The Sun.
London, England, 1845-09-02 00:00:00

IMPORTANT TO LICENSED VICTUALLERS HAVING STABLING

ATTACHED TO THEIR HOUSES.
In two cases that occurred during the day, the Magistrates
called the attention of the applicants to the circumstance of
their having stables attached to their houses, and wished to
know if they were underlet to the ostlers.
On being answered in the negative,
The CHAIRMAN said he was very glad to hear it, for a
case occurred some time since, in which a great quantity of corn
was found in a stable attached to a public-house, and, on in-
quiry being made, it was found to have been stolen. The
landlord of the public-house was applied to, and he said he
knew nothing about it, as the stabling was underlet to the
ostler. In consequence of this, the Magistrates en that Bench
had come to the determination of refusing the license, or cause
it to stand over, in all cases where they found the landlord of
the public-house underletting that portion appropriated to
stabling.
There were four applications for licenses to sell spirits from
the proprietors of beer-shops, all of which were disallowed.

TREATMENT OF RAILWAY
PASSENGERS.
Yesterday Mr. Stavin' the managing director ; Mr.: Godson,
the superintendent of traffic ; and Mr. Dalby, the superinten-
dent of police on the South-Western or Southampton Railway,
attended before Mr. Henry, at the Lambeth Police-court, to
meet the charge and complaint of Mr. James Henry Lee,
cheesemonger, of Great Russell-street, Covent-garden.
Mr. Lee was also in attendance, and made a statement
similar to that which he had made on Friday last, and which
appeared in The Sun of Saturday last. Mr. Lee also pointed
out George Leeke, one of the Company's servants, No. 119,
as the person who had " clipped" his tickets on Sunday fort-
night, and also the person who had put him and Mrs. Lee into
a first-class carriage at the Walton station on the same evening,
stating that all the seeond-class carriages were full.
In reply to the questions put to him,
Mr. Lee said he was perfectly certain Leeke told him all the
second-class carriages were full, for he put him and Mrs. Lee
into a first. class carriage. He (Leeke) had taken them the
whole length of the train, and it was only upon their return
from the end that he had put them in the first. class carriage.
Upon seeing Mr. Godson at the Nine Elms station, he told
him what had occurred at the Walton station with the porter,
but he (Mr. Godson) told him that he must pay the additional
2s. t3d., and apply to the secretary on the following day for
redress, if there was anything wrong.:
Mr. Godson here remarked that Mr. Lee's manner at the
station on the night in question was very different indeed from
that which he now assumed, and said that much of the time
which he complained of being kept at the station was consumed
by himself in taking the names of those of the Company's
officers present.
Mr. Lee denied that this was the fact, and said that he felt
annoyed at the treatment he had been subjected to by the
Company's officers.
Mr. Stovin, in reply to the complaint, stated that the prac-
tice on the line was, that if it happened that there was not
sufficient room in the second-class carriages, so that the Com-
pany's servants were obliged to put passengers into a first-class
carriage, the fact was communicated to the guard of the train,
and upon his representation to the ticket receiver, no notice
was taken of it. In the present case the guard had no intima-
tion whatever on the subject of the complaint, and Mrs. Lee
was in a first, though second-class passenger, and moreover, on
reference to the waybills, it was found that upon the train
leaving Walton station, there was room for twenty-nine pas-
sengers in the second-class more than they contained. Besides
this, the agent at the Walton station had been written to on the
subject, and upon making the inquiry there, the porter, Leeke,
denied having told any passenger that the second-class car-
riages were full, and putting them into a first-class carriage.
On the contrary, he said he recollected a lady and gentleman
coming to him, and upon his asking them it they were first-
class passengers, they answered in the affirmative, and he con-
sequently put them into a first-class carriage. With these cir-
cumstances before them, they could do no more nor less than
they had done.
Mr. Lee observed that it was not likely that the porter would
acknowledge his error, when such acknowledgment might lead
to his being discharged from his situation. He (Mr. Lee) wa..
willing to believe that the circumstance arose through the mis-
take of the porter, but still he did not think that he should
have been treated in the harsh manner he had, and more than
all, to be charged first-class fare both ways, while in going down
he had travelled by a second-class carriage only.
Mr. Stovin observed they had a right to infer he travelled by
a first-class carriage in going down as well as coming up.
Mr. Henry did not think this is a good inference, and was of
opinion the Company had no right to insist upon the first class
tare both ways.
Mr. Stovin observed that there was nothing to show the con-
trary that Mr. Lee and his lady did go down as well as come
up by a fi, st-class carriage.
Mr. Henry—He states he obtained two second-class day
tickets, and your servants would not surely let parties into a
first-class carriage, except on particular emergencies, with a se-
cond-class ticket. .

