The Sun.
London, England, 1857-07-30 00:00:00

niE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING, JULY 30, 1557

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. the
tseedco nhdi
sredaodi inngg oe fe the. bTi lb]
e, b
ruitg
hh its publicn
rdeubte s
gperne
tlernan referred to the introduction of his bill on a
former occasion which was referred to a committee, and
the discussion that had taken place on the question. He
denied that the civil service servants had any claim in
justice, or on the grounds of expediency, for what they
asked. He further contended that there was no ,
grounds for increasing the salaries as proposed
by this bill, or, at all events, that the higher
priced clerks deserved a greater increase than
the lesser paid clerks. He called upon the house
to negative the second reading of the bill.
The house then divided—the numbers were—
For the second reading l7l
Against it

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—(YEsTERDAN.)

The SPEAKER took the chair at 12 o'clock.
DROGHEDA. ELECTION COMMITTEE.
The members of the committee appointed to try the
election returns for Drogheda, were called to the table
al:1J sworn.
PRIVATE BUSINESS. _

The Lords' amendments to the Islington Parish Act
Amendment Bill were considered and agreed to.

EA.STERN. ARCHIPELAGO COMPANY.

Mr. DRUMMOND asked the. Secretary to the Trea-
sury on what guarantee 43,0001. of the public money
had been advanced to support a private specs.
lation of the Eastern Archipelago Company ;
what security for the same had been given ;
whether the Government was itself going to
work the coal mines of Lsbuan, and, if not, whether the
government were mortga[gees and at what rate of
interest ; whether the Government had guaranteed to
pay to the Sultan his royalties or to ensure that they
should be paid ; whether the Government had taken
seeurity that the money should be iona fide employed
in the way f ,r which it had been asked, and when the
money was to he repaid
Mr. WILSON said that the question of the hon.
member assumed that an advance had been made by the
Government towards a private speculation. He (Mr.
Wilson) knew nothing of the circumstances, and as his
attaution had only been called to the question within
the laot quarter of an hour, he had been unable to make
inquiries relative to the subject. He would give an
answer to the question to-morrow.
SMOKE NUISANCE (SCOTLAND) ABATEMENT

Majority for second reading io
The announcement wai received with loud cheers.
The bill way read a second time, aad ordered to be
committed to-morrow night.
OATHS BILL.

Lord J. RUSSELL postponed the second reading of
this bill till Monday, and expressed a hope that Baron
Rothschild would be permitted to take his seat before
that time, and obviate the necessity of this bill.

Sir F. THESIGER asked the noble lord if he could
inform the house when Baron Rothschild would attend
for that purpose I
Lord J. RUSSELL said he could not. As soon as
the Baron informed him of it he would give the house
notice. (Laughter.)
The second reading of the bill was accordingly post•
poned till Monday.
COURT OF SESSION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
This bill was read a third time and passed.
ELECTION PETITIONS BILL.
The house went into committee on this bill.

BILL.

The house went into committee on this bill.

On clause 1,
Mr. BO U VERIE said he was friendly to theobjecte of
the bill, but was not prepared to support the comprehen-
sive provision of the clause which would take in every
description of manufacture throughout Scotland. He
considered some inquiry should be instituted before they
agreed to it, because great difficulties existed in carry-
ing out the provisions of the English Act, and the pro-
blem of removing the smoke nuisance has yet to be
removed. He moved the omission of the clause.
A discussion ensued, in which Sir J. Celebroke, Mr.
Dunlop, Mr. Kinnaird, Mr. Bouverie, Mr. Buchanan,
Sir J. Anderson, and other hon. members took part.
The clause was agreed to.
Clauses 3, 15, and 13 were struck out.
The other clauses with amendments were agreed to,
and the bill passed through committee. •
The house resumed.
SUPERANNUATION ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
The debate on this bill was resumed by
Mr. RICH, who said that he was obliged to speak
against time on a former occasion, from hon. members
bel)w the bar refusing to hear his objections to the
measure. His objections to the bill were—first, that the
bill was imperfectly framed ; secondly, that it would be
unjust in its operations; thirdly, that it was ueneceF-

Mr. B. OSBORNE expressed his gratitude to Mr.
Adderley for introducing this measure,-and entered into
a detail of the annoyances he and his hon. and gal-
lant colleague had been treated in reference to
their seat-, remarking that be bad been the victim of a
sham petition, which was got up to get possession of
the seat, but finding he and his honourable col-
league were not to be frightened, the petition
was withdrawn after the committee was struck.

Sir G. GREY said he thought it would have been
better to have had a committee of inquiry first, and
legislated after.
Lord W. RUSSELL (Dover) thought that some
very stringent measures should be adopted to put an end
to the present course.

