The Sun.
London, England, 1845-02-03 00:00:00

A CHANCE FOR BRISTOL.

The Great Britain has, according to the various
accounts of those who went in her from Bristol to
London, made a most successful experimental trip,
under circumstances well qualified to test her capabi-
lities. True, she had only ballast on board, and was,
consequently, light and buoyant as a duck ; but she
steered admirably, and so conducted herself through-
out a boisterous passage, as to leave the impression
that, under any circumstances, she will be able gal.
lantly to face foul weather. The fair presumption is,
that she is a capital sea-boat.
Now, Government wants good sea-boats, and
builds very bad ones. With Government steamers,
failure appears to be the rule—success the exception.
Bristol builds good steamers—witness the Great
Western and Great Britain. The fair inference is,
that Government cannot do better than give Bristol
an order.

A writer in a morning paper, evidently conversant
with the subject, shows that in almost every instance
Government steamers have turned out, on trial,
lamentable blunders. The Gorgon, on her first trip,
swam so much by the stern, that, in her passage from
Sheerness to Longreach, " the lower ports on the
main-deck hail to be caulked in; and, notwithstand-
ing thi-, the officers' cabins were filled with water."
She would only go eight miles an hour, and her
builders were compelled to "caulk in the ports fitted
for guns." To make up for the Gorgon being so much
by the stern, the Victoria and Albert swam so much
by the head that 200 tons of lead ballast had to be
placed aft to keep her on an even keel; and she steered
badly. The Firebrand, in her experimental cruise,
" rolled and jerked about to that degree in a sea-way,
that it was impossible to cast the guns loose for prac-
tice." . Tho Cyclops, the Retribution, and other
vessels, were equally failures. The Examiner, in
reference to these official " mistakes," observes—
" If you happen to fall in with a steamer at sea, mak.
ing bad way and bad weather, you may be sure that she
is a man-of-war. Slowness, awkwardness, and uneasi-
ness, are the certain characteristics of the man-of-war
steamer. The common trading packets beat them
wherever they happen to try their speed with them. It
is curious, indeed, that the managers of these things in
the navy have so contrived matters as never yet to have
produced a tolerably good man-of-war steamer. The
unifot mitt' of the failure is quite extraordinary. In so
many experiments it is singular that there has been no
solitary deviation into success. The surveyor, however,
takes his measures so as to guard against any such irre-
gularity, and no one of his steamers shames the others.
When they are put to shame, it is by packets with cargoes
of pigs, oxen, and the like."
It is not a little strange that England, so long the
first naval power in the world, should, notwithstand-
ing her great experience, have failed so often and so
signally in the construction of her war vessels. Is it
not lamentable that the service should have been
crowded with "Forty Thieves"—" Donkey Frigates,"
that could " neither fight nor run"—and gun-brigs,
facetiously known as " Coffins," in consequence of
the " alacrity in sinking" for which these vessels
were distinguished ? It is noterious, too, that in the
last war many of the best ships in the British navy
were those taken from the French. We won our
naval battles, not because we had better ships, but
because our sailors and officers knew better than

Frencliofficers how to handle them, and because our
seamen were better than those of our neighbour. So
well known were the superior sailing qualities of the
French vessels, that it used to be a stupid boast that
British ships were built to fight—French ones to run
away. But, as it is well known that the superior
sailing qualities of a ship frequently give her crew
immense advantages in taking up a position, it is clear
that in this respect, as in many others, we won our
battles against odds.
We mention these circumstances, because what was
true of Government-built ships at that time is true of
Government-built steamers in the present day; and
the frequency of failure then, as now, leads to the
presumption that there must be something amiss in
the Government system—inefficiency, favouritism,
wrong-headedness, or want of science. Now, con-
sidering the immense importance of the naval service
in upholding the honour, interests, and reputation of
this country, and considering the increasing import-
ance of steam-frigates as a branch of that naval ser-
vice, the repeated failures in the building of efficient
Government vessels are worse than disgraceful—are

positively dangerous. If better vessels, out of all
si9.llt, can be built by private companies than at the
CCivernment dockyards, then the Government Owes
it to the nation to give orders to private companies
fur the co.istruction of national vessils.

