The Sun.
London, England, 1844-04-11 00:00:00

SHILLINGS.

A FULL SET of three ornamented PA PIER MACHE
TEA
TRAYS, Gothic shape, for 355. ; of three Gothic iron trays, 2k.;
of three convex trays, 7s•
From the unprecedented depressed state of the manufacturing
districts RIPPON and BURTON h sve been induced to make large
ready.money purchases in best japanned wares, which, together
with their previous stock (already the most varied and extensive in
Lyndon), is now ready fir inspection, at very reduced prices, of
which the above are a criterion. A single tray at the same rive.
DAttiled cata ogues, with engravings, sent (per post) free.
IVORY TABLE KNIVES, ELEVEN SIIILLINGs per DOZEN.
Octagon Ivory-handled table.knives with high shoulders, 1:s. per
dozen ; desserts, 9s. ; carvers, 35. &I. per pair; white bone table.
knives Cis. per dozen ; desserts, 45.; carvers, 2s. per pair; black horn
table-knives, 6s. per dozen • desserts, 4s ; carvers. 2s. ttd. • table.
steels, Is. each. Tablr-knives with handles of the celebrated substi-
tute for silver, made only by Rippon and Burton, (which cannett
b 6 distingnisbed from sterlipg silver except by the tuarlO, ass, per
dozen ; deserts, Ws. • carvers, per pair, as. lid. Detailed catalogues,
with engravings, sent (per ppst;, free by
RIPPON AND BURTON. 12. • WELLS-ST REE I% OXFORD-
STREET,
whose knives are all marked with their names, any of which they
will eutilitige if pot approved of.
13'4'4DM:it-LW 1V

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.
FROM THE EVENING PAPERS OF YESTERDAY.
GL BE.—T wo highly important questions connect-
ed with the administration of public justice
.have been
mooted within the present week, in two of the courts
having jurisdiction within and in the neighbourhood
of the metropolis. As these questions are of general
application, they seem to justify a distinct allusion to
the practices to which they relate, in order that
the attention of the proper authorities in other
places may be drawn to them ; and thus customs
at varience with public rights, and which have
no authority from the law may be abolished.
The Central Criminal Court, t its opening on Mon-
day, became the scene of a somewhat acrimonious,
and certainly undignified, controversy between the
Lord Mayor and the Sheriffs respecting the right of
the public to admission to the gallery of the court
during its sittings for the trial of prisoners, without
the payment of fees for admission. It was evident
that the subject had been previously discussed in
private ; and that the difference of opinion between
these functionaries had excited a feeling which
had not subsided when they entered the court.
The interest which the trials of the parties
connected with the will forgeries are expected
to excite, and the numerous applications to the
Civic authorities for admission to the court on
the occasion, have, it is understood, given rise to the
question as to the particular functionary with whom
the regulation of the court resides. The Lord
Mayor, who had been previously engaged in an
animated conversation with Mr. Sheriff Moon,
raising his voice so as to be heard throughout the
court, said, " the public had a right of admission
without the payment of fees. He understood it
had been customary to charge a fee of ss. and
upwards, even as much as 205., for admission."
The Recorder—who evidently desired to bring to a
termination a dispute which portended an open rup-
ture—remarked, "So. long as the gallery was not
inconveniently crowded, and the people conducted
themielves properly, the public had a right to be ad-
mitted gratuitously. He wished that rules could be
laid down for the more convenient admission of the
public." The presence of an officer at the gallery-
door to keep order, as the Lord Mayor observed,
would prevent confusion. By regulating the admis-
sion of persons to the gallery, and thus preventing
a greater number from entering than it can ac-
commodate, the respect due to the administra-
tion of public justice from the auditory would
be preserved. The present syqem of admission, by
payment of fee,, so far from effecting this, actually
has a contrary tendency. The object of the fee-
takers is to make the gallery productive of gain.
Hence, every one who will pay the price is thrust
within the door ; and, having paid for a pl ice, fights
his way forward to the best he can secure by dint of