Atter some remarks from Mr. ADDSRLEY and Mr.
ATRTON, the further consideration -of the bill in com-
mittee was stopped by the rules of the house, it bang a
quarter to six o'clock.

awry ; fourthly, that it *al based on erroneous state-
: wants ; fifthly, that it would involve a useless and ex-
travagant expenditure of public money : and sixthly,
that it strongly recognised and encouraged a breach of

confidence. v he denied that this was a question of
abatement or no abatement—that had been decided by
the committee--bnt whether 100,000/. per annum should
be added to the salaries of one-third of these public ser-
Tants, and that third the richest part. He called upon
the house to support the committee's report.
Lord NAAS said that the bill put before the bouoe
:the qUestion of abatement, and it was on that
'that the house was called on to decide. He regrett-d
:that the noble Secretary to the Treasury had felt himself
bound to oppose the hill, and said that he considered
that hon, gentleman had shown a degreee of unfairness
towards the civil servants by the figures he used in
illustration of his line of argument. Last year nine of
the most eminent actuaries were examined before the
committee, and th,y stated that a longer deduction
was made from the salaries than the pensions of the
Government represented. He denied that he
bad charged Greernment with a breach of
contract. All they asked for was an alteraiion
of the present system. which was a very bad
one from its nature. He admitted that if there had
been an increase of salaries within the last two or three
years, it. would have been an additional reason why his
proposition for an increase should not be acceded to,
but he was prepared to show that the salaries in many
of the depattrnents had not been increased, and he in-

ttsoced the Admiralty and Customs. In 1834 the num-
ber of civil servants employed in the Admiralty was
199, at an annual expense of 59,2661, giving an average
of 2971. In 1856 the number was 262, the ex •,-wes

74,3851 , and the average 2831 per annum. In 1834 the
Customs were collected by 4,856 persons, at a cost of
722,1001., giving an average of 1491. In 1856 the num-
ber was 5,570, the cost 814,0001, and the average
annual salaries 1461. (Hear.) In further confirmaCon
of his assertion, tbat salaries had not increased, be
quoted from two speeches delivered in that house
by the Under Secretary to the Treasury (N/r.
Wilson.) On the 12th of June be said that notwith-

standing there had been an increase of business in the
public department, there had been an absolute
tion of salaries ; whilst, on the 231 of July, the same
right hon. gentleman said that there had been a large
increase of salaries in almost every branch of the public
service. (Hear.) The noble lord denied that his bill
was one for the benefit of the richer part of the service,
as it bad been stated. His bill would affect the lower
class of servants—those receiving 1401. per annum and
less, and two-thirds of them would be found to be only
receiving 861. per annum. It wag, therefore, he con-
tended a bill to benefit the poor clerks. (Hear.) The
noble lord characterised the present system as a tontine
of the worst description. It would be impossible for more
than 1 in 7to receive any benefit from it. After referring
to many of the statements of the right hon. gentleman the
Under-Secretary for the Treasury in opposing the bi.l,
and also to what be called Mr. Wilson's ingenious cal-
culations, he said that the right hon. gentleman on a
former occasion said that 1,600 servants of the civil r,-r-
-vice reoeived soperannuations amounting to 606,000/ ,
whilst the military pensions only amounted to 568,0001.,
but the right hon. gentleman omitted to take if t, con-
Sideration the out-pensioners, amounting to 1,169.000/ ,
which made the expenses of the non-effective service of

the army amount to upwards of two m►llions. The noble

lord said that the committee referred to recommended
that there should be a total abolition of deductions

from the civil service fir eupe annnation, without. a cor-
responding reduction in their salaries ; and he appealed
to the house to carry out that, as well as the other re-

commendations of the committee, from a belief that the
present system ought no longer to be maintained.
Mr. GLAI)STONE admit ed the rights of the civil
servants to a full end respectful hearing, and a clear and
definitive understanding relative to their grievances. It
was material that the house and the Government should
bold intelligible language on the subject, and he could
not doubt that the Government intended to maintain
the remuneration to the civil servants on the present
basis, and such a statement he expected the Chancellor
of the Exchequer woul I clearly and explicitly make this
day. He contended that the house were capable of de-
ciding on the; question without the aid of arbitrators,
and be regretted that the whole subject had been del,-
gated to a Royal Commission, and he earnestly pro-
tested against it, being no party to the arrangement.
He admitted that the statistical part of the question i
might have been safifactarily referred to a com-
mission. Sir Charles Treveltyan did not fix
these salaries, as bad been stated, but the
Finanee Minister of the day, and as he (Mr. Gltd-
stone) held that po'ition at the time he was responsible
for it, and he made that statement b-fore the committee.
The right hon. gentleman said that he coal) see no cliff,-
rence between the noble lord's bill, and an indi?critni-
nate increase of salaries to those entitled to superannua-
tion, and that it was diametrically opposed to.tbe deci-
sion of the committee of the house. Referring to the
increase of public salaries, the right hon. gentleman said
that when they began to tamper with the rights of the
public in matters of this kind, the extravagance did not
stop. It was not content to feed on its first food, but it
spread from one subject to another and ran through
every department of the public expenditure, and they
had now the first fruits in that house, probably from
the laxity of their votes. If they gave way the move-
ment would produce many fruits. There appeared also
to be a tendency to increase political salaries, but should
it make its appearance in that house hewool I be the fiat
to oppose it. It had been said that the pensions to be paid
from these deductions would not exhaust the whole i.f
the proceeds.of the funds, but he contended that that
fact had not been established, and if it had it would nr,t
affect the question before the house. The right hon.
gentleman then proceeded to enter into the original it-
tentions of the parties who framed the bill, which he
said had been misapprehended, and bad been the cause
of the present movement, and observed the deductions
were imposed in lieu of a diminution of salaries, which
would at the time more than have exhausted the amount
of the deductions. There bad been no prima facie case
made out that the civil servants were entitled to the
relaxation of these deductions, and to demand of Parlia-
ment an increase of salary by the abolition of this
change. They had also to consider the public in this
; and he said, in reference to the average of salaries
Id by. the Bank of England and the Crown, tt.a.
e salaries of those who were paid for ma
rinal labour 1,,,„1
account,
which wrongly been taken into se-
omitted that had
greatly reduced them, but if they
the civil clay,servanta he
contended it would be found tha,
paid higher than any others, and
well so far from being wnlirT
er-riaid they would he found to he
paid: This bill ed to add 75,0001. a year to the
expenditure of the Cr'el3vcieernment
it was true, but if granted it would It was a email sum,
partrnent. A proposition such as that
to every de-
the salaries for oat before the house
for the increase of
moved one.
servants of the civil
stita,ationally by-
servants could not have been
the noble lord in committee, and be ought
that object ut to have
adopted this course to attain
called on
the house to reject the second reading of this hill,
Mr. DISRAELI concurred in much that had been
said; by the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Gladstone)„
relieived the proceedings of Parliament and the corn_
missioners in reference to this question, and added that I
he believed the noble lord had taken a wise course in a-k-
-is by his bill, to decide the question.
(Hear, &IL) He diSsented from the statement that
because the proposed increase was given to 16,000
civil servants, that' the other departments should
also be 'increased, or that it prevented Par-
liament from revising the various salaries of the different
departments of the State. The politicai sal tries had I
been revised and some reduced. He hoped the noble
ore would press his bill and settle the question.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said tbe
question before the house ought to be odnaidered as a
question of feeling, equity, and expediency. As re-'
regarded the first, if he consulted his personal feelings he,
could do no more act gratifying 'to him than cad to-
AC e

