The Sun.
London, England, 1842-05-09 00:00:00

London, conservator of the llivjr Thames, &c.

" My Ltird,—We, the undersigned, 230 of the free
waterrnen of the parish of Greenwich, beg to draw your
Lordship's serious attention to the injury we are sea-T-
-ing from certain barges which are moored from the pub-
lic stairs, called Garden Stairs,' at Greenwich, and
which are illegally used for the purposes of a floating
pier, causing great obstructions to the free ingress-and
egress to the public causeway and stairs, and which
barges ought not to be allowed to obstruct the pu%!i •
thoroughfare any longer. We, therefore, must earne--
call upon your Lordship, as conservator of the.
Thames, to adopt suchsteps for the immediate removal w'
the said barges as to your Lordship shall seem Recesskr:, .
We have the honour to be, my Lord, your Lordship's
obedient servants."
To this petion 230 signatures.. were affixed.

Mr. Bristow submitted to the Lord •:,ayor that it was
acknowleged upon all sides tlat the barges were a nui-
sance, and destructive to the navigation, and the only
means of accomplishing the removal, without danger to
human lire, were through the interposition of' the Lord
Mayor, as conservator, of the river Thomes. His Lord-
seip had upon a former occasion given it as his opinion
that the barges constituted an obstruction and a nui-
sance, and in that opinion the members of the Naviga-
tion Committee concurred. His Lordship's; di,cision was
looked forward to with confidence by the poor petitioners,
who were prevented from earning a subsistence for them-
selves and their families by the impediments of which
they complained.
The LORD MAYOR said that he had gone down to
Greenwich to examine the place and the alleged obstruc-
tions, and that the moored barges caused obstructions
and formed a nuisance in the 'River he did not entertain
the least doubt. The only persons exempted from injury
by the floating pier were, to the best of his belief, the
sixty or seventy men connected with it. He should not,
however, like to proceed in such a case without the ad-
vice of tho City Solicitor.
Mr. Bristow said he had consulted the Attorney-Gene-
ral on the subject, and the Learned Gentleman had as-
sured him that the floating pier was, to all intents and
purposes, an obstruction within the meaning of the Act
of Parliament, and that the Lord Mayor was compella-
ble, by a Mandamus from the Court of Queen's Bench, to
cause its removal.

The City Solicitor said, that if the Lord Mayor di-
rected him to remove the floating pier he should imme-
diately obey his Lordship's orders ; but he certainly ob-
jected to the interposition of force to accomplish the ob-
ject. He thought the most legitimate mode of proceed-
ing in the case was by indictment, and he referred to the
decision of Mr. Ballantine, the Magistrate of the Thames
Police, against the application made by him (the City
Solicitor) against the watermen of the floating pier, as
entitled to consideration. That Gentlemen did not look
upon the " moored barges" as coming under the Act,
there being no ground for supposing that they were such
vessels as the Act contemplated. It was pretty well
understood that this was a contest between the Greenwich
Pier. Company and the Floating Pier Proprietors, and
the former might, if they pleased, proceed by indictment
against the latter,

-Mr. Bristow admitted that the Greenwich Pier Com-
pany and the 230 petitioners rowed in the same boat ;
but he represented and attended on behalf of the peti-
tioners, who had never Appealed to his Lordship on the
subject before, and to proceed by indictment would sub-
ject them to an expense completely intolerable to them.
Mr. Allan (the Chairman of the Navigation Com-
mittee)—lf I were in the situation of the Proprietors of
the Greenwich Pier, or in that of the petitioner', I know
what I should do.

Doctor Sutton—Aye, but our mat object is to pre-
vent danger to human life, whieh would be incurred by
resorting to compulsory measures. Now, the Lord
Mayor's interposition would be attended with no ha-
zank,us effects of the kind.
The City Solicitor observed that the applicant; had
had twelve months' knowledge of the obstruction, and
they might have proceeded afr'ainsu the owners of the
floating barges if they pleased. lie would not advise
the Lord Mayor to the adoption of compulsory means.
The satisfactory course would be by indictment.
The LORD MAYOR said he certainly di&red with Mr.
Ballantine in the construction-of the Act of Parliament.
He most decidedly was of opinion that the barges were
vessels, within the meaning of the Act,.and that an ob-
struction was formed by them which ought to be removed.
The Navigation Committee entertained a similar opinion,
and there was no doubt that the Greenwich Pier, which
had been built at a great expense, was quite sufficient to
answer the public convenience.
The City Solicitor said his advide to
,the Lord Mayor
was, that his Lordship would request the Navigation
Committee to meet his Lordship and decide the question,
and give directions to the City Solicitor upon the sub-
ject accordingly. or the power to put down the obstruc-
tion he had no doubt, but ho disapproved altogether of
abating it by the strong hand, while it was practicable
to accomplish the object by an indictment. The Corpo-
ration ought to proceed in the usual and regular way.
Dr. Sutton and Mr. Bristow at once acceded to the
proposition that the Lord Mayor and the Navigation
Committee should meet and decide upon the question,
and the day appointed by his Lordship was Monday week.
MATRIMONY.—A Mr. Rainton, who stated that he
resided in Mortimer-street, and was principal conductor
of a matrimonial institution, came to the Justice-room in
the,course of the week, in consequence of some observa-
tions which were made by Sir Peter Laurie relative to
an establishment for bringing couples together in the
matrimonial way. He brought with him a book con-
taining the items of the various charms and recom-
mendations which the subscribers possessed by their own
accounts, and to which he desired to draw the attention
of the Magistrate, in proof of the bona fide character of
the mart with which he had, he said, the honour of
being connected.

Sir P. LAURIE—Pray what are you,. Mr. Rainton ?
Mr. Rainton—l am of no trade, business, or profession.
Sir P. LAURIE—Have you any cards? Mr. Rainton
—None.

Sir P. LAURIE—And what brings you here ? Mr.
Rainton—l come here on account of the attacks which
you have been pleased to make upon a highly honour-
able and bona fide matrimonial institution, of which I
am the head.

Sir F. LAURIE—How do you know that you are the
person alluded to ? I never mentioned a name, and I
never heard yours before. Mr. Rainton—Because mine
is the only matrimonial mart in the metropolis, and I
Suspect from whence the false information came. It
came from a man who was formerly connected with the
institution, but who acted disgracefully, and has now
nothing to do with it.
Sir P. LAURIE—Is it a partnership concern ? Mr.
Rainton—No. lam the principal in the matter. I have
an agent, who resides in Mortimer-street.
Sir P. LAURIE. after having read aloud, