The Sun.
London, England, 1868-06-09 00:00:00

SPIBITWOP THE PUBLIC-JODILNALS. gOVERNMENT AND
LOS IO THE CLERKENWELL
EXPN.

The Times observes that a course not only unusual, but,
Wop believe, unprecedented, has been taken in the Court of
Queen's Bench. The Lord Chief Justice of England has
drstwn the attention of the bar and of the public to a
statement in which he expressed his dissent from some of
the iloctrines embodied in Mr. Justice Blackburn's charge
to the grand jury last week in the case of Ex-Governor
Eyre,, and denied that the principles contained in that
• charge had been approved by all the judges of
the Queen's Bench. It will be remembered that
when Mr. Justice Blackburn had finished his
.exposition of the law in the case of Mr. Eyre, he informed
the grand jury that he had taken every opportunity of
consulting his brother judges, and he believed himself
authorised to declare that they all agreed in the principle.
he Intd laid down. The judges of his own court were
specially and individually referred to as having been in
consultation with him upon the points involved in
the charge, and as having authorised him to ex•
press their agreement with him. Some surprise
was felt at . these statements at the time, not so
much at their unusual character, because it was felt
that the case was of the I ighest importance, and it was
fitting that the statement of the legal principles upon
which it depended should rest on the highest authority,
but because it was impossible not to see that many of the
expressions of the learned judge were irreconcilable with
the previous charge of the Lord Chief Justice. This
difficulty has been removed by the statement of the Lord
Chief'. Justice yesterday, but only to give place to another
equally embarrassing. When the Lord Chief Justice
had I:ulshed his Communication to the bar, Mr.
Justice _Blackburn followed with his statement, describing
the conferesices between himself and the other members
of the court before he delivered his charge, and the way
in which the ta isunderstanding seems to have arisen. It is
painful to add.that a comparison of the two statements
compels the conclusion that the misapprehension was due
to some negligence on both sides, while justice itself is
,discredited by the fact that the grand jury threw
.out the bill against Mr. Eyre under the influence of a
charge some of 'the leading doctrines of which are
now emphatically repudiated by the Lord Chief Justice.
The explanation. of the circumstances under which the
misapprehension between judges of the Queen's Bench
arose does not diminish the regret of the Times. The
Lord Chief Justice said he had understood before the
trial that Mr. Justice Blackburn did not feel it necessary
to discuss the effect of the Jamaica statutes, and as
to the actual case of Gordon, he believed, up to
the eve of the delivery of his charge, that his
learned brother held his apprehension and removal
unjustifiable. " I believe," said the Lord Chief
Justice, " I am warranted in saying that the statement of
the learned judge to the grand jury on this head took the
other members of the court as much by surprise as it cer-
tainly did me." Yet this was part of the law of the case
in which Mr. Justice Blackburn claimed at the trial the
concurrence of the other judges. His statement yester-
day was much more guarded. Ho said he had reduced
the central proposition of his charge to writing, and
submitted it to his colleagues, explaining at the same
time briefly but sufficiently the other points. He
admits that, being himself charged with the facts and
principles of the case as he conceived them, he too hastily
inferred a complete coincidence of opinion from the ap-
proval of this brief abstract. It might be satisfactory, if
this writing still exists, to know its exact contents, but if,
as one is led to suppose, it amounted to no more than that
a colonial governor, acting with judgment and good faith
within the scope of his legal powers, could not be
made criminally responsible for excesses or errors he
may have innocently committed—and it must have
been something like this to have secured the assent of
the Lord Chief Justice—it will be seen that the point on
which the charge turned, the definition of the legal powers
of a governor, is left wholly unsettled by it. The result
is painful, and, the leading journal adds, creditable to
neither party involved in it. If Mr. Justice Blackburn
unduly amplified the assent of his colleagues, his
colleagues ought to have seen that the narrow prin-
ciple he stated to them was insufficient to justify that
expression of their approval they did authorise him to
use. There was great imprudence on all sides, the chief
and first being that Sir Colin Blackburn did not commit
the whole of his charge to writing before consulting his
colleagues, while the end has been a scandal in the
administration of our law for a parallel to which we must
vainly seek in recent years, perhaps not in recent genera-
tions.