RUSSIAN AGGRESSION--INDIA.

...----...

that port vas actually in Russian military occupa-
tion.
With regard to the former plea—as the Russian
right to the said port is b!sed on the Treaty of Ad-
rianople, and as the British Government ha 4, accor-
ding to Lyrd J. Russell's explanation, r, pudiated
the Russian claim so based, it must be held totally
invalid, and the seizure of the Vixen be held con- ,
sequently totally unwarranted, even without refer- '
ence either to the illegality of blockading a coast
without any proclamation to that effect, or efficient
force to maintain the blockade, or to the absurdity
of the Russian Government making Custom-house
regulations foil a coast which to this day she hasnot
succeeded in conquering. And, wi,h regard to the
second, I beg it m4y be remarked that, although at
the.time the evidence of the captain, the crew, and
of one of the owners of the Vixen, as to the absolute
falsehood of the allegations of the Rus-ian ministry
regarding the Russian military occupation of tho
port of Sudjuk-Kaleh, was adduced and c 3rrobo-
rated by the written statement of Captain Edmund
Spencer (or rather it was tendered and not ac-
cepted), evidence to the same effect can still be had
from Mr. F. W. Knight, M.P., and from Mr. J.
A. L..n4wor,h, our consul at Monastir, b ith of
whom, with myself, were resident for a consider-
able time on the shores of the said port, a year (I
occasionally, for nearly three years) after the cap-
ture of the Vixen there, and can thus attest that
even then the Russian government had not bllC-
ceeded in effecting its military occupation.
Under all theee circumstances, I trust that your
lordship will admit that a claim of indemnity from
the Ru-sian government has been fully made out,
and that your lordship will take such measures for
making it effectual as may appear to your lordship
most appropriate.—l have the honour to be, dre.
(Signed) JAS. STANISLAUS BELL.

7,.v1r. J. Stanley Bell writes to a contemporary as
fellows :

"I rejoice to find that public feeling is about to
be roused into action by the astounding news, just
received from the Circassian coast, of the Russians
having already had the audacity to make use of the
British flag to perpetrate, with more effect and im-
punity, another of those atrocities by which they
hope at length to subjugate the heroin, long-suffer-
ing natives.

knew formerly, as a very honest man, Osman
Reis, of the neighbourhood of Trebizond (master of
a small trading vessel), by whom the intelligence
was brought there.

"By those who will take the trouble to inform
themselves of the way in which Lord Palmerston
and his agents have throughout managed matters
connected with Circassia, it may be readily seen
how little cause we have for astonishment at any-
thing the Russians may attempt, with a view to
overthrow the great Caucasian barrier, which alone
defers their futther conquests in Persia and Turkey
in Asia, and thus arrests their progress towards
our Indian frontier.

"In orrjer to throw some light upon the subject,
I beg you to have the goodness to publish in your
paper a letter I wrote lately to Lord Clarendon on
the subject of the capture of the Bri;i•h schooner
Vixen in the bay of Sudjuk-Kaleh, in Nov. 1836.
"By that letter it will be seen how readily the
Russians may conclude that we are totally indif
ferent to what they may do in that part of the
world, since they found, lov the debates in the
House of Commons on the 21st June, 1838, and
on the 18th April, 1854, that even such statesmen
as Lord John Russell, Dr. Luishington, and Sir
Jamos Graham have never yet given themselves
the trouble to prepare, even for speaking on ques-
tions intimately connected with and to be decided
by the construction and validity of tnat most im-
portant European document—the Treaty of Adria-
nople ; and found further, by the debates of May,
laxt year, how complacently Lords Palmerston and
Clarendon abandoned the Circa..sians thenceforth
to their tender mercies.

