him.

The prisoner was then formally committed for trial.
A JEWISH WOMAN BEATER.—Edward Levy, who WAS
placed in front of the dock, was charged, on a summons,
with assaulting a woman named Page. The defendant,
whose youthful appearance astonished the Lord Mayor,.
was about seven years of age.
Plaintiff averred that he was very saucy, and struck her
two blows in the eye.
Defendant's mother attended and attempted to juldiff tha
assault but the Lord Mayor bound her over, on behalf of
her son, to keep the peace.

MARLBOROUGH-STREET.
STEALING A SOLDIER'S MEDAL.—Eliza Kelly and
Hannah Carmichael were charged with stealing a Turkish
medal, of the value of 12s. 6d., the property of George
Nett, a private in the 3d battalion Grenadier Guards, St. -.
George's Barracks.
From the evidence of the soldier it appeared that on the
previous night he was in the Round House public-house
Wardour-street, about half-past 11, with Berea friends,
ast
having at the time two medals on his hr
e _ --0/10 a
Crimean, the other a Turkish one—when he suddenly
missed one of them.

W " Benjamin •amin • Morrell, of 56, James street, Oxford-street,
upholsterer, deposed that he was in the house with a friend,
and particularly noticed the soldier on account of the medals
on his breast. The soldier was sitting down and Car-
michael put her hands round his neck with the view of
keeping him from rising, and directly after he observed the
medal was gone. The other prisoner was close to them at
the time.

Frederick Chadwell, of 40, Dean-street, corroborated a
portion of the above.

Sarah Moggridg,e, barmaid at the Round House, said,
seeing the soldier had been drinking, she kept a close obser-
vation of the females who were talking to him, and after
Carmichael had left him she saw Kelly throw the ends of
her shawl over him, and directly after observed that the
medal was gone. She spoke to Mr. Barrett, her employer,
and he went after Kelly, who had just left the house, and
brought her back, but the medal was not found. Car-
michael seemed to have been drinking, but did not appear
to know the other prisoner.
Welsh, the gaoler of the court, said Kelly was
owl' dig-
charged the previous day. The evidence not being onclu-
sive, in a case of felony,
1-I'3inara saidJ2o should remand Kenn
Carmichael.
but dilharg

ELECTION INTELLIGENCE.

SUFFOLK (EAST).
The constituency of the eastern division of Suf-
folk assembled yesterday in Ipswich, under the.
supervision of Mr. J. G. Sheppard, the High Sheriff
of the county, for the election of two knights of the
shire to represent them in Parliament. The nomi-
nation took place on hustings erected on the
Corn-
hill,
the customary scene of the local elections, in
the presence of a large number of the gentlemen
and yeomanry of the county and a still greater
gathering of the inhabitants of the town, The day
being auspicious, most of the members of the fem.
lies of the neighbouring gentry were attracted to
the ceremony, a more than ordinary amount of party
spirit was displayed, and altogether the occasion
served to bring into play all the more striking inci-
dents and traits of character with which a contested
election in an ancient county town is associated in
the national mind. The candidates in the Conser-
vative interest are Lord Henniker and the Attor-
ney-General, who represented the division in the
last Parliament, and on the Liberal side Lieut.-
Colonel Adair, who formerly sat for the borough of
Cambridge. The two Conservative candidates were
met by a large body of their supporters, many of
them mounted on horseback, on the Norwich-road,
and escorted to the hustings. A similar compliment
was paid to Colonel Adair, who entered the town
by the Woodbridge-road. An indescribable uproar
prevailed more or less throughout the whole of the
nomination, accompanied by occasional acts by the
partisans on both sides, assembled in a compact
mass in front of the hustings, which gave rise to
some indignation. Among the rabble collected at
elections in this town a dangerous and filthy prac-
tice obtains of pelting an obnoxious candidate with
eggs, and to this they had again recourse yesterday.
The present Attorney-General has been more than
once pelted, after this fashion, on the same spot.