The Post declares that whatever diversity of opinion
may exist in respect to the prerogative of the Crown to
proclaim martial law, no one can regret that the Lord
Chief Justice of England should have taken the opportu-
nity of expressing his dissent from some of the opinions
enunciated by Mr. Justice Blackburn in his recent charge
to the grand jury of Middlesex on the prosecution of Mr.
Eyre for misdemeanour. Irrespective of the legal merits
of the points at issue, it must be conceded that Mr. Justice
Blackburn transgressed equally against the canons of good
taste and the usages which govern the procedure of the
court of which he is a member. Entertaining, as
he did, a different opinion from that of the Lord Chief
Justice on a point of great constitutional importance, he
seems to have seized the opportunity accidentally afforded
to him of giving, apparently in the name of the full court,
directions in point of law which in effect overruled the
expressed opinions of the chief of that court. There may
have been a misunderstanding upon his part, but most
persons will probably be inclined to share the opinion evi-
dently entertained by the Lord Chief Justice, that if
there was a misunderstanding he must be much more
stupid than the world believes him to be.
The Daily News lays down that if the deliberate con-
victions of a majority of the judges are misrepresented by
a single judge, the court is bound to take notice of the
fact. The Lord Chief Justice therefore only (lid his duty.
Our contemporary has always more to dread from the con-
servatism than from the innovating principles of our
judges. It is their duty to uphold authority, but only
that authority which is consistent with the law. There are
too many instances on record of judges who did not blush
to be complimented on their skill in getting obnoxious
offenders sentenced to the gallows. Even in our own day
we have witnessed a political bias on the bench which ill
accords with the due administration of justice. It is,
therefore, the more commendable when, as in the present
case, the head of the Court of Queen's Bench throws the
.weight of his learning and influence into the scale wherein
justice has been outweighed by prejudice and passion.
Moreover, it is satisfactory to learn that the modern
doctrines about martial law are based on a legal quick-
sand.

The Herald greatly regrets that any misunderstanding
should have arisen between two judges. The complaint
against Mr. Justice Blackburn is, that he erroneously, but
,of course unintentionally, represented himself as speaking
in the name of all his colleagues. His lordship was bounc
to admit his mistake when they assured him that he had
made one ; but if so, it had been occasioned by a mutual
misunderstanding of what was said and what was assentet.
to. But if no reference to other judges had beer
made, the Herald apprehends that it would still have
been the duty of the senior puisne to propound
his own views of the law, and that any contention
or debate upon the bench, while the jury were in
court, would have conduced neither to the dignity nor the
harmony of the proceedings. In a measure the same ob.
jections attach to the scene when the Lord Chief Justice
se emphatically stated his own views as to administer
something very like a rebuke to his non-assenting col.
league. The Eyre case has been fruitful in surprises and
novel situations, but we think it is peculiarly unfortunate
that to them the Court of Queen's Bench should have con.
tributed its quota. Nevertheless, everyone knows that
both Sir Alexander Cockburn and Sir Colin Blackburn
have acted from the best motives, and with the greatest
anxiety to do their duty, nor will any one find fault
with thembecause they have failed to hit its exact line.

The Standard refrains from any attempt at so invidious
a task as that of comparing the relative soundness of the
views of the law propounded by these learned and eminent
personages, though we confess that we prefer the junior's
reading, because it makes the right to proclaim martial
law a matter of plain common sense, resting on the natural
instinct of self-preservation. That Sir Alexander
Cockburn was influenced by none but high and honour-
able motives in taking a somewhat extraordinary course
we are perfectly convinced • but we are by no means so
• sure that therein he has acted wisely, or decided well.
The Telegraph, notes what good work was done in the
House of Commons on Monday, the Scotch Reform Bill
having been passed through committee by half- past nine
o'clock. Perhaps the purposeless talkers were kept away,
or were awed into silence by the idea that the Scotch law
of rating is incomprehensible to any man born south of
the Tweed. At all events, the House settled down to
business with a will, and the speeches were models of
brevity. The fact is,' that if not endowed with startling
brilliancy, the Scotch members are sound business men,
who know that the best way to get their work done is to
do as much of it out of doors as they can, and to make
little fuss in the House itself. So they come to debate in
something like a compact body, with well-defined views,
and with clear ideas as to what they have power to do.
If in this respect the English members would take a lesson
from the dull, demure north-countrymen, perhaps
they
would waste less time on the profitless task of talking in
the air.

The Sloe has had placed under its notice a pamphlet on
the employment of women, from which it culls certain
facts, showing conclusively that something must be done
for giving employment to the female portion of our popu-
lation. Our contemporary is struck with shame with one
portion of this pamphlet, which sets forth that there are
no less than 66,057 men connected with businesses
occupied with women's dress and such matters exclusively.
It will be new to some of our readers to learn that
there are no less than 803 male milliners and dress-
makers, 881 stay and corsetmakers, and 1,165 washer-
amen and laundrykeepers in England and Wales. It
Is a negative credit to the country that we only find thir-
teen baby-linen makers. So that not only do we pre-
vent women from fulfilling occupations suited to them
(the persistent opposition of medical men to female ob.
stetric practitioners has been never justified to the public
by the former), but we positively drive them off their own
grounds, displacing them in situations for which men Die
no 1749r1A4ACCI titfiliilleY 11414 d be ftm dry-nursing.