" I may add that, previously to the arrival of
my letter in this country, Lord Clarendon had re-
plied, on the 14th of Feb., 1856, to an application
made to him on the same subject by one of my bro-
thers, on my behalf, dated 29th of Jan., 1856;'haf
he could not holi out any expectation that the
case of the Vixen will bare-opened by her Majesty's
Government.' I d:d not of course insult Lord
Clarendon by informing him—our foreign mini Ater
—what really were the terms of the Treaty of
Adrianople as regards Circassia ; but most folks
may be surprised and indignant to learn, after all
the above display of their knowledge of them by
our ministers, that there is not in that treaty, a
single name by which either Circassia itself, or any
one place in Circassia, is designated, and that the
only expression by which Russia deigned to reveal
her intention as to the annexation she purposed
making of Circas-ia to her empire for ever,' is
that she do ;ed the list of the outlandish names of
places to be so honoured—Akhaltzik, Akhalkalaki,
&c.—with this misty phrase, as well as a'l the
littoral [sic] of the mouth.of ttie Black Sea, from
the mouth of the Kuban to the port of St. Nicho-
las inclusively, shall remain in perpetuity under
the dominion of the Empire of Russia.' In the
Appendix of my ' Journal of a Residence in Cir-
cassia' is an article—the 13th—written for me by a
brother of mine (now Chief Judge at the Cape),
which will be found well worth the perusal of those
who wish to understand howit is that our amateur
aristocratic, and nearly irresponsiblestatesmen with
their huge private fortunes to fall back upon in
case of any serious false step, are almost always
outwitted by the carefully chosen, well trained,
and well-reined diplomatists of the.l' Emperor of
all the Russias.' "

(Copy.)
Rio de los Savalos, San Juan di Nicaragua,
Aprills.
My Lord,—Ali hough the incidents to which I
take the liberty of calling your lordship's attention
occurred at a date now remote, still their import-
ance in political and national respects were, and I
venture to say are, such that they must, I believe,
be still fresh in your lordship's recollection.
I allude to the seizure of the British schooner
Vixen, in the Bay of Sudjuk Kaleh, on the coast of
Circassia, in Nov. 1836, iby orders of the Russian
admiral commanding at Ghelendjik, and the deten-
tion of myself, as well as her captain and crew,
there, and subsequently at Sebastopol and Odessa,
on the plea of our having violated a blockade of that
coast, established by his Government; to the confir-
mation of that seizure and detention by Admiral
Laeareff, commander-in-chief inthe Black Sea.; and
to the snbsiiquent acquiescence by the British Go-
vernment, in another plea, subsequently put forth
' by that of Russia, for confiscating the Vixen and
her cargo, viz., that we had violated the Custom-
house ordinances issued by the Russian Govern-
m,int for the regulation of trade with that portion
of the Russian territory.
However untenable either of these pleas—that of
a blockade, which hid neither been proclaimed nor
adequately maintained, and was therefore equally
invalid and illegal —or that of Custom-house
ordinances applied to a coast with the natives of
which Russia was then, and has ever since been,
carrying on war (and never possessed), and which
was her's theref ire as little de facto as it is now
known to have been de jure—l should probably
never have attempted to re-open the question as to
the wrong a late brother of mine and I have suf-
fered, had the political relations of Great Britain
with Russia remained as they were ; because I
should have thought it improbable that any Bri-
tish Ministry would think it consistent-with its duty
to the national interests iu general to imperil them
for the sake of those connected with the affair in
question—a feeling by which the Ministry of the
day was probably influenced in the decision which
it finally adopted—hostile to the British claimants.
But as all cause for such a feeling ceased, of
colme, on the rupture of our relations with Russia,
I am not without hope that your lordship may
admit that an opportunity is now afforded- for
rectifying the great injustice suffered by myself
and those connected with nie in the said voyage, in
having our property seized and confiscated, our
persons restrained, and our proje- eta as to a per-
fectly legal and highly profitable trade balked and
defeated, through the unjust pretensions and un-
warrantable acts of the Government of Russia, and
the subsequent acquiescence in those pretensions
and the justification of those acts by the British
Ministry then in power.
It might appear presumptuous in me thus to
allude to transactions which were warmly debated
on, at least, in Parliament, and were irnplieily
sanctioned by the decision of tlna majority of the
Howe of Commons on the 21st of June, 1838 ; and.
I might have hesitated to do so, lad I not incon-
trovectible evidence from that debate (which oc-
curred while I was again in Circassia), as we'l as
front one that occurred on the 18th of April, 1854,
that on the former occasCon, and ever since, there
has prevailed, among some members of the Go-
vernment at least, if not all, a strange, and, to my
late brother and me, most disastrous misapprehen-
sion of the terms and the whole purport, so far as
Circassia is concerned, of the Treaty of Adrianople
—that document upon- which the legality or the
illegality of our enterprise entirely depended !
In prof of this serious allegation, I beg to refer
your lordship"to the former of the abovementioned
debates—that of the 21st of June, 1838—wherein
it was asserted by Dr. Lnshingt in—" He would
maintain that by admitting the occupation (by
Russia) of Sudjuk-Kaleh we were not giving up,
nor weakening in the slightest degrk e, our right at
any future period to question the sovereignty of
RIi.SIA over Circassia ! up in the ground that Tur-
key had no right to cede that country;" and by Lord
John Russell that "by the Treaty of Adrianople,
Poti, Auapa, and Sudjuk Kaleh, were recognised
as belonging to Russia • but with respect to that
particular point at which the vessel arrived, it was
orie ceded to, Russia by the Treaty of Adrianople
and acknow'edged to belong to her, and at which
she had a right to establish her own regulations,
whether sanitary or commercial ;" and to the latter
debate—that of the 28th April, 185 t—wherein Sir
J. Graham, having state I, in defence of the conduct
of Capt. Jones,ef H.M.S Sampson,on the Circa-sian
coast, that the Said captain " came to the conclu-
sion, and I am prepared to contend that it was a
proper conclusion, that it would not he proper for
him to interfere with the passage of a Russian
transport from the coast of Circassia, which is a
Russian territory, to Sebastopol, a Ru-si in port ! "
Mr. H. D. Seymour having' called for an explain
tion 'respecting Sir J. Graham's extraordinary doc-
trine as t oVircassia being a Russian territory, Lord
John Russell explained that. " with respect to
what had been said as to the statement of the First
Lord of the Admiralty, the hon. member for Poole
had made a mistake if he supposed that Circaseia
had been spoken of as a Russian country. By the
Treaty of Adrianople, certain posts on the Circas-
sian cast tbereinnamed were surrendered to Rus-
sia. These forts had formerly, he believed, been
occupied by Turkey, and it was from these and
other forts established along the corn that the Rus-
sian troops had been removed, and it was to these
posts only that the First Lord of the Admiralty had
particularly referred."