One of these missiles aimed at the learned
knight yesterday struck the High Sheriff on
the head, resulting, however, only in more personal
annoyance to himself and those about him than
actual harm. This was repeated several times,
and on one occasion the offensive object alighted and
burst in the Liberal camp, though the aim was chiefly
directed to the opposite side of the hustings. The
hat and coat of Lord Henniker, in particular, were
ludicrously besmeared, but the learned Attorney-
General was more fortunate in this respect than
those by whom he was surrounded, including the
High Sheriff himself.
The formal preliminaries being concluded, Lord
Henniker was nominated by Mr. Barne and Capt.
Corrance ; Colonel Bence and Mr. Barthropp nomi-
nated the Attorney-General ; and Colonel Adair
was introduced to the electors by Mr. T. B. Western
and Mr. P. R. Burrell.
No other candidate having been proposed,
Lord HENNIKER first addressed the electors. He
said, the Conservatives, and himself among the
number, had on many occasions supported Lord
Palmerston when they could do so consistently with
their principles, but from the time that Lord Derby
became Premier a skirmishing warfare began which
had continued ever since. The noble Lord referred
at length to Mr. Cardwell's motion last session,
which he said reminded him of that famous King
who, with twice ten thousand men, walked up the
hill and then walked down again. (Laughter.)
Alluding to the Government Reform Bill, his lord-
ship said it would have enfranchised on a moderate
computation 1,000,000 persons, and he considered
the class of perscns on whom it was proposed to
confer a £lO franchise in counties were possessed of
at least an equal amount of intelligence as the £lO
voters in a town. Lord John Russell, supported by
Mr. Bright, had not allowed the bill to be fairly con-
sidered in its details in committee, but he (Lord
Henniker) would say of Mr. Bright that he admired
him for his straightforward honesty. Mr. Bright
told the public what he wanted—(cheers)—but
neither Lord John Russell nor Lord Palmerston did
so. They were in fact as different as they could be
from Mr. Bright. Lord John Russell and Lord Pal-
merston were both adverse to the ballot, while Mr.
Bright was for it; they were not for annihilat-
ing the Church and the House of Lords, but Mr,
Bright said fairly he was for doing away with both.
With regard to the proposition in the Government
bill for the use of voting papers, Lord Henniker
said he believed it emanated originally from that
great reformer, Mr. Hume. His lordship added that
he did not agree with the clause affecting the 40s.
freeholders living in boroughs, but he believed it
might have been modified or struck out in commit-
tee ; instead of that, however, no opportunity was
given for ascertaining the opinions of the House of
Commons. In respect to the European war he sup-
ported Lord Derby's policy of an armed neutrality
on the part of England. He believed, however, all
present sympathised with the Italians, and that
their liberty was only a question of time, for
" Freedom's battle once begun,
Bequeathed from bleeding sire to son,
Though baffled oft, is ever won."
(Cheers.)
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, who was received with
loud cheers and interruptions ofa less complimentary
character, appealed for that fair play which he said
was a distinguishing characteristic of the British
people. Alluding to Colonel Adair, the learned gen-
tleman proceeded to observe that the question now
at issue in the county was not one of a personal
character or of private merit. The electors were
called upon to discharge an important duty, and in
the discharge of that duty he appealed to them to
declare who were the real Reformers of the day,
who were the true friends of the working classes,
and who were the advocates of those measures
which really tended to the good and welfare of the
people. [An Elector—Why, the Whigs, certainly.]
Well, with respect to the Whigs and the great
question of reform, who were the Reformers?