On Monday a deputation waited upon the Chancellor of
he Exchequer, at his official residence in Downing-street,
with the view of enforcing upon the Government the
claims of those persons whose property was destroyed by
he late Fenian outrage, and who had not been recouped
rom the fund which was the result of public charity.
The Rev. R. MAGUIRE, after alluding to the fact that
he present Premier, upon whom a deputation waited in
!eference to the same subject some time ago, was not
willing to pledge the Government to any decided course
>f action until certain legal questions were settled, stated
;hat the total amount collected in behalf of the sufferers
'rom bodily injuries was £lO,OOO, and the flow of charity
was stopped by an article which appeared in the Times,
ind which pointed out the propriety of refraining from
rurther acts of benevolence until it could be seen whether
ar not the county or hundred in which the outrage was
perpetrated was liable for the occurrence which caused so
much loss of life and limb and property. The committee
then halted to await the result of an inquiry at law, and
the result had been adverse to the sufferers from loss of
property ; and now the Government were asked to dis-
play paternal feeling towards those peaceful subjects of a
Crown who had lost their worldly goods by reason of that
which was an offence against the State.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER : I am to under-
stand that you have provided for all the cases of bodily
injury, and that you now merely require the Government
to take into consideration a claim for compensation by
those whose property has been destroyed?

The Rev. it. MAGUIRE : Yes, sir. The sum of £4,500
nas already b,en expended in relief, and there is now
allocated at the bankers' the sum of £5,500 for the purpose
of purchasing annuities for those who are permanently
injured.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER Then I am to
understand that you have all that you require, so far as pro-
viding for the injured people—l mean those injured in
hody?
The Rev. R. 'MAGUIRE : Yes, sir.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER : Then I may tell
you that the Government recognises your claim, and an
official will be sent down to Clerkenwell to assess the
amount of damage done. What is the amount?
Mr. WucocKs said it was about £B,OOO.

Mr. E. J. TIIO3IPSON said he was sure the committee
would be only too glad to co-operate with any appraiser
whom the Government might send.
The deputation then, through Mr. MAGUIRE, thanked
the right hon. gentleman for his courtesy, and withdrew..

THE CHARGE AGAINST MADAME

RACHEL.

At the Marlborough-street Police-court "Madame
Rachel," whose real name appears to be Leverson,
appeared before Mr. Knox to answer the charge
of obtaining several sums of money from Mrs.
Borradaile on the pretence of making her beautiful
for ever, and other alleged misrepresentations.
Mr. Montague Williams, in opening the case for the com-
plainant, said that defendant would be charged first with
obtaining money by fraud, and secondly for conspiring to
do so. The prosecutrix became acquainted with Madame
Rachel in 1866, and it was arranged that she should be
made beautiful for ever, and after that contract a noble
alliance. To carry out such an advantageous agreement
of course Mrs. Borradaile was not backward when
applied to for some money by the defendant, and
in a very short space of time £l,OOO changed hands. Sub-
sequently the prosecutrix was introduced by Madame
Rachel to a gentleman who she said was Lord Ranelagh,
but who for private reasons did not wish to be known as
Lord Ranelagh, but as Captain William Edwards. Several
letters passed between the parties. While the correspon-
dence was going on Madame Rachel told the lady £1,400
was needed by Lord Ranelagh for volunteering purposes,
and that that sum, as soon as she became his wife, would
be repaid. Some property was sold out by a solicitor,
named Haynes, and various sums were advanced, some-
times £lO, sometimes £l4, in the belief that she was carry.
ing on a matrimonial engagement with the real and not
the fictitious Lord Ranelagh. Subsequently, Madame
Rachel told the lady, as she was about to become Lady
Ranelagh, a certain amount of diamonds would be
wanted for the wedding. The prosecutrix ordered
diamonds, and advanced £1,400 to Madame Rachel. The
di,monds, however, were returned with a forfeit of £l5O
for not taking them, Madame Rachel telling Mrs. Borra-
daile that they would not be wanted, as she would hive
the Ratelagh family diamonds. Then there were
wedding dresses purchased at the suggestion of Madame
Rachel, and such was the credulity of the poor
dupe that in a short time certain parties succeeded in
stripping her of every shilling she had, the total amount
not being less than £4,000. Of this sum, the obtainal of
£l,OOO forine.l the basis of the charge of conspiracy. The
letters referred to were read, and contained some of the
most an an nonsense that it is possible to conceive, and
far outdid many of those laughter-provoking missives that
are son.et mes read, to the amusement of the public
and the n o ification of the parties themselves, in cases
of brenc7l of promise. In some of them the
writer d s'gna' ed the prosecutrix as "my own
darling helove i Mary," and in another she was apostro-
phised as 11-s " heart's delight," " adored one," &c. One
of these really ridiculous epistles wound up with thr
following words :—" I will let you know all when I hear
from you, my heart's life. Bear up, my fond one, and I
shall be at your feet, those feet that I love, and you may
kick your ugly old donkey. Two letters, naughty little
pet, and you have not answered one. You are in sorrow
about your brother. With fond and devoted love, yours
till death,—WlLLlAlt." Mrs. Borradaile was called, and
corroborated the statement made by her counsel, after
which Lord Ranelagh said : I hope your worship will
allow me to make a few remarks. I beg to state on my
solemn oath that I know nothing of those letters, and that
I never saw or heard of them until now. I say, further,
that I did not know Mrs. Borradaile, even by sight, until
about two months ago, when I met her at the solicitor's
office.—The defendant's advocate said his client feared
nothing, and had nothing to fear, as she had a complete
answer to the charge.—The magistrate remanded the case,
and fixed the bail at two sureties in £l,OOO each.