Government has had its agents on board, scrutinis-
ing the qualities pf the Great Britain. Should they
report favourably, a great step will have been gained.
The vessel will, no doubt, have first to go through the
ordeal of an Atlantic voyage ; but should she prove
successful, then we think there is a fair and reason-
able chance, on applications being made in the proper
quarters, that: this city may obtain orders for the con-
struction of one or more Government vessels.

No other place, perhaps, could bo selected pos-
sessing equal advantages. The dock where the Great
Britain was built, and the immense machinery em-
ployed in her construction, being already at hand;
whilst the vicinity of Bristol to the iron of Wales
gives her great facilities in cheaply procuring that
material.

The Great Britain, though possibly a failure in a
commercial point of view, may be looked upon as a
great experiment in naval science, which may yet
have a national influence. Should she succeed, and
should Government wish for vessels like her, surely
Bristol possesses claims superior to any other city
to be favoured with their construction.

It is to be hoped that this subject will not be lost
sight of by those who have most interest in looking
after the matter.—Bristol Mercury.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
BAIL COURT, Feb. 1.
HAIGH C. roWELL.

The plaintiff in this case sought to recover compensa-
tion in damages for an injury he had sustained by fall-
ing down a hole, which had been carelessly and negli-
gently left open by
.the defendant. The defendant ad-
mitted his liabilityto the present action, and paid 501.
into Court, as s, sufficient compensation to the plaintiff.
It appeared from the evidence of the plaintiff's witnesses,
tt.at he is a hosier, elm in; on hi,- business in the neigh-
bourhood of Covent-garden, and that the defendant was
the proprietor of a temporary theatre, erected at Green-
wich, and that the plaintiff had fallen down a hole
close to it, which had been carelessly left open by the
defendant, and had broken his leg. One of the plaintiff's
witnesses stated, that he (the plaintiff) was the only man
in England who could make what were termed among
theatrical personages " fleshings" which gave an apparent
symmetry to the shape of the legs of those whose unfor-
tunate defects in that particular required " the fort.ign
aid of ornament," and that his artistical talents were
consoquently in great request, not only among members
of the theatrical profession,-but the nobility and public
in general.

Mr. Justice WILLIAM inquired whether the plaintiff
manufactured false legs ?
Mr. HumFtlEY explained that the plaintiff's talents
were limited to the manufactory of false calves.—(Loud
laughter.) The witness furiher stated that he-considered
the plaintiff hail, by his absence from business, in conse-
quence of the above accident, sustained a loss of not less
than 150/.

The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages,
701., being 201. more than rho amount paid into Court.