Twenty-seven years had now elapsed since the Re-
form Bill of 1832, and for 20 years during that
event falperiod the Whigs—as the hon. elector called
them, although their name was almost lost—or the
Liberals, had been in power ; and he appealed to those
present, especially those who belonged to the work-
ing classes, whether if the Whigs, the Liberals, or by
whatever name they chose to call themselves, had
sincerely desired reform and the enfranchisement of
the working classes, they would not during the 20
years in which they commanded large majorities
of both Houses of Parliament have introduced a bill
for the extension of the franchise. Instead of that,
however, they- had failed to bring forward a bill, or
a single clause of a bill, for the enfranchisement of
the working classes. (" Why didn't you propose a
bill ?") Why, he and his friends had proposed a bill
—the only bill. (Cheers.) The Government to which
he bad the honour to belong had proposed the only
bill to Pitrliament which ever tended to enfranchise
the working classes, or to confer a single vote on
any of that numerous and deserving class of the
people of this country. But for the existence of dif-
ferences which had arisen between the two noble lords
who called themselves leaders of the Whig or Libe-
ral party—but for the complications and differences
which arose between Lord J. Russell and Lord Pal-
merston, he thought he could satisfy the most doubt-
ing man present that the public would not have heard
—at least from the Liberal side of the House of
Commons—of any Reform Bill at all for the people
of England. (Cheers.) He was speaking of dates
and facts which admitted of no contradiction.
During the greater part of the period which elapsed
between the passing of the Reform Bill of 1832 till
1850 the Liberal party had been in power, com-
manding a large majority of the House of Commons,
and at least a sufficient degree of support in the
House of Lords to have passed any bill. The House
of Lords at least would have given a bill which
would have conferred upon many who were yet
imenfran chased thefranchise which they so earnestly
desired ; but during the period to which he had
alluded Lord John Russell and Lord Palmerston,
although Ministers of the Crown possessing the
confidence of their own party in the House of Com-
mons, never suggested a Reform Bill. On the
contrary, it would be remembered that Lord
John Russell had declared in favour of the finality
of the Reform Bill of 1832. " Finality" had
become an adjunct of the name of the noble lord—
(cheers)—till in'lBso, by reason of some real or sup.
posed defect or irregularity in the foreign policy of
the country, Lord Palmerston had the ill luck to
fall into disfavour with Lord John Russell and
others of the Ministry, and was most unceremoni-
ously ejected from the Cabinet. [" By your party."]
No, it was by Lord John Russell. His (the Attor-
ney-General's) friend in the crowd was rather mis-
taken as to names and dates. (Cheers.) The Conser-
vative party at that time was not in power at all.
It was Lord John Russell. From that moment a
schism or feud arose between Lord John Russell
and Lord Palmerston ; and it was from that feud,
and that alone, that Lord John Russell brought in
a Reform Bill in 18.31. He (the Attorney-General)
believed that reform was not really asked for by
the public voice of the people. (No, no, and inter-
ruption.) Well, he rejoiced to find that at least it
was called for, becatie he agreed with them that
there ought to be a Reform Bill. (Cheers.) What
s more, he had done what Lord John Russell
had not done, he had a party to a Reform
Bill which was laidueonemthee table of the House
had
f
Commons, and
which he and his friends h
really and faithfully
Afterthe
endeavoured to make the
law of the land. (Cheers.)division which
took place between Lord J. Russelland Lord Pal-
merston, the one remained
perha
s a t
the
head of
100 followers, and the other at the head of some 70
or 80, each seeking to outmanoeuvre the other, and i
to obtain an ascendancy n the Government of the
country- and the leadership of the great Liberal
party in the House of Commons. It was in order to catch the stray voters of the party in the House of
Comma= that Lord J, RUSSell—abazdening the

finality which he had professed for 20 years—in
1851 brought forward an abortion of a measure
which he called a Reform Bill. (Cheers.) .\ gain, in
1854, the struggle still continuing betwesen the two
noble lords as to which should be the I_, der of the
Liberal party, the leader of the House ) Commons,
and the Prime Minister of the county; Lord John
Russell, in order again to stand well ,‘ th the great
majority of the Liberal party in the House of Com-
mons, brought forward what he called a Reform
Bill. Now, if that noble lord really and sincerely
desired the emancipation and enfranchisement
of the working classes, if he really desired
to confer upon the people of this country a great,
wise, and salutary measure of reform, why did he
not in 1851 and 1854, at both periods commanding
a large majority of the House of Commons, pass the
bill which he laid upon the table of the house ?