VV
Mr. Stovin—The Company's servants do not insist upon
seeing the tickets ; and, in lad, the passengers consider it an
annoyance to be ased to see their tickets. Indeed, many gen-
tlemen question our right to see the ticket, or to ask how far
they are going I will mention one gentleman, who, it must
be admitted, was a high legal authority, namely—the Lord
Chancellor of Ireland, who denies the right.
Mr. Godson remarked he thought they had a right to charge
the complainant first-class fare both ways. He ( Mr. Lee)
had entered into a contract with the Company to travel to
Walton and back by a second-class carriage, and got day tickets
for the purpose. He did not travel both ways as he had under-
taken, and, therefore, he had broken his contract with the
Company.
Mr. Lee replied that he had not wilfully done so. If his
intention was to cheat or defraud the Company, he must be
considered very silly indeed, as he must have felt thoroughly
satisfied of detection upon arriving at Nine Elms station.
John Catling, a ticket-collector, was then called, and said,
that upon taking the tickets of Mr. and Mrs. Lee, on the night
in question, he told them they had got into the wrong carriage.
Mr. Lee replied that they had been put there by one of the
Company's servants, and they had, therefore, a right to be
there. They then got out, and were going away, when he told
Mr. Lee he must accompany him to the superintendent's office,
and after some hesitation, he did so.

After George Leeke had given his evidence,
Mr. Lee observed it was perfectly palpable he did not, or
would not, recollect the circumstances, for the fact was, he
was a partial witness. ,He (Mr. Lee) was willing to state
on oath, and the fact could be corroborated, that he was the
person he had applied to, to be put into a second-class
carriage ; that he was the person who took him and Mrs.
Lee along the whole line of train, and on their returning a
short distance pointed to a first-class carriage, and desired
them to get in, as the second-class carriages were all full. He
questioned the witness as to whether all passengers at Walton
station were taken up that night, and he answered in the
affirmative. _

Mr. Henry—l have watched the countenance of this man
narrowly, and feel persuaded in my own mind that he is stating
circumstances which he states to have occurred, not from actual
recollection, and that, in fact, he does not recollect anything
about it. He was asked some days after if he had put a lady
and gentleman in a first-class carriage who had only second-
class tickets, and he of course replied that he had not. This
was the answer which was to be expected from him. It was
not likely that he was going to admit an error which might
endanger his situation. The question was who he should
believe, Mr. Leo or Leeke, the porter. In the first place, it
could hardly be supposed that a person in the situation and
circumstances of life of Mr. Lee would have in
,the first place
so strenuously objected to the payment of the 2s. Bd. at the
station-house ; and though the warmth of his conduct there had
been complained of, it was to him (Mr. Henry) a proof that he
was right. Then, again, his taking the trouble to go once or
twice to the station, his attendance at this Court, and altoge-
ther for a trifling charge, perfectly satisfied him (Mr. Henry)
that the circumstances of the case were as he had stated them,
and he was perfectly convinced that if Messrs. Slovin and God •
son were on a jury to decide the question at issue, they would
have no difficulty in deciding with him. He (Mr. Henry)
thought Mr. Godson had done no more than his duty dictated,
with the exception, perhaps, of charging the first-class fare
both ways, and it would have been as well also if Mr. Lee
had paid the demand under a protest. His impression, from
all that he had heard was, that the 2s. Sd. should be returned
to Mr. Lee.