I hope my allegation will thus be held proved.
The pleas up,,n which, I believe, the British Go-
vernment finally sanctioned the confiscation of the
Vixen and her cargo were-Ist. That she had en-
tered a Russian port in contravention of the Rus-
sian Custom-house regulations ; and 2ndly, that

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

her statement in writing. I gave her is. 6d. afte.r
finding paper and othc.r.t.hings. At plaintiff's re-
quest also I went to Eiferi %Vinson. I have not
beeu.to any o-h-r witnesi. I was t'a inquire of
,Ellen Willson if Lady Barrington had ;aid any-
thing relpecting the plaintiff to her. I said to
Catherine Smith, "Speak the truth, never mind
how black it is." I don't remember anything ab.,ur
a contest for a neighbouring incumbency. I heard
nothing about Mr. Highmore's pupils.- I have
tried to find Ellen Winson, but she h not to be
fund. I gave Catherine Jane Smith the is. 6d.
for the paper which she gave me ; but I told her I
wished leer to understand that I did not give it as
a bribe.

MIDLAND COURT.-DERBY, July 27.

(Before Mr. Justice Creswell anda Common Jury.)

SWIFT. V. COPLEY.
This also w,is an action of breach of promise of
marriage.

Mr. -Macaulay, Q.C., and Mr. O'Brien appeared
fur the plaintiff. The defendant conducted his own
case.

The plaintiff was in the service of Lord Wham-
cl'ffie at Wortley, and the defendant woks for his
father, who is the head carpenter at Wortley. It
appeared that an intimacy half existed betwei-n the
plaintiff and the defendant, the remit of which was
the birth of an illegitimate child ; arid in reapict
of the maintenance of that child the plaintiff in
March last had accepted a sum of 23/ , in full saris
faction of all claim upon the defendant. That pay-
ment was made in pursuance of a formal written
agreement drawn and engrossed by a lawyer, and
which the defendent produced, and primed as part
of his case, contending that it op 'rated to release
him from lia.bilisy in the present action. It was
pointed out, however, that the terms of that instru-
ment were very carefully confined to claims of the
plantiff in respect of the illegitimate child. The
defendant also denied that he had made any pro-
mise of marriage ; but several of his letters ad-
dressed to the plaintiff after she had left Wortley,
and gone into another service in Wales, were read
in evidence, and there were many expre-sions in
them pointing to an engagement between them.
They contained many allusion's to the apprehension
that she was in the farnilyw%y ; and in (meth-, de-
fendant reproached her severely for no having com-
municated the fact to him before, and cai le i upon
her solemnly to &dire whether he was 'he father.
Upon that point he was afterwards satiQfied, and
frequently expressed a desire that she and Vie child
should be properly cared for, promising to pay the
expenses to which she mightbe put at a future time.
As to his having engaged to marry her he used in
one letter a singular expression, describing himself
at the end as " my wife's husband ;" and in another
letter he express-d a hopethat if an old man who had
previously visited her should again make her an
offer she would take it, as it would be better for
her than waiting for him, because it was uncertain
when he might be in a situation to marry. Sub-
sevently his letters became cooler and cooler ;
and at last the intercourse was broken off, and the
defendant married another woman.

F. N. Highmore—l became vicar of Elvas-
ton in 1841, on the presentation of the lat, Earl.
I was before head master of the grammar-school at
Burn!ey. I have resided on my living from 1841,
execpt three years when I was absent from
ill-
health, I was on intim-de terms with the late Lord
Has+ington, I never spoke to Lady Hari ington
in my life.

Cr-oss-examined--After my illness I returned
into residence July, 1854. It was notori ,us in the
parish that 1 had bee❑ seriously ill. Mr. Collins
was my curate for about 8 or 9 months. 1 received
one complaint of his drunkenness, and I instantly
wr .t,3 to the rural de-in. Some pecuniary claims
were wale after Ys departure. Mr. James was
soon appoint° I curate. He officiated once. I was
in the habit of visiting at the Cas le during the late
lord's lifetime. I took pupils until I wa4 ill. I was
a c :ndiciate for the n-•ighoouring incumb 'my. The
Duke of Loins nepi.ew, one of my pupils, was
couipla ned of for having fired a gun with wadding
in it, which hit a servant of the successful canli-
da.e. No mon:•y was paid to the infirmary on ac-
count of that complaint.