(Cheers.) It had become the will and the deter-
mination of the people that some Reform Bill should
be passed ; and he might remind them that when
he addressed them from that place in 1857, when
Lord Derby was not in power, and when there was
no idea that the great majority of his party would
sanction a Reform Bill, he called on them to agitate
the question of reform,with the view to an extension
of the elective franchise to the great body of the
middle classes of the people. (Cheers, and " What
about the 40s. freeholders ?") Why, the 40s. free-
holders constituted the great mass of his supporters
in that county, and it was not likely that he should
ever forget them. (Cheers.) But let them consider
what the Government would have done but that
they were opposed and defeated by a combination
of factions in the House of Commons,who were alone
responsible for the destruction of the only Reform
Bill ever sincerely brought forward since the great
measure of 1832, and by which at least 1,000,000 of
our fellow-countrymen would have received the
elective franchise. He confessed that in reference
to any measure of reform, or to any kindred ques-
tion introduced with a view to the benefit of
the people, he had always thought it safer and
wiser not to proceed rashly, but deliberately and
by slow degrees. Those who complained of the
Reform Bill introduced by the Government must
remember that for twenty-seven years previously
nothing at all had been done in the way of reform.
When the present Government brought forward
an experimental measure, designed to enfranchise
1,000,000 of the community, no one could
fairly denounce them as the enemies of progress.
By the bill they brought in every man throughout
the country—for it was the intention to have ap-
plied its provisions ultimately to Scotland and
Ireland—who occupied a house of the value of
£lO a year would eventually have received the
elective franchise. They would, in that case, no
longer have seen that mischievous distinction
which obtained in reference to occupation, as a
ground for conferring the elective franchise, which
had given so great an amount of dissatisfaction to
the people during the greater part of the present
century, excluding as it did the occupier of a better
house in a county and of greater value than that
of the occupier within a represented borough, who
was admitted to the franchise, though the former
might be a man of better position and higher in-
telligence and attainments. The Government en-
deavoured by their bill to equalise the qualification
tor the exercise of the elective franchise, and they
would have at once enfranchised the entire middle
classes of the people. He hoped his gallant oppo-
nent would tell them explicitly the reduction of
the franchise in boroughs which he was prepared
to advocate. He (the Attorney-General) ventured
to say that if a majority of the new House of
Commons should put an end to the Ministry of
Lord Derby, and bring Lord John Russell into
power, Lord John Russell could not maintain him-
self in office for one week without the support of
Mr. Bright and his party. (Cheers and uproar.)
Mr. Bright had within the last week publicly
avowed to a large assembly of his countrymen
that he thought the policy of the country required
that the suffrage should be extended, not to a £6,
a £5. or a £3 franchise, but to householders
throughout the realm. He knew it was the deep
and deliberate conviction of Mr. Bright that it
would be for the good of the country that such
should be the qualification for voting ; and he
(the Attorney-General) asked, were they prepared,
by electing his gallant opponent (Colonel Adair)
to support an Administration composed of
Lord John Russell and Mr. Bright ? (" No, no,"
and uproar.) He would also seriously ask them
to consider what would be the first consequence to
the people of this country of the passing of such
a measure as that to which Mr. Bright would only
consent. There were, according to the last returns,
3,500,000 inhabited houses in England and Wales,
and the result of adopting the principle of house-
hold suffrage would be, after striking off half a
million for minors, women, and casualties, to create
a constituency of 3,000,000, of whom 2,000,000
would be occupiers of houses below the value of
£lO a-year. Once sanction a measure of that kind,
creating an entirely new constituency of 2,000,000
persons not possessed of property, and many .of
them without education, and the consequence would
be to outnumber the whole of the upper and
middle classes of the country. (Cheers.) The
learned gentleman proceeded to comment, amid oc-
casional interruption, on the lodgers' clause in the
Government Reform Bill, and the educational clause,
remarking by the way that for the first time edu-
cation had been made a qualification for the elec-
tive franchise—and the provision relating to
savings-bank depositors. With respect to the last-
named topic, which elicited some expressions of
ridicule, he said a gentleman had that very morn-
ing informed him that in a town in the northern
part of Suffolk, containing not more than 4,000
inhabitants, there were no fewer than 125 depositors
in a savings-bank to the amount of £6O and
upwards. (Cheers and uproar.) Did the Liberal
party pretend to talk to them (the Conservative
party) about the working classes ? What had the
Liberal party ever done for the working classeg ?