LORD MAYOR'S COURT, Feb. 1.
(Before the RECORDER, &c.)
THE CORPORATION PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE NON-
FREEMEN—TILE CHAMBERLAIN OF LONDON V. STL'RT.
This was an action brought against the defendant, a
highly respectable wholesale dealer in the City, by the
Chamberlain, for and on behalf of the Corporation of
the City of London, to recover certain penalties in-
curred by the defendant by reason of the violation of
the bye -laws and customs of London, in carrying on
his trade or business of a wholesale dealer within the
City, he not being a freeman. The case is one of
many actions instituted by the Civic authorities against
a numerous body of non-freemen, and the greatest
anxiety as to the result necessarily prevails. It will,
however, be seen by the subjoined report, that this
day's proceedings in the cause were only of an initia-
tive character, but still possessing abundant interest
to the many parties concerned.
Mr. RANDALL moved, on behalf of the defendant,
for a month's time to plead to the declaration. The
cause was one of vast importance, involving many in-
tricate points of law, which called for, and required,
grave consideration. It was well known that the
Corporation had long contemplated these proceedings,
and that being so it was not too much for the de-
fendant to ask for a reasonable time to prepare his
defence. An understanding had been come to between
the respectable gentleman to whom the defence had
been confided and the City Solicitor that every
reasonable facility should Le afforded in order that
the question should be tried on its true merits, and
he submitted that this could not be done unless the
time to plead he prayed was granted. The Learned
Counsel added, that the declaraticn had not been filed
until the 13th ult.
Mr. RYLAND, who, with Mr. Laurie, appeared on
behalf of the plaintiff, at once opposed the motion.
The RECORDER inquired the date of the bye-law
upon which the declaration was framed.
Mr. LAURIE replied that it was dated the 15th
April, in the 4th year of the reign of James I.
The REcozwea (to Mr. Randall)—And you think
that, as the Corporation have had about 240 years to
prepare to bring this action, you ought at least to
have a month's time to plead to it ?—(Laughter.)
Mr. RAND iLL repeated that the Corporation had
possessed every facility to prepare, and that as yet
the defendant had not been allowed sufficient time to
place the question fully and fairly before the Court.
DIN. RYLAND stated, on the part of the plaintiff,
that he was only anxious that everything connected
with the question should be brought before the Court
in the most open manner, and that it was with that
object that he and his Learned Friend (Mr. Laurie)
now appeared to take the opinion of the Court as to
the propriety of granting the request now made on
behalf of the defendant.
The RECORDER inquired whether the declaration in
this action differed from those which had been pro-
ceeded upon against the retail dealers ?
Mr. RANDALL— There are matters alluded to in
this declaration which required much grave con•
sideration.
The RECORDER—I am informed that this declara-
tion contains a count which is framed on a different
form from the declaration filed against the retail
dealers.
Mr. RANDALL—I am not aware that such is the
ease.

The Recounna—lt appears to me that in this re-
spect the form of this declaration differs from its
predecessors.
Mr. RYLAND said that he, on behalf of the plaintiff,
should not object to time being granted to the defen-
dant to plead if the Court should so think fit, pro-
vided that his Learned Friend (Mr. Randall) would
give an undertaking not to move the cause by cer-
tiorari into the Court of Queen's Bench until after
verdict—a step which could only lead to vast delay
and great expense; for, like the case of Clarke v.
Denton, it would be sent back by writ of procedendo,
to be tried by the jurisdiction before which it now
stood.
Mr. RANDALL replied that he was not in a situa-
tion to give the undertaking required, inasmuch as
he was not aware what view the common law counsel
who advised Mr. Sturt might take in the matter.
lie must repeat that he only sought to be allowed.
such reasonable time as to be enabled by the pleas
fairly to raise the question before the Court.
Mr. RYLAND said that the Corporation authorities
did not object to grant a reasonable time, provided an
undertaking was given that unnecessary delay should
be avoided. In a fortnight's time, when the Court
would sit again, the defendant would surely be in a
position to say whether he would give the under-
taking or resist the imposition of any terms. It should
not be lost sight of that the time to plead expired
on the 19th of last month, and that on the application
of the defendant time had been granted by the law
officers of the City until the 29th ult.
The RECORDER said he was not disposed to take
away, or interfere with, the right of the defendant in
any stage of the case to carry the proceedings of the
Court for review before a- superior jurisdiction. On
inquiry, he found that the case, Clarke v. Denton,
which had been referred to, differed from the case
now under consideration, inasmuch as the declaration
here sought by the introduction of a new count to
recover a penalty from the defendant for carrying on
the business or trade of a warehouseman. Under
these circumstances, he (the Recorder) was inclined
to give to the defendant further time to plead, but
not to the extent demanded. The pleas ought to be
filed on or before the next sitting of !the Court.
The CITY SOLICITOR (Mr. C. Pearson) remarked
that the Court would resume its sittings that day
fortnight.
The RECORDER—Then, that will give the defen-
dant fourteen days to plead, reserving liberty to
move the Court for a further extension of time.
Mr. Rseenar.r. remarked that fourteen days would
not afford a sufficient time for settling the pleas ne-
cessary to bring the question properly before the
Court. He had not seen any other of the counsel
engaged in the matter, and unless a longer period was
allowed, he feared he should, at the expiration of the
time, be compelled to submit a second motion to the
Court.
The RECORDER intimated to the Learned Counsel
that if he did so he must be prepared to satisfy tte
Court that the defendant's pleader had not been
allowed sufficient time to deal with this declaration.
fie (the Recorder) did not think there was anything
in the declaration which would require very special
pleas.
Mr. RANDALL observed that such might be the
fact, but Mr. Kelly, who had been retained to conduct
the defence, could not, with his multifarious avoca-
tions, give that consideration to the matter which it
demanded before the next Court day.
The RECORDER hinted that it would form no part
of Mr. Kelly's duty to prepare the pleas, and it was
almost a libel upon the pleaders of the Inner Temple
to say that in fourteen days they could not prepare
pleas to this declaration.

Mr. RANDALL urged - upon the Court that he was
et a loss to understand why this cause should be so
pressed, when it could not he qw:stioncd that the
trading sought to be invaded had been carried on in
the Citj• of London for nearly, or more, than a century.
Mr. .ItYLAND, in reply, stated that it was of the
utmost importance that the question raised should be
set at rett with as little delay as was consistent with
the interests of the parties concerned. The ward-
mote inquests had presented about 1,000 non-
freemen e:arrying on business within the City, and of
these 999 were awaiting the issue of the proceedings in
this caus?. With these observations he left the mat-
ter in th'e hands of the Court, willing, as those by
whom he was instructed were, that the defendant
should have an opportunity of availing himself of the
best legal assistance.

Thells;coanEa, after some desultory conversation,
granted the defendant fourteen days' titre to plead,
with the u nderstanding that if the Cout t was, at the
expiration .)f that time, oath :fled that with due dili-
genc.e the p leas could not have been prepared, an ap-
plication fo further time might be made.
The ordt- rof the Court WAS then formally made,
and the voceedings termina7vd. The Court was
crowded w! th auditors anxious to hear the result.

PO LICE INTELLIGENCE.
QUEEN• SQUARE.

EXTRAOMDINARY SCENE.-011 Saturday, as the ma
gietrate way about retiring, Miss Elizabeth Osborn, a
itshionablyeettired female, of about tlerttefive years of
age, who getve her address Earl's-court, Bromptun, and
represented' herself to he the daughter of Sir John Os-
born, was ph teed at the bar, charged with stealing a pot
of potted meat from the shop of Mr. Edward Allurn,
oil end Itali i.n warehouseman, Brampton.
J. Russell, shoptuan to the prosecutor, stated that at
a little after, three o'clock that afternoon he was serving
a persou in his master's shop, when he was attracted by
the hurried manner in which the prisoner, who was
being waite,l upon by another person, spoke. He saw
her take up one of the pots of meat from a little stand on
the counter, and then it appeared to him that she put it
under her shawl. A boy, who was then in the shop
being served, informed him that he had seen the prisoner
take the pot, and witness, on examination of the pots,
missed one from the number. Prisoner having paid
for a small piece of soap she had bought, left the shop.
Witness followed her, and after she had proceeded
about thirty yards, asked her it she had paid foir that
pot of meat. At that moment she had a pot of meat in
her hand, and said at first that she had purchased it at
Archbutt's, and then at Gunter's. She then gave wit-
ness the pot she held in her hand, which was a pot of
tongue, whilst that she had taken from prosecutor was
either a pot of beef or of game. He asked her whether
she had any objection to accompany him to either Arch-
butt's or Gunter's, when she replied that she had not.
Witness arid the prisoner then went towards Mr.
Gunter's, and on arriving in Sloane-street, at the very
moment she was crossing a grating, prisoner dropped a
pot on the grating ; it broke, and some of it went down
the grating. Witness picked up all that he could, and
found it was a pot of beef, and se marked on the
outside, with also the maker's initials. Witness then
asked her if she had any more of them, and if so,
not to drop them.' Prisoner then took one from under
her arm, and said she had purchased it, and then
immediately afterwards that a lady had , given it
to her at Fulham ; that was a pot of game. -They then
went to Gunter's, where witness ascertained that she
hail purchased one pot of meat, but as she had the other
lie detained her. Prisoner then said she would pay him
for all the pots, if he would let her go, and she then said
she would give him three times the value. lie, however,
refused to let her go, and sent for a polbeenan. During •
the time they were waiting for hiM, prisoner- amused
herself by tearing the corers off a ream or half a ream of
note paper, which witness picked up. She was given
into custody; and, on her way to the station, tore np
some ot the resin of paper, three or four sheets at a time.
Some rice and groats were found on her person, which
she said she had bought at Archbutt's. He found, on
part of the covers of the paper which he had picked up,
" 179, Sloane-street." Prisoner said she bought the
tracts, four of which were also found upon her, at that
address ; but she did not say mach about the paper. The
pot prisoner purchased at Gunter's was tongue. The
maker of Gunter's was the same who mad for the
prosecutor.

