The Sun.
London, England, 1850-05-06 00:00:00

several messages from London, ordering me to stop
your message, and send Mr. Bean's message, if ready.
I informed the clerk in London that Mr. Beau was then
iu the Liverpool Telegraph-office, when an order imme-
diately came from London to this effect:—' Stop Willmer
and Smith's message, and send on Bean's,' which was
done. I may also further sate that your business,
during my management at the office here, met with fre-
quent interruptions by order from head-quarters.
"'I am, gentlemen, your obedient servant,
(Signed) " JAMES SPA.LDING.
'Messrs. Willmer and Smith, Liverpool."
We should observe that for this message, which occu-
pied about ninety-eight lines in the columns of the
Morning Herald, we paid the Telegraph Com-
pany about 211, and were, notwithstanding, thrown off
the wires for more than half an hour to satisfy the mo-
nopolising spirit of the company. This, you will see, is
another violation of the 51st section of the Act already
quoted ; nay more, it is another attempt to injure us in
our business, and an effort to deprive the London Press,
of which we are the correspondents, of the news until
it was published in all parts of the city by a favoured
paper. It, would be interesting to know who bent the
order to stop our message on this occasion. We doubt
not but Mr. Boys could tell. As he is fond of affording the
public all important news, he may, no doubt, supply the
required information. We represented the case to
the company, and, after the board had considered the
matter, we received a letter from the secretary, stating
that the company regretted the annoyance to which we
had been subjected, and promised that a repetition should
not again occur, as arrangements had been made where-
by all messages would be transmitted in the order in
which they were received. For a time this regulation
wai partially acted upon, but it was only for the purpose
of a arding off an action at law and public exposure,
which we then threatened.
"9. The third case of delay in the transmission of
our messages to which we shall allude isone so singularly
monstrous and unjustifiable that all loyal men will de-
precate and despise. Yea, even the Minister who holds a
large stake in the company, must feel ashamed of the base
conduct of his officer. On Saturday, the 30th of June last,
a message sent to us from our London office, stating that
an attempt had been made to assassinate the Queen,
reached Liverpool at seventeen minutes past nine P.M.,
but was not delivered to us till half past seven A.M. on
the following Monday. The reason assigned for the
non-delivery on Saturday night was, that our office was
closed. The private residence, however, of Mr. Will-
mer was posted on all the doors, so that the messenger
could have easily found it, especially as he had more
than once been to both Mr. Willmer's and Mr. Smith's
private residences. The excuse of the company was,
therefore, paltry, and, as in the preceding cases, proves
that their promise as regards instantaneous communica-
tions is a mockery, a delusion, 11.114 a snare, unequalled
in the annals of business.
" 10. On the 27th of July last year a hoax was played
upon us by fictitious news from the south of Ireland
being handed to us for publication in the London morn-
ing papers. The news was of a very astounding de•
scription, and proved to be utterly untrue; but that fact
is quite immaterial to the case at present. Upon taking
it to the Electric Telegraph-office the clerks said the
wires were engaged on their own message, but on seeing
the news sent to us they agreed to forward it at once to
the Morning Herald without charge, on the condition
that they might afterwards use it themselves. This
arrangement, to save time, we consented to; the condi-
tions, however, were entirely broken by the company,
for the intelligence was first made known in Capel-
court, afterwards to Sir George Grey, in Downing-
street, and at eleven o'clock was delivered at the Morn-
ing Herald office, though it had been given to them at
Liverpool at a quarter-past seven. So much for good
faith! _ _

11. Again, when the verdict was given upon Mr.
Smith O'Brien's last trial, we procured the intelligence
by special messenger from Dublin and Holyhead, and
having reached Crewe, where the company have a sta-
tion, our reporter commenced to have the intelligence
telegraphed to London. It was late, and we were
anxious to get it into the first editions of the papers.
The message had to be transmitted through Manches-
ter; and when about ha;l' finished the reporter was sur-
prised to hear an order from the office, Stop W. and
S.'s message, and send the Company's own.' This,
however, by his peremptory remonstrance, be prevented
being done; but we found next day that the company,
resolved not to be thwarted by our greater activity, had
delayed the delivery of the message to our agent in
London until they had delivered their own version of the
news to the whole of the morning piers, and who had
agreed to pay them for it.
" We have now noticed a few of the many cases in
which this company have either
" 12. Wilfully impeded the transmission of our mes-
sages to the London press,
" 13. Or else attempted to impair their efficiency by a
delay in their delivery.
"It would be easy to multiply them to a much
greater extent; in fact, were we to notice in detail all
the cases of complaint which we have had to make, the
one-half of your double sheeted journal would not con-
tain them. Those now given will, we suppose, suffice
for the present; and should Messrs. Fourdrinier and
Boys, or their master, Mr. Ricardo, desire more, we will
not fail to supply them with fifty other instances equally
damning as regards the
" 14. Disgraceful tricks of the Lothbury officials.
But it is not only of the delays of the transmission
and delivery of our messages that we complain; we have
also been subjected to extreme annoyance and incon-
venience by the very inefficient manner in which they
have been transmitted to and from London.