(A Voice—" What had Lord Derby done for
them ?") Did the Liberal party do anything
for them in the Reform Bill of 1832, or in
those of 1851 and 1854 ? Let any one point out
to him a single measure which any one of
the Liberal party ever brought forward or ever
supported, and which conferred the shadow
of a shade of benefit on the working classes. He
would tell them what the Conservative party had
done. For three years in succession a bill was
brought forward to enable the working classes to
resist combinations formed against them by their
masters and employers. It was introduced by an
independent member, and supported by =any of
the Conservati re party, and uniformly by himself
(the Attorney-General) as the representative of the
good men of East Suffolk. And by whom was it
opposed and thrown out ? (A Voice We've
never seen or heard of it," and laughter.) Why, by
the party led by Lord John Russell. Eventually,
however, it became the law of the land, and he (the
Attorney-General) bore a humble part in passing it.
The result was, that the working men throughout
the kingdom might now meet and agree upon mea-
sures for their own protection, without fear of their
masters. And yet it was the Conservatives who
were to be taunted by the Liberals as the enemies
of the working classes. The learned gentleman
also reminded them that his party had sought to
benefit that class of the community by admitting
the most respectable and industrious of them to the
exercise of the franchise. He proceeded to defend
the proposed transfer to the borough constituencies
of the 40s. freeholders whose qualifications were
situate in boroughs, and to comment upon the exer-
tions made by the Government to maintain the peace
of Europe and to prevent the country drifting into
whilegl
ntahme ye soungehtretpoeautepdhoilnd
stluibeshthonneoeurthoef
tahNevaErn,
statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer
to his constituents in reference to the Mediterranean
and Channel fleets, adding that we had 100,000 men
in arms either about to depart from India or on their
way home. With such means of defence, and with a
Government determined to uphold, as far as in
them lay, the liberties of the people and to main-
tain the peace of the world, they need have little
apprehension in the present state of affairs. To
that Government they might safely intrust the
destinies of the country ; and he doubted not when
he met them on those hustings again he should
have to congratulate them upon England having,
throughout the impending conflict, maintained the
honour of her name and the stability of her insti-
tutions. (Cheers.)
Colonel ADAIR, the candidate in the Liberal in-
terest, then addressed the meeting at considerable
length, and with much vigour and effect. The
gallant gentleman was frequently cheered by his
own supporters, but the partisans on the opposite
side kept up a continual clamour during
his speech,
which, irrespective of its merits, was under the
circumstances a wonderful effort of lungs; and in
spite of great provocation he maintained his good
humour throughout. He exhorted them, as long
as the question of reform remained unsettled, not
to be diverted from it on one side or the other by
what the Attorney-General would call "collateral
issues." He added that he belonged to the great
Liberal party, for whom he claimed the merit of
preferring the interests of their country to any
party triumph. (Cheers.) He defended his party at
some length against the attacks of the Attorney-
General. Adverting to the 40s. freeholders, he
called it rash innovation and opposed to constitu •
tional law and custom to deal with them in the
manner proposed by
the recent Reform Bill. Most
of all, he found fault with that tampering spirit
which led an inconsiderate Government into acts
from which it could not recede, and then placed
the mass of the people on one side and a portion of
the Legislature on the other. He warned his op-
ponents that now the question of reform had been