Thomas Gosmer, a lad about 15 or 16 years or age,
said he lived with Mr. Edwin Faulkiner, 3, Edward-
street, Knightsbridge. Witness was at Mr. Allum's at
a little after three that afternoon, when he saw the
prisoner take a pot of meat and place it under her shawl.
Witness told the young man.
Thomas Rowland, 135 B, said that he took the prisoner
at Gunter's door, in Matcombe-street. Prisoner said she
would pay for the pots, and then there would be nothing
more for witness to do with it. She started with witness
to the station, when she offered him half a sovereign to
let her go. Witness replied that he could not, if she
gave him 1,0001. Prisoner then said that if he would let
her go she would give him her address, and he could
call, and she would give him much mire than she had
said. She tore up some blank paper as she went alor:g.
She was searched at the station by a finale, and nearly
half a ream of note paper, half a pound of rice, a packet
of groats, half a pound of soap, and a purse with half a
sovereign and four shillings were found upon her, be-
sides some religious tracts.
The accused attempted to h tyre the dock, and on being
informed by the magistrate that he was mo-t desirous to
hear any answer that she had to make to the charge,
Miss Osborn handed a note to the magistrate, observing,
" You ails be kind enough to look at the address on this
note which I received this morning from a friend. I
merely produce it to show that I am the person I repre-
sent myself to be." The lady then stated that when the
came out f the prosecutor's shop, into which st e went,
as she had been iu the habit of doing to make a trifling
purchase, the shopman followed her and asked her if she
had got a pot of tongue, and not, :as :twilled stated in
his evidence, a pot of meat. She replied she had bout.tht
it at Gunter's, which was the fact. She had been in the
habit of making purchases at Archbut:'s, Gunter's, and
other places in the neighbourhood, and had bought some
of the thit:gs found up,in her at those places; the rest she
had brought from home with her that day. as she was about
to take them somewhere. As regarded dropping the pot,
she assured the magistrate it was entirely accidental; and,
with reference to making an offer to the shopman to pay for
the pots, it was, of course, a most disagreeable affair,
which she was much annoyed at. She was entirely
innocent ; there was nothing proved against her, as the
shopman evidently did not know his own pots, they being
all alike. The lady, after a slight pause, continued, and
observed that she had brought the potted meats from her
own house that day, and the paper she had purchased,
she believed, at Murray's. This, as also the former per-
tion of her defence, was given in a very incoherent
manner.

Mr. BURRELL asked her if she had any witnesses to
call ?—The lady replied in the negative.
Mr. BURRELL intimated that she must be remanded.
Prisoner exclaimed, Remanded !"