physical exertion.- Whoever has been present in the
Central Criminal Court when any trial of great public
interest has been proceeding, can testify to
the confusion which has existed in the gallery.
" Silence !"—"-Silence in the gallery !"—is fre-
quently bawled out by the stentorian lungs of
the ushers, who have observed the eyes of the pre.
siding judge raised wrathfully to the part of the
court whence the confusion seemed to proceed. The
altercation between the civic functionaries seemed to
•arise from an exclusive ex-officio claim which the
Sheriffs make to the arrangements of the court, and
under which they found their right to regulate ad-
mission to the gallery, as well as to enforce the obser-
vance of order and regularity in the court. Mr.
Sheriff Musgrove evidently alluded to this asserted
an controverted claim :—" He had no wish that any
fees should be taken directly or indirectly for the ad-
mission of the public to this court. He considered
it the duty of the Sheriffs to preserve order and
regularity in the court, and he thought the Lord
Mayor had no concurrent authority in the matter."
Again the Recorder interposed between the official
belligerents, and suggested that the public court was
not a fit place for a discussion of the kind. The
Lord Mayor rejoined—" He thought it a very fit
place; the question very materially affected the in-
terests of the public." We refer with considerable
pleasure to the opinion which the Recorder now felt
himself called upon to deliver on the points at
issue. It clearly explains the relative position
of the parties to the controversy, defines their
duties, and limits their 'powers ; it at the same time
settles the question as to the illegality of the
practice out of which the controversy had arisen.
The' late Justice Park, while engaged in the trial of
a prisoner at one of the Assizes, gave a pretty signifi-
cant cpinion respecting the practice of demanding
fees for admission to courts of justice. Being in-
terrupted by a noise at one of the doors of the court,
he demanded its cause, and was answered that a
person insisted upon coming in. " And who pre-
vents him ?" said the Judge : " there is plenty of
room. Open the door, and admit all, who wish to
enter. It' any one makes a noise in court, I shall
know what to do with him. Your refusal to let the
person in," continued the Learned Judge, looking
significantly at the door-keeper, " caused the noise."
The subject was dropped in the Central Criminal
Court at the close of the Recorder's observation, and
the regular business was proceeded with. It was
resumed, however, about noon. The second act in
the drama was yet more illustrative of the folly
and mischief of entrusting a corporate body with the
powers which that of Lo/lidon exercises in the appoint-
ment of judges, and the regulation of courts of
justice. The public knew some of the anomalies
connected with the system ; but were not prepared for
anything so positively disgraceful as was disclosed.
The fact is, that the sword-bearer to the Lord Mayor
for the time being, is, in part, paid out of these admis-
sion fees. The gallery is rented of the Sheriffs ; a
portion of the rent is appropriated to support the
gingerbread splendour of the chief magistrate's ephe-
meral dignity ; and the present contest between the
Lord Mayor and the Sheriffs, respecting their official
rights, has brought the practice into public view, and
will result in the extinction of fee-taking for ad
mission to the Central Criminal Court. The other
question to which we allude is of equal import-
ance, if not a more serious infraction upon the
rights of the subject. At several quarter sessions a
practice yet prevails—it was general within the last
quarter of a century—of demanding from persons tried
and acquitted of misdemeanour a fee upon their dis-
charge. The amount varies in different courts.
The question as to its legality was raised yesterday at
the Surrey Quarter Sessions ; and, certainly, the
"Great Unpaid" cut but a poor figure in the discus-
sion. A petition from a person named Ward, who
had been tried for misdemeanour, and acquitted,
was presented by Mr. Jeffrey. It set forth, " that
being arraigned upon a charge of misdemeanour
and acquitted, he was compelled to pay a fee
of 10s. fid. for his discharge. The petitioner com-
plained bitterly of this proceeding, and of the hard-
ship of a poor man being compelled to pay a heave
fee after he was declared innocent of the charge made
against him." These fees, it appared—having no
plea but that of a custom, the origin of which no one
could explain—were divided among the jury, the
summoning-officer, and the crier of the court !
The practice of demanding fees from such persons
prevailed in Middlesex, but was abolished some years
since—when it was found they could not be enforced.
A person arraigned upon a charge of misdemeanour,
and acquitted, had the customary demand made upon
him, with which he promised compliance. This led
to an investigation. On the discovery being made
that, although sanctioned by the court, it had no legal
authority in its favour, the practice was dropped. If
the Bill which the Government has promised to
bring in on the subject of fees to clerks of petty ses-
sions, were to comprehend every description of fees
in courts of criminal jurisprudence, and sweep them
away by a clause declarative of their illegality, the.
question, which is one of great public moment, would ,
be set at rest.