" 15. Errors of the grossest kind have been made,
words left out se as to render the sense incomplete, and
in cases where cypher has been adopted others substi-
tuted, which, when translated, had an entirely opposite
meaning to that intended.
" You will, no doubt, be surprised hen we tell you
that in messages of twenty-seven or thirty letters it has
not been an unfrequent occurrence to have four, five, and
sometimes six mistakes. Even no later than Monday
night last we received a message from London, in which
the company's officer, for reasons best known to him-
self, substituted the word allowances for annoyances,
thus entirely altering the sense of the message, and ren-
dering it perfectly useless, notwithstanding they charged
10s. for their services.
" We must not omit to state that Parliament granted
to the Electric Telegraph Company an Act to communi-
cate intelligence.
" 16. At uniform rates, and

" 17. Without preference to any party.
" Their present price from Liverpool to London is
over sixpence per word. It is reported that to some
papers they charge Is. for every nine word!, others Is.
per line, and others 6d. per line. To the Glasgow Daily
Mail they supply more than a column of news per day
for 2001. a year. The North British Daily Mail for the
same intelligence 3001. The Hall news•room is supplied
with all intelligence for 1501. per annum, whilst the
Liverpool Exchange do not get more than half the quan-
tity given to the Glasgow papers, although they pay
3001. a year.
" The foregoing statements just made will afford you,
Sir, and the London Press, a glimpse into the working
of this gigantic scheme of monopoly.
" 18. They will convince you that you can have no
security that your interest will be guarded, and that,
notwithstanding the utmost watchfulness, activity, and
zeal of your several correspondents throughout the
world, you will be baffled should the company have a
game of their own to play.
" 19. They will satisfy you that schemes the most
shameful, and such as persons pretending to the title of
gentlemen should detest and abhor, have been resorted
to in order that the Telegraph Company may enjoy an
illegal monopoly, and keep the public and the press at
their mercy, so far as the promulgation of all late and
important news is concerned.
" We are, Sir, yours respectfully,
" WILLMER AND SMITE."

The Learned Counsel was proceeding in the state•
went of a great number of instances of blunders and de-
lays on the part of the company in the transmission of
messages intrusted to them when our report left.
The case is likely to occupy the Court the whole of
the day.

COMMON PLEAS.-.(THIS DAY.)
Sittings in Banco, before Lord Chief Justice WILDE
and Justices CRESSWELL, WILLIAMS, and•TALFOURD.)

LANDUYT V. STEVENS.

Mr. MASON, on behalf of the defendant, applied for a
rule to show cause why the award of certain arbitrators,
appointed by order of the Court to decide all matters
connected with this case should not be set aside, on the
ground that no notice of the meetings of the arbitrators
had been given to the defendant, nor any opportunity
afforded him of entering into his defence. It ap-
peared that the defendant, a merchant in London,
ordered from the plaintiff, a manufacturer of oil cakes
in Belgium, two cargoes of oil•eake of the best descrip-
tion, t.. be made of Alexandrian seed, which was re-sold
by him to a Mr. Crofts, who, however, returned the first
cargo on delivery, alleging that it was not made of
Alexandrian seed, but of the common description,
and also refused to charter a vessel to Belgium to
fetch the second cargo. The first cargo was ultimately
disposed of at Yarmont at a loss of 130 L, and the re-
mainder in Belgium at a loss of 2001. Upon this the
plaintiff required that the defendant should make good
the loss of 3301., and an action was brought by him to
recover it; but by consent of both parties arbitrators
were appointed and the matter referred to them. The
defence set up was, that the defendant had ordered the
oil-cake merely as a commission agent, and not en his
own account; and again, that the goods were not of the
description ordered. The arbitrators, however, on the
correspondence between the parties being laid before
them, gave their award against the defendant, taking
the first point merely into their consideration, and
afforded the defendant no opportunity of proving the
second part of his defence. It was upon these grounds
that the application for a rule was brought.
Rule granted.

BAIL COURT.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Justice COLERIDGE.)
QUEEN V. JUSTICES OF RUNISEY MARSH.

Mr. CriEASY applied to the Court for a rule calling
upon the Justices of Rumsey Marsh to show cause why
a conviction and an order of session should not be
quashed. On the 6th of March a man named Tillhurst
was convicted, before Messrs. Blake and Plater, two of
the aforesaid justices, as a " a rogue and vagabond," for
having neglected to support his wife and family, whereby
they had become chargeable to the parish of Dine-
church. The man appealed against this conviction; and
on the 3d of April the appeal came on for hearing at the
Rumsey Marsh Session, before the two convicting ma-
gistrates and two other justices, Mr. Blake acting as
chairman. The sessions confirmed the conviction, but as
the two convicting magistrates were interested parties,
and had therefore no right to act on the trial of the ap-
peal, their order was clearly illegal—a dictum established
by " The Queen v. Justices of Hertfordshire," and many
I other owe.