After some further observations, Mr. Venry said ho was glad
the question had been asked. He had himself looked over the
three voluminous Acts of the Company, and could not find
anything to give him the power to issue a summons in a case
like the present, or give Mr. Lee any assistance in the matter,
the only remedy for him being by civil action. He should be
glad to hear from Mr. Stovin if there was any clause which
gave a magistrate the power of issuing a summons against the
Company in such a case as the present.
Mr. Stovin replied he was not aware there was such a clause;
upon which Mr. Henry observed that the whole enactment was
for the protection of the Company, and in the present case he
could not even enforce the payment of the 2s. Bd.
Mr. Stovin replied that this was not necessary as the mere
suggestion from his Worship was quite enough.
Mr. Henry told Mr. Lee that this arrangement would not
bar his right of action against the Company for the false im-
prisonment, but there would be much difficulty he thought in
getting a verdict.
Mr. Lee said it was not his wish to proceed further. The
matter was one affecting the public. He had brought it before
the public in the hope of preventing a repetition, and he was
now satisfied.

➢lr. Stovin ordered the return of the 2s. Bd., and the parties
left the Court.

UNIVERSITY INTELLIGENCE.
UNIVERSITY OF LONDON.
M. B. FIRST EXAMINATION-1845.
EXAMINATION FOR HONOURS.
ANATOMY AND PHYSIOLOGY.
Ransom, W. 11. (Exhbn. and Gold Medal). University Col.
Huxley, Thos. Hy. (Gold Medal), Charing-cross Hosptl.
Brinton, William, King's College.
Reid, John, King's College.
Johnson, Walter, Guy's Hospital.

CHEMISTRY.
Ransom, W. H. (Exhbn. and Gold Medal), University Cal.
Randell, Cornelius W. (Gold Medal), University College.
Johnson, Walter, Guy's Hospital.
Reid, John, King's College.
Brinton, William, King's College.
Huxley, Thomas HAiry, Charing-cross Hospital.
Day, John Climenson, London Hospital.
MATERIA MEDICA AND PHARMACEUTICAL CHEMISTRY.
Brinton, Wrn. (Exhibition and Gold Medal), King's Col.
Johnson, Walter (Gold Medal), Guy's Hospital.
Day, John Climenson, London Hospital.
William Henry, University College,
Reid,Rns Ransom,
John, King's College.
a

GENERAL POST-OFFICE.—The foundation of the
new Money-order Office has been commenced, and the build-
ing is to Ise completed within six months. It is situate in
Aldersgate, between the French Protestant Church and that
of Saint Botolph, Aldersgate. A new story is being added to
the north wing of the General Post-office, in order to enlarge
tht inland and letter-carriers' office.

SOUTHWARK ELECTION.
MEETING OF THE FRIENDS OF SIR WM.
MOLESWORTH.

A district meeting of the electors of Christchurch,
Blackfriars, was held at the Duke of Wirtemburg
public-house, Hatfield-street, Stamford-street, for the
purpose of hearing an exposition of Sir Wm. Moles-
worth's political opinions.
At a few minutes after seven o'clock, Sir William,
accompanied by same of the members of his committee,
entered the room and was received with loud cheering.
Mr. BRADY having been called to the chair, briefly
explained the causes which had prompted the Hon.
Bart. to come forward, and concluded by introducing
him as a candidate for the Borough.

