The Sun.
London, England, 1868-02-24 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, MONDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 24, 1868.

SHARE LlST.—This Day.

ORDINARY SHARES AND STOCKS.

190
100
100
1(.0
100
100

100
1100
15
100
100

731 4

T S ECUIiITI ELS

98 100',
100 102;
100 1021
86 87
b 5
103 105
107 IC9
106 108
1(5 107

06 27
11j 111
105 107

103 105
105 107
107 101
1N tll
114 106
99 10

98 99
Sesj 96

94 99

95a f

I. 1031
1

112 lif

109 f i

109 i

103 1

DISCOVERY OF MR. SPEKE.

Sir Richard Mayne presents his compliments to
the Editor of 7he Sun, and requests he will have it
made publicly known that information was received
this morning of the Rev. Mr. Spoke's safety.
Mr. Charles T. Murdoch, on receiving the intel-
ligence communicated it immediately to Sir Richard
Mayne, in order that the public mind might be
relieved as early as possible from the painful
state of suspense that the case has produced. lie
was found at Padstow, Cornwall.
4, Whitehall-place, Feb. 24, 1868.

CRIMINAL COURT.—This I'ay.

OLI) COURT.

The February sessions commenced to-day before
the Lord Mayor, the Recorder, and the Sheriffs.
The Recorder, in charging the grand jury, re-
ferred to a number of cases in the calendar, which
contained the names of 109 prisoners for trial.
The principal cases to be disposed of %were those
of a prisoner named James Necdell, a clerk, who
stood charged with feloniously wounding Thos.
Chatterton, with intent to murder him. It
would be seen from the evidence that he met the
prosecutor in the neighbourhood of Clerken-
well, and deliberately discharged a pistol at
him, the charge taking the most serious
effect on him. The witnesses would prove
the fact most conclusively, but they, the
grand jury, would have nothing to do with the
state of mind of the prisoner at the time he com-
mitted the act ; that would have to be determined
at another tribunal. There was also a charge
against a man named James Clancy, a printer,
against whom there were three charges of shooting
with intent to murder. The prisoner, in the first
instance, was followed by a detective sergeant,
.named Chown, from his lodgings in Somers-
town, and on arriving near Bedford-square,
the constable went up to him, and, after
putting a few questions to him, Clancy made
an evasive answer, and then drew a revolver and
deliberately discharged one of the chambers at the
constable, and then attempted to run away.
Chamberlain, who was with Chown at the time,
then came up, when the prisoner again discharged
the pistol at him, fortunately without any effect,
although Chamberlain was very close to him. The
third time the piece was discharged was at a coach-
man named John Hurst, who came to the assistance of
the constables. The bullet on the last occasion never
left the pistol, it becoming fixed between the pin
and the barrel of the pistol, in which position it
still remained. They would have the whole of the
facts placed before them, and if there was a prima
facie case made out to their satisfaction it would be
their duty to return a true bill against hitn. There
was another case contained in the calendar which
would call for their most serious attention, and such
an one that had not come before the Court for many
years. It was the indictment of Maurice Lyttle-
ton, Florence Macarthy, and James Richardson for
traitorously compassing, imagining, and intending
to deprive and depose our most gracious lady the
Queen from the style, honour, and Royal name of
the Imperial Crown of the United Kingdom, and
such compassing, imagining, and intention they ex-
pressed by certain overt acts and deeds. There were
two other indictments against the prisoners : one
was for feloniously administering, and causing to be
taken by one Daniel O'Leary, a certain oath and
engagement, intending and purporting to bind him
to commit the offence of treason by adjuring alle-
giance to the Queen, and by undertaking to take
up arms in the Fenian cause against the
British Government ; and the other was for feloni-
ously administering and causing to be.administered
to James Boutell a certain oath and engagement
binding him to take up arms in the Fenian cause.
The prisoners resided in the neighbourhood of
Deptford, and on the Bth of January the prisoner
Lyttleton introduced Boutell to O'Leary, who, he
said, was a head centre, an I then the offence with
which they stood charged was committed. The
prisoners, with the exception of O'Leary,
were taken into custody through the circumstance
of Boutell communicating the whole of the pro-
ceedings to one of the detective otficers of the
Greenwich division of police, and after a very long
examination before the magistrates they were fully
committed for trial. The Recorder then detailed
the evidence given before Mr. Maude, the magis-
trate at Greenwich, and told the jury it would be
for them to say whether there was such a case
against each of the prisoners as would warrant
them in finding a true bill against each of them.
Having referred to some other cases of lesser import-
ance, the learned Recorder concluded his remarks
and the Grand Jury retired to their room.
In a short time after the ordinary business of the
session commenced.

THE COMPOUND HOUSEHOLDER.

Mr. Disraeli appears to persist in his original
misconception of this troublesome question. Even
at his Scotch ovation he talked of " personal pay-
ment of rates" as a fundamental principle of his
Reform Act, although, as the Attorney-General has
since been compelled to admit, thereform Act con-
tains no such provision, and the la; at present is as
it was before the new act—it is still permitted to the
landlord to agree with the tenant to pay the rates,
and such payment by the landlord will be deemed to
be payment by the tenant. This is the answer that
should be given to most of the questioners in the
House of Commons. But there is another difficulty
which Mr. Disraeli does not appear to understand,
and which canr.ot be dismissed so easily. As the
law was before the new Reform Act there were
two proce:ses by which rates were made payable by
the landlord instead of the tenant. By one parishes
adopting it were empowered to rate the owner of
small tenements instead of the occupier, and by the
other, parisles were empowered to compound with
the owner of such tenements to pay the rates, upon
terms which allowed to the landlord a large deduc-
tion for the trouble of collection and risk of loss.
This was profitable to the landlord, because he
added to the rent the amount of the rate and some-
thing more, and thus was enabled to recover, in
the form of rent, rates which could not have been
collected under their own name. Now, both of
these convenient arrangements have been disturbed
by the new Act. The parish can no longer rate
the owners of small tenements instead of the ten-
ants, and it cannot compound with owners to pay
the rates for their tenants. The consequence is that
multitudes of tenants cannot, or will not pay, and
landlords who were previously rated, and therefore
compelled to pay the rates of small tenements, being
no longer liable, refuse to ply the rates for their
tenants as hitherto they had done. True it is that
in every case the difficulty might be solved by the
owners continuing to pay the rates and adding them
to the rent, and that by E 0 doing they would be in
no worse position than before, save in this that they
pay the full rate instead of the compounded rate ;
but in the majority of cases they decline to do
this, and hence the present difficulty, which is a
real and substantial one, which should be met
by some speedy remedy. The repeal of the rating
clause of the Reform Bill is demanded as being
the only efficient one. But there are many ob-
jections to this. Rating is an obligation of citizen-
ship. The principle of the scot and lot franchise
is that the voter shall pay his scot—that is, his share
of the local burdens, and bear his lot--that is, his
part in the local offices. Rating is the proof of
occupancy ; it is the best evidence that the claimant
is a householder. But rating does not imply per-
sonal payment. Being rated, the householder is
liable to pay ; but it is not obligatory upon him to
pay with his own hand out of his own pocket; pro-
vided only that the rate is paid the law, and the
reason of the law are alike satisfied. It is not there-
fore, practicable to devise a plan by which, while
securing the test of being a rated householder, the
present parochial difficulties in the collection of the
rates may be avoided. Having given to the subject
much thought, we venture to suggest what appears
to be a feasible plan for effecting this desirable object.
It is very simple. Let it be enacted that in all
parishes in which the Small Tenements Acts are not
in force—and this would include all the boroughs—
the name of the owner of all rated property, as well
as that of the tenant, shall be inserted in the rate-
book, and that with respect to all tenements rated
at a less annual value than £lO the parish shall be
entitled to recover rates from the owner if it fail to
do so from the tenant ; in other words, make the
rate a charge upon the property, and not upon the
person. This would practically restore the law to
what it was before the Reform Act. It would not
be unjust to the owners of small tenements, for they
could protect themselves by paying the rate and
letting their houses at•rents that would include the
amount of the rates they pay; and, in fact, it would
merely give them an inducement to do that which
they have done hitherto with equal advantage to
themselves and to the parishes. Thus, without
disturbing any existing provisions of the Reform
Act, and without injustice or wrong to any, the
present difficulty might be effectually removed.—
Law Times.