The learned judge here interposed and said that
he could not see the relevancy of the examination.
Mr. Mellor said that the circumstances into
which he was inquiring were important, as explain-
ing the meaning of some expressions used by Lady
Harrington.
Mr. Justice,,Cress well said that if Mr. Mellor, as
a gentleman of experience, would pledge himself
that the evidence was ma,erial for that purpose the
examination might proce?d.
Mr. Highmore, in answer to othi'r questions,
added—l found on inquiry that two of iny pupils
were out shooting, ond that the Duke of Leineter's
nephew, who was tie sr-sighted, was allowed to dis-
charge a gun once, which had only wad dog in it,
and by accident a man we,- hit, but no: hurt. The
money collected for the repairs of the church I
placed at the disposal of the architect, Mr. Stevens,
in 1.853. I kept an ac3ountof the sacrament-money
which was open to the inspection of every one. I
am not aware that it' is the prac'ice for the church-
warien to take it. Tha rubric does not require
that. I was 'never asked about it, except cnce by
Mr. Jones, who asked me how I disposed of it. If
I was asked by any one I always told. I have
been so seriously ill that I was told for some time
had better not take wine, and for three years I
think I did not take three glasses.
Re examined.—The Duke of Leinster was look-
ing at the church, and norictd the bad state of the
west-end. He said as he had two children buried
there he would leave 101. with me to start the
subscription. I preached a sermon for the same
object, and collected about 61., and made it up to
71. The archdeacon came afterwards and ordered
an alteration in the tower and bells which prevented
me from collecting more for the other repairs at
that time. The Dowager Lady Harrington had
a painted window put into the west end of the
church. Then 1 had the repairs done, and the
money was paid over to Mr. S.ephens. I did not
pocket it in any other sense than I have explained.
I always give poor people things from my own
house. I prefer purchasing them myself. More
than two-thirds of the actual sacrament money
were actually given in money.
Mr. M4lor then addressed the jury for the de-
fendants, and .stated that Lady Harrington was
anxious to be examined as a witness, to give her
own account of what had actually taken place at
the interviews of which Mr. Jones ha I spoken :
and he had no doubt that the jury would be satis-
fied that she had been very much misunderstood
misrepr,serr ed.
The Countess of Harrington waa then examined,.
and said—l remember Mr. Jones coming t offi-
ciate at Elvaston. It was the beginning of Feb-

The learned Ju'lge summed and
The jury found for the plaintiff—Damages, 501.
JULY 28.
(Before Mr. Justice Cresswell and a Special Jury.)
HIGHMORE, CLERK, V. THE EARL AND COUNTESS
OF HARRINGTON.
This was an action of slander for words spoken
by the Countess of Harrington, imputing miscon-
duct to the plaintiff, the Vi:'ar of Rvaston.
Mr. Macaulay, Q.C. and Mr. Field, were coun-
sel for the plaintiff ; Mr. Mellor, Q.C., and Mr.
Bell for the defendants.
Mr. ALcaulay, in his opening address, stated
that the plaintiff bad with great reluctance been
compelled to come int) court for the vindication of
his charaA- r from the very serious aspersions which
had been most industriously cast upon it by La iy
Harrington, and he hoped that the jury would give
him such an amount of damages as would satisfy
every one of their opinion of the utter groundless-
ness of the charges which had been made.
The following witnesses were examined :
The Rev. Thomas James Jones—l have been
curate of Elvaston since the Ist of January last.
On Sunday, the 2d of February, I went to the
Castle to lunch. I saw the Countess of Harrington
in the drawing-room. After the ordinary compli-
ments of the day Lady Harrington asked me who
was likely to administer the sacrament next Sun-
day. I answered, I did not know, but would ascer-
tain and let her know during the week. Lady
Harrington said, "We never take the sacrament
from that man Highmore; because he is so wicked
a man. Whenever I take the sacrament Igo to
Alvaston or have it administered to me at Gaws-
worth. I never take the sacrament here because
of 'hat man Highmore." She then went on to say,
" He keeps the sacrament money and never gives
any to the poor, and po,le'ed the money the Deke
of Leinster gave for the rep tiring of the church."
Her Ladyship also added, " He is so low and vul-
gar a fellow, and such a drunken character, that
Lord Harrington cannot receive him. He is always
playing at cards and gambling, and encourage the
pe ple in the village in all kinds of gambling, card-
playing, and debauchery, and he and his wife are
constanVy rolling drunk on the fib ;r." She con-
cluded t•iis lit le harangue by saying, "I should
consider it aarilege to take the sacrament, from sa
wicked and ba l a man." Afterwards I asked Mr.
Highmore whether he would be able to administer
the sacrament on Sunday, and he said he hoped to
do so himself. After the service at church on Ash-
Wednesday, Lady Harrington sent for rue and
asked who was lik-ly to administer the sacrament
on Sunday. I said I did not know, but would
ascertain. On the following Thursday morning, I
again asked Mr. Highmore, and he said he was so
much better that he hoped to ba able to administer
it himself. I went to Lady Harrington and told
her. "I said I trust you will not stay away be-
cause you may think a man wicked ;" and I added
some obiervatiens on the ministrations of the
wicked, which I took chiefly from the Articles.
Her Ladyship argued the question quietly with me,
and added, "No, it won't do • I should consider
it sacrilege ;" and added, "He is always telling
lies, and never speaks the truth." Several state-
ments of this kind bad been male. I made
inquiries, and on the eve of Ash-Wednesday I
inquired of himself as to the disposal of the

ruary or end of 'January. He usTel. to come very

sacrament money. On Easter Sunday I had an
invitation to lunch at the Castle. I found the
priva'e gate from the church to the Castle
locked. lin consequence lunched with Mr.
Highmore. After service, in consequence of a
message, I went to Lady Harrington. She a,ked
me who administered the sacrament, who collected
the offertory, and howit wag I had not gone to lunch.
I told her I came but found the gate barred against
me, and that in consequence or having a friend with
me, I had gone through the village with him,
and afterwards lunched with Mr. Highmore, She
said, " How can you lay yourself under an obliga-
tion to those Highmores ? If you ga to those High-
mores you will not be acceptable to the Castle.
He keeps a most disreputable house, and you must
take care of your character as well as of your
friends'. They are always playing at cards from
morning to night. They are a set drunken peo-
ple. I know the truth of it, for Sir Francis Stan-
hope said he saw all three of them drunk upon the
floor." The third person alluded to was the Dow-
ager Countess of Harrington. I told her I fearel
she bad been sadly misinformed, as I had told her
on previous occasions. I said, " I have found
Mr. Highmore's house nicely or respectably con-
ducted, and Mrs. Highmore a lady of considerable
talent and good manners." I said, also, he had
been very kind to me, and that I found him very
ch tritable. Her ladys'iip replied, " Oh, no, it
cannot be ; it is impossible." I said I bad had
plea.ing evidence of the fact, for I had seen him
give both wine and money to the poor. She said,
" Oh, no, it won't do ; he is a bad man and she
is a bad woman." I again said I feared she had
been misinformed, and, as a funeral was waiting,
I must bid her good day. Since then I have n.

often to lunch, It wai w-(th rerereitc3 to my taking
the sacrament., that I asked him who was to hd-

minister it. He told me he did not know. I said
I should not take it from Mr. Hightnore. I
said I had several reasons. I thought Mr. Eligh-
more was not a good man. • I said I took
it at London, and Gatsworth. I ;•ai,l he had not

accounted I r theAacrament money. I never said he
had appromi At:tithe saurarneu t money. Mr. Ti, aeker
was my informant. He is churcl warden. I.said
White had always accounted to Mr. Thacker. A
few days after he told rue Mr. Highmore, 'he be-
lieved, would adminiiter it. I said I sh uld not
take it. He then begin to argue with met on the
subject. I forget what his arguments were, but. I
said, "My opinion romans unchanged, and we
will not discuss this matter further.", I never used
the word "pocketed," my words were that he did
not account for the sacrament money. I did not
say "He keeps the sacrament money." I never
said anything except that no account was ren-
dered. I said the Duke of Leinster had given 201.,
and the farmers soineihing—l think it was 20/.—to
throw open the tower of the church. I said he had
not done whal the money was subscribed for for
eight years. My husband, not liking to see the
tower used as a coalhole, had offered to give the
balance to have seats put there for the school chil-
dren. It was then done during Mr. Higirm,.re's
absence. I said that there had been a grc:ac deal
of card-playing and gambling at the Castle in the
late Lord's lifetime, and there was a great deal of
card-playing in the village. I have se .11 little chil-
dren playing at cards in the village. I never used
the word "debauchery." I said I had heard ru-
mours of card-playing in his house ; but of that I
could not judge, as I never was there. I did not
say that he encouraged card-playing in the village.
I said a bad example had been set in Vita village,
but I was alluding to the curates. I said there had
been two drunken curates. I menticned Mr.
James. I saw in the newspaper that he was ap-'
pointed curate._ He officiated, believe, only

been to the Ca4t!e. Between the conversiti,nis
which .1 have detailed I had several others, at
which statements to the same effect were made.
She has called him an actor, a mountebank, and
a rider at Astloy'e.
Crosi-examined—On the Monday afterwards I
wrote a letter to a gentleman in Derbyihire, but
otherwise I took no note in writing. Nobody
else was present on the first occasion. It wa4

n the drawing-room tetore lunch. I learnt from
Lady Harrington that there had been a curate
there named Collins, and from Mr. Highmore
himself. Ha said. he had had a curate who had
been drunk, or alleged to be drunk. He did not
say he had forwarded complaints to the bishop.
Lady Harrington said he had been found drunk
in the parish, and been continued as curate. I
was told by Lady Harrington that Collins owed
for his lodgings, left the parish in debt, and was
frequently drunk. I heard alio that there had been
curates named White and Barratt. She did not say
that White and Barratt were in the habit of accoan t ing
for the sacrament money according to the rubric.
She did not say Mr. Highmore never rendered any
account of the sacrament money, as other clergy-
men did. She mentioned a Mr. James, who she
said had come as curate and left in debt, and was
charged with swindling. I can't say whether Mr.
Highmore told me he had. She mentioned to me
Mr. Collins as hiving been drunk, but not James.
When she advised me to take care of my own
character she hid not immediately before men-
'lolled Collins's drunkenness. As to the Duke of
Leinster's contribution, she did not say that Mr.
Highmore had kept it several years before the re-
pairs were done. I learnt that Mr. Highmore had
received 101. towards the repairs. She did not say
that Mr. Collins was curate during Mr. Highmore's
absence from serious illness ' • but, in fact, he was
curate during that time. Mr'. Highmore was ab-
sent for three years on account of serious illness.
He is prohibited from taking stimulating drinks,
end has been in that state for seven years. I men-
in June. to Mr. HiJamore's advisers about
done-it; • drunk on the floor. He referred to Sir
the 70"-al She was referring to the time of the
Stl:2"..Pdand Lady Harrington. I did not men-
former Lo. " debauchery" to Mr. Highmore's
tion the wont • over to ask one person whether
advisers. I went been made. That was in
a certain statement ha..., -ine Jane Smith. I put
April, Her name is Cathek.

once or twice. I did not say that Mr. Highmore
and his wife had been rolling drunk. on the
floor. I said Mr. Collins bad been rolling drunk
on the floor. That was proved in the presence
of Mr. Whittaker,, the rural dean, and another
gentleman. I recollect Mr. Jones saying that he
had found the gates locked, but I don't think be
said that he had lunched at Mr. Hiehmore's. I
never said anything about laying himself under
an obligation to those Highmores. I said the
house had been very disorderly. Tn that I alluded
to the pupils shooting at a man named Burton,
and tearing his coat with the wadding. I eid•not
enter into details, but 1 said to Mr. Jones that the
pupils had been disorderly. I told him he had-
been preceded by drunken curates, and that he.
must theref .re be very careful about his &melee ere
I said, Sir. Francis Stanhope had told me •hat he
had seen Mrs. Foot drunk on the floor ; hut I never
used the words "all three" drunk on tee floor.
And S.r Francis told me that there hail formerly
been a gi eat deed of drinking at the Castle ; but it
could nut apply to tee late lord, who was the
soberest of men. In te-ing the expression " rolling
or, -the fleet" I alluded to Mr. Collins. Al the
conversations occurred Letween me and Mr. Jones
when we were alone in the drawing ri.oui before
luncheon. When we went to L ndon in April
Mr. Jones and. I parted the best frit nds. He told
me that Mr. Highmore had given bread and 2s. in
money to one poor woman. He gave no other ex-
planation about the sacrament money.
Cross-examined—l had oily known Mr. Jones
since he came to Elvastou. Mr. Collins left in
1351. Mr. James officiated about t eto or three
years ago. There is a school which we built and
which we support. Igo there whenever I can.
We have forbidden the schoolmaster and school-
mistress to have anything to do with Mr. High-
more. It is written up as one of the rules, "No
clerical interference allowed." Ransom (the
schoolmaster) and his wife had been in the habit of
going to Mr. Highrnore's. I told the schoolmis-
tress, in the school, on one occas=ion, that I would
not allow her to go near the Higienore's. I was
obliged to speak loud, because the woman was a
virago, and would not allow me to speak quietly.
I did not say that Mr. Highmore was a low fedow
or a drunkea fellow, or a ruffiau or a villain. I did
not say that he was'in the habit of getting drunk
with Ransom. I was not aware that Ransom
drank. I did not sly that be got drunk wit!'
Chambers, the saddler. I may have sa.d to Mr.
Jones that he was an ac'or and a rider at Astley's ;
but that is not in the declaration. (Laughter.) I
did not say that to Mrs. Ransom. I have said that
there had been rumours of his drinking before I
came to Elvaston, but that his state of health was
such that he could not drink now. I did not say
Ellen Winson, " You are a bad, wicked girl ; Ur.
Highmore keeps you." I emphatically deny that.
I know Harlett. He is a discharged gamekeeper.
I believe he is now in the Derby police ; but I don't
know whether Lord Harrington gave hirn a charac-
ter. I have not said to him that Ellen Winson goes
to Highmore's house and Highmore to her house
for bad purposes. I did say to Catherine Smith
that Mrs. Highmore kept Ellen Wins in in a cottage
as a spy upon use I had al
I thoughtaboy(apa bgee)mwilgahotwgaets
constantly going there, and
into bad company. I did not seriously mean what
I said to Catherine Smith; she is a poor girl who

was recommended to me, .and whom I wanted t)
get into service. Id d mot say to Slvanu
who was a servant et the Castle, that be was alwa.ts
a) drunk as that fedow
Mr. Juslice C e,swell asked whether Mr.
Mscaulay prop )se'l t call th,-se persons, who'c
nalues he mentioned, as witnesses to contradict
Lady Harrington ?
Mr. Macaulay sa;d, that it was for that purpose
he was putting the question.
The learned Judge then expressed his opinion
that that evidence would not be admissible, as the
matters were not closely enough connected with
the issue in ,he cause.

Mr. Macauf.a.;;Td—he would not, then, continue
the examination furher.
Mr. Men,r having summed up,
Mr. Macaulay addressed the jury for the plaintiff
and commented in strong terms upon the evidence
which Lady Harrington had given, and to which Ile
was mire the jury would not give credit.
The learned Judge summed up, and.
The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff,'
DamageA 7501.

The-re was another action brought by Mr. Iligll‘
more a_:ainst Lord Harrington for an assault!
arising out of some proceedings at a vestry meet
ng; but in t•ii4 case a juror wai withdrawn.