Sir WILLIAM MOLESWORTH said that before pro-
ceeding to an exposition of his political sentiments he
should advert to the other candidates who were in the
field. The one was Mr. Filcher, who was decidedly
opposed to him in principles ; and the other was Mr.
Miall, who, defeated in argument, descended to per-
sonality.—(Cheers, cries of " No, no," and great con-
fusion.) He (Sir Wm. Molesworth) had been first
accused by Dr. Price of gross dishonesty, and Mr.
Apsley Pellatt called all those dishonest who supported
him, because they did not think as he did.—(Cheers.)
Mr. Pellatt had denounced him as unfit to be their
representative in Farliament, because, forsooth, he had
been educated in one of the English universities.—
(Cries of " Shame.") Did he consider the being edu-
cated at one of these universities was a crime ?
(Cheers.) If it were a crime, he acknowledged himself
guilty.—(Cheers.) He had been educated at Trinity
College, in Cambridge, where Sedgwick and
Whewell were the tutors. (Cheers.) If it
were a crime, it had been also committed by the greatest
names in the country—the most intelligent, the most
distinguished in literature, in science and the arts.—
(Cheers.) He would put it, therefore, to them, if the
very fact that there he got his education should disqua-
lify him from being their representative ?—(Cries of
" No, no.") But the Rev. Mr. Miall had asserted that he
was insincere with regard to the voluntary question, be-
cause he happened to possess some property in the
Church of England. Now he acknowledged that be did
possess such property.—(Cheers.) He inherited it from
his father, and could not suppose even the Rev. Mr.
Miall could blame him for retaining it.—(Cheers.) He
did acknowledge that his personal interests were to a cer-
tain degree opposed to voluntaryism ; but notwithstand-
ing this, he did solemnly declare that he was in favour
of the voluntary principle.—(Cheers.) Could not the
Rev. Mr. Miall conceive a notion higher than mere per-
sonal interest ? Did he think that there was no other
feeling existing but self-interest ?—(Cheers.) Did he
think that truth, and honesty, and justice, were fled, and
that the governing principle in every breast was self, self,
self ?—(Cheers.) Did he think that some men were not
independent enough to hold opinions opposed to their
personal interests ?—(Continued cheering) Aye, and
to act up to them.—(Great cheering.) If he entertained
such degrading views of human nature—(Cheers and
great confusion)—he repeated, that if Mr. Miall enter-
tained these degrading views with regard to human
nature, he was greatly to be pitied.—(lncreased
confusion and great cheering.) But he would
ask the Rev. Mr. Miall whether he himself
supported voluntary principles from interested mo-
tives, or with dishonest views ?—(Tremendous up-
roar.) He (Sir William Molesworth) believed he
did not, and he only wished that the same jus-
tice might he rendered to himself in return.—(Cheers.)
He only wished that Mr. Miall would suppose that his
(Sir William Molesworth's) feelings were equally just
and honest as leis own.—(A Voice in the crowd—" Oh,
he's a systematical, methodistical, atheistical humbug.")
—(Roars of laughter, which stopped the proceedings for
some time.) He (Sir William Molesworth) might state,
in reference to his connexion with the Church of Eng-
land, that when asked to give ground for the erection
of Dissenting chapels on his estates in Devonshire or
Cornwall, he had done so.— (Cheers.) He had been ac-
cused by one man of gross dishonesty; by another with
having received his education at the University of Cam-
bridge—(Derisive cheers)—and by a third with insin-
cerity, because of his connexion with the Church of
England. Nay, lastly, the Rev. Mr. Miall had endea-
voured to excite against him every feeling of religious
rancour and animosity, and, inquisitorial like, he had
presumed to summon him (Sir William Mol,sworth)
before his tribunal—(Cheers)—he had poured upon his
head all the vials of religious wrath, and had stigma-
tised us dishonest those who had honoured him with
their support.—(Cheers.) Yes, Mr. Miall had ca!lod
upon the electors of Southwark to shrink from him
with horror.—(Cries of "Shame.") He (Sir William
Molesworth) was, in consequence of an inaccuracy in
the morning papers, reported to have misrepresented
Mr. Miall's opinions. From those reports he had been
led to believe that Mr. Miall had promised, in the event
of his being returned for Southwark, that on the very
first opportunity he would, in his place in Parliament,
test the opinions of the House of Commons on the
voluntary question, by moving the appropriation of all
the revenues of all religions.—(Cheers and confusion,
which for a time impeded the address of the
Honourable Baronet.) lie did believe that Mr.
Miall had made such a promise, and, in con-
sequence, he (Sir Wm. Molesworth) had presumed to
inform him that such a motion would be Considered by
all practical men in the House of Commons as wild and
extravagant.—(Cheers.) He had suggested to him to
try, in the first instance, his hand upon the Church of
Ireland.—(Cheers.) But it appeared that he had misre-
presented the Rev. Mr, Miall, for all he now promised was
merely to adopt that very suggestion and to propose the
appropriation of the Irish Church revenues.—(Cheers.)
Why he (Sir W. Molesworth) would, if returned for
them, do again what he had already in Parliament done,
cordially support such a motion.—(Cheers.) The Her.
Mr. Miall might have considered that he would be but
adopting the well-known motion of Mr. Ward's, which
he (Sir W. Molesworth) and other Hon. Members had
voted for, long before Mr. Miall's name had ever been
heard of.—(Cheers.) In fact, this mountain of the Rev.
Gentleman's had produced a ridiculously small mouse.—
(Cheers and laughter.) But Mr. Mall had also pro-
mised that if returned to Parliament he would move for
the rescinding of the grant to Maynooth.—(Laughter and
cheers.) Easier said than done.—(Cheers.) It was an
idle threat, a mere brutum fulmen. Why they knew that
in order to make such a motion it was necessary first to
receive the sanction of the Crown. Now let them fancy
the Rev. Mr. Miall.—(A voice, " He is not a clergyman;
he never was." Another voice, " He is ;" great
confusion.)
Sir W. MOLESWORTH—Once a clergyman, always a
clergyman. (Cheers.) (First voice—" He never
preached." Second voice—" He did." First voice—
" Where ?" Second voice—" Smithfield." Roars of
laughter, cheering, and mart admired confusion.)
Let them fancy his reverend friend Mr. Miall
going to Sir Robert Peel and asking permission
to make such a motion. Let them fancy him also givirg
as a reason, that in order to defeat Sir William Moles-
worth in Southwark, he bad been obliged to promise his
supporters to get the MaYinoth grant rescinded..—
(Laughter.) He would let them imagine the Prime
Minister's reply.—(Cheers.) But was the very promise
to make such a motion not a positive insult to the Irish
people ? Mr. O'Connell had said to his fellow-country-
inen—(pAvuoitee. Down with O'Connell.") If they
wished to down O'Connell then let them do justice
to Ireland.—(Cheers.) Mr. O'Connell had told his
countrymen that from the days of Queen Elizabeth Eng-
lish legislation towards the sister country had been but
a continued series of blunders.—(Cheers.) Then, would
they, the electors of Southwark—would they let the
Rev. Mr. Mall commit the crowning blunder of the
whole by bringing forward such a motion ? If they
wished the repeal of the union with Ireland, then indeed
they would send such ms n as Mr. Miall to Parliament,
to heap fresh suffering and fresh insults upon the people
of that country.—(Cheers and great confusion.) The Hon.
Baronet then proceeded to state his political principles.
He was in favour of triennial Parliaments, the vote by
ballot, and the extension of the suffrage.----(A voice—
" You were once for immediate and universal suffrage.")
He pointedly denied it. It was, indeed, asserted by
Mr. Feargus O'Connor, in a handbill headed " Miall and
the Charter," that he (Mr. O'Connor) had heard him,
thrice, in the year 1836, advocate immediate and univer-
sieofno.re) His character and
the world, and he
univer-
sal suffrage. He again denied that he had done so. He
affirmed on his honour as a gentleman that he never had.
that
of
f
Mr. co
—(Cheering and,eo
ngnroera t
wereco n b
f u
was very confident that his assertion would have quite
as much weight with the
people of England as that of
the former gentleman.—(Great cheering.) After some
other observations the Hon Baronet sat down.
Mr. WM. HAWES, in a short speech, proposed the
usual resolutions, pledging the meeting to support Sir
Wm. Molesworth in his election.
Mr. MEEK seconded, and it was carried almost unani-
mously.
Sir Wet. MOLESWORTH then proposed the vote of thanks
to the Chairman, after which the meeting (certainly one
of the noisiest yet held) dispersed.