Mr. BURRELL repeated the observation.
Miss Osborn—l bought the things. The shopman
can't prove anything against me.
Mr. BURRELL—He does to a certain extent.

Prisoner—l am Miss Osborn; of course you will allow
me to go home. _

Mr.kaaELL—l cannot ; I really cannot.
IPrisoner—l have had potted meat and other things at
my own house for some time. My servants can prove it.
Mr. BURRELL—Have you any one here who can prove
where you bought them? Prisoner—l purchased them
some time ago at some of the places I have mentioned.
You will, of course, Mr. Burrell, permit me to return to
my family. lam Sir John Osborn's daughter. Perhaps
you will come and see him in. the course of a few days.
Mr. BURRELL-I cannot ; I must do my duty.
Prisoner—You must take me home. My father will
come and take me away. He'll not allow this.
Mr. 3unamm—You must be remanded on this charge.
Prisoner—lf I am hot to go home, Mr. Burrell, where
am Ito go ?
Mr. BURRELL—You must go to prison. I must do my
ditty. It is painful=mostpainful—but I must do my duty.
Prisoner—You must come home with me and soe my
father.

Mr. BURRELL repeated his last observation, and the
lady was removed from the dock crying, and imploring
the magistrate to release her.

She 's.tands remanded until Thursday next.
The prisoner, who was much excited, n-as accommo-
dated with pen and ink, and addre,sed a note to Lady
Osborn and to a female friend, which she requested
might be immediately conveyed.
She was then removed to Tothill-fields in the prison van.

[ADVERTISEMENT.] CONSUMPTION.—Ax Ex•
TRIORDINARY CURE BY HOLLOWAY'S PILLS AND
OINT3IISNT.—Mary Gilmore, aged twenty-one, the
daughter of Mr. Henry Gilmore, :residing in Church-
street, Shoreditch, was in the second stage of
consumption, and considered past recovery, when, as
a last resource, large quantities of Holloway's Oint-
ment was rubbed twice a day into her chest and left
side, which was imbibed into the lungs, and there stopped
the ravages of this otherwise fatal disease as effectually
as though the remedy had been applied to an ulcerated
sore palpable to the eye. The Pills were taken as di-
rected, and the young person was perfectly cured in
three months. Sold by every medicine vendor, and at
the Establishment of Professor llolloway, 244, Strand,
where advice maybe had gratis.
MORE ILLICIT DISTILLATION.—We believe it was
never before cur hap to record, in three consecutive
publications, instances of illicit distillation occurring in
the North. Such appeared in our paper of last, and
also of the preceding week ; and a fresh instance has
just been brought under our notice. Until now we
fancied that smuggling was almost entirely put down
by the strong arm of the Excise. It appears, however,
that there are still parties who roam about among the
rocks, " where the snow-flake reposes," making a
livelihood by defrauding the revenue and evading the
law. Glenlivat -was, at no very distant period, one
of the strongholds of smugglers. On Thursday, 16th
instant, lir. Bain, Excise officer at Grantown, the officer
at Tomintoul, and a party of three cuttermen, whilst
going their rounds through this secluded glen, came
upon a large still in full operation. The delinquents got
off with the still before the arrival of the party, wl.o,
upon entering the boo'hy, found that it contained the
enormous quantity of 475 gallons of wash, and 51 gal-
lons of low wines, also 8 bushels of ground malt, a large
copper kettle, 4 large tuns, a mash tun, 8 casks and 4
tubs—making IS utensils in all. The whole were de..
stroyed by the officers and their party. The country
people were collecting in scores, armed with stones and
bludgeons, but luckily before they arrived Mr. Bain and
the party had finished the work of destruc ion, and were
at a safe distance. This active officer has been survey-
ing the district of Glenlivat for upwards of 17 years,
and this is the most extensive illicit distillation which he
has discovered during that period.—lnverness Courser.