STANDARD.--Many influences co-operated to
render inevitable the passing of the unfortunate " Bill
of twenty-nine," but among these influences, we be-
lieve the first place is due to indolence and the desire
to avoid trouble. The self-indulgent fops, who, before
the Reform Bill, occupied so many seats in the House
of Commons, found the long emancipation debate,
which so often retained them from the opera and broke
in upon their evening parties, an intolerable bore. The
self-seeking politicians as frequently met the stubborn
Protestant constitution obstructing their pleasant and
profitable combinations. These two classes made up a
great majority of the old House ofCommons—they made
" the settling of the question" an inevitable condition
of enabling any administration effectually to govern
the country; they fancied, in their transcendent
folly, that 1y concession only could the question be
" settled," but that by concession it would he settled
effectually. They had their way—with what effect
at home we need hardly. tell, with the remembrance
of eleven years of Whig government fresh in memory,
and with the shouts of monster meetings still ringing
in our ears—with what effect abroad nearly every co •
lonial and foreign newspaper of the last few years
will tell. Concession, in fact, has been so far from
" settling the question," or limiting it even locally,
that we have it among ourselves at this hour in aug-
mented vigour, and have the satisfaction of seeing that
we have presented a share of it to a good portion of
the world. The Canadas, Newfoundland, and most
recently Ceylon, have had their Catholic ques-
tions; Belgium, France, Prussia, have not been
less happy in this respect ; and the comfort
seems to be extending generally over Germany
under the patronage of the ex-Liberal King of
Bavaria. According to th© latest intelligence
from the dominions of this Monarch, he has pub-
licly signified his determination to confiscate
and to apply to the support of Roman Catholic
monasteries, all money contributed by the Pro-
( testant inhabitants of other German States to the
support of the Protestant ministers and the repair
of Protestant temples in his kingdom. The Protes-
tants in Bavaria are about a million and a half, or six-
sixteenths of the whole population, but they are, as I
we are informed, the poorest class; the State makes
no provision for their ministers or religious edifices,
and we need not say that the Protestant Church, un- ,
like the Church of Rome in this respect, does not
permit its ministers to " make merchandise of me►i s
souls" by driving a retail trade in charms and spells,
and so-called religious rites and ceremonies—a retail
trade which is often, as in Ireland, worth more than
the richest endowment that any State would confer
Thus the Protestant Church
upon a church.
Bavaria is extremely poor; so poor as to have been
lately in danger of expiring altogether I,S: a col-
lective body, and the sympathies of' the Protestants
of the other German States, awakened by its
danger, have been making moderate contributions
for it ; the admirable King of Prussia, " the fore-
most in every good work," having by
his example
and patronage aided the pious and benevolent design.
It is to intercept and appropriate the bounty intended
for the religious use of his Protestant subjects, that
the King of Bavaria declares his dignified purpose
Whether the proceeding is legal according to the kind
of constitution that Bavaria possesses we know not,
but that it is neither a gentlemanlike nor honest
proceeding there can be no doubt whatever. We
freely admit that the . Government of a country
has a clear right, and indeed owes a duty, to
seize upon and confiscate all money remitted to
its subjects for any political purpose whateVer,
not expressly sanctioned by the Government it-
self. We say for any political purpose whatever,
because the interference of the citizens of
.one State in the political concerns of another is
a: plain act of' hostility against the Govern-
ment, the concerns of which are intruded upon
by those who owe it and pretend to owe it no
allegiance. Money contributed to political objects,
is justly forfeited as the money of enemies.
Money, however, passing from one State into
another For purposes not political, is surely

Mr. and Mrs. Ralph had been on terms of close inti-
macy with the prisoner and his wife, and had frequently
visited at each other's houses. Airs. Ralph, at the time
of the commission of this outrage, which has cost Bill
both his character and liberty for some time to come.
was very near her accouchement, and this circumstance,
together with the fict of the assault having been peipe.
trated in open:daylight and in Mr. Ralph's own house, has
caused a very strong sensation in the neighbourhOod.
It may be proper to state that when the prisoner was
apprehended and brought before the magistrates, one
of the justices present expressed an opinion that the
case might be summarily dealt. with, but his, colleagues
formed a more serious estimation of the offence charged,
and conceived it their duty to send the matter before a
jury. The prisoner was accordingly committed for trial,
but liberated on finding, sufficient bail for his appear-
ahee at the sessions. The nature of the outrage, and the
circumstances under which it took place, will be found
detailed in the subjoined evidence.
Jane Ralph—l live at Stanstead, and em a married
woman. About two o'clock on the afternoon of the aatla
of March I was in my bed-rooin, in my own house. I
heard the house door open, and Mr. Bill came its
walked into the sitting-room in the first instance. I
went to the bed-room door, and he asked me if my hus-
band was in. I replied that. he was not. He then in•
quired when he would be in, and I told him about half-
past two. I went back into the bed-room, and Mrsaill
followed me. He took hold of me and threw me upon
the bed. Ile used his hands in a very indelicate man-
ner. I called out, and told him I would tell my husband.
I resisted him with all my might. 1 then got from the
bed, but lie continued his rudeness. I did not rise from
the bed by his wish or consent, but by my own strength.
I then went and sat down in the sitting room. I was
crying very much, and I said I would tell my husband.
The prisoner begged I would not do so. I told him
that he had hurt me very seriously, and lie said he hoped
not, but that. he would come the next evening, and see
how I was. I told him that he was not to come thee.
again, for 1 said he was a great villain. He requested
me not to cry, and repeated his hope that I was not
hurt. He did not expose his person. I told my husband
what had happened the moment he came in, which was
very soon after. Bill had previously left the house.
Cross-examined by Mr. Ryland-2 never expressed
any disinclination to appear against the prisoner. It
was thoueht that, being so near my confinement, is
would be better to have the matter settled, as my having
to undergo the painful necessity of appearing in Court
might be productive of injury to my health. I have
been ',,very friendly both with Mr. and Mrs. Bill. We
often used to visit each other. lam quite sure that the
first time I saw Mr. Bill, on the 25th of March, Was
when lie came into my bed-room. My husband is clerk
at St. Margaret's station, and Mr. Bill was clerk at the
Ware station. A pilot engine came up to St. Alargaret'a
station just before this occurrence took place. When
Mr. Bill threw me upon the bed I screamed out saloud
as I could. There are two cottages near to the house
we live in. They are about twice the distance I now
stand from the prisoner, ten or eleven yards. Both cot-
tages are inhabited. Sometimes there are many persons
loitering about the station, but I cannot say whether
that was the case on the afternoon of this day. I did
not go out of the house when the pilot engine came up.
nor had I been out shortly before. I was too much hurt
to observe whether Mr. Bill exposed his person, but, to
the best of my belief he did net.
This was the case for the prosecution.
Mr. Rylend addressed the jury
for the prisoner.
The Noble Chairman, in his observations to the jury,
left it for them simply to say what, in their
house of opinion, the
the
. ta
object of the prisoner, in going tc'
Ralph, was—whether he really intended
impropriety
ecommissio
of a rape, or only the indulgence of so much
as would constitute a common assault.
The jury, after a short deliberabtemin%
forg retu
therne dmainvaerrdict
of Guilty on the second count,
of-
fence charged.
Mr. Ryland then said that, with reference to the ver-
dict,vhe had not called witnesses, because suqlo. a course
would have been inapplicable; but with rfference to
whatever sentence the court might think proper to
he shOuld call witnesses to character.
The Chairman—Very well.
The Learned Gentleman called the following witnesses:
Mr. Frederick Clark--I have been superintendent of
one of the principal stations on Northern and Eastern
Railway. I have known the prisoner three years and
a half. During that period his • character, as a moral,
well-behaved young man, has always been very good.
Mr. John Staples—I am a coach proprietor. I have
known the prisoner for two years rinds half, as a clerk at
the station at Ware, and formerly at Broxbourne. So
far as I have heard and known him; his character for
morality and proper conduct has been good.
Mr. Richard Allen—l am a coal-merchant. I have
known the prisoner more than two years. His character,
during that period, -for morality and propriety of conduct,
I have always considered to be perfectly correct.
Mr. John Shepherd Matthews—l am a maltster at
Ware. I have known the prisoner six months. I hair*
seen nothing whatever in his character of an improper
tendency.
Mr. George Hainsley—l am a plumber and glaiier at
Ware. I have known the prisoner six months, sad have
visited him repeatedly. I have always considered his
character as very good.
At the conclusion of the examination of these wit-
nesses, the Magistrates conferred together, and in the
Course of a few minutes,
The CHAIRMAN, addressing the prisoner, said---Yoh
have received a very good character from th", .piersona
who have known you, I am given to und4stikod that
you have already lost your situation, in consegiriuess of
this transaction, and under these circunastancessalle sen-
tence of the Court • will be much milder than it ;would
otherwise have been. The sentence is, that you be im-
prisoned for the space of six calendar months.

- - -
THE BRITISH IMTITUTICIN.-011 Thursday, 410
election of a keeper for this institution took p'ace, whim
Mr. John Seguier, the brother of the late k eeper, we,*
chosen to be his successor. The only other: candidata
was Mr. John Burnet, the celebrated pain ter, and :en..
graver; though some of the newspapers have nominated
Mr.Unwins, the Royal Academician, much, we tiellevaYto
the surprise end annoyance of that gentlemar,. who neve:
entertained an idea of the kind.-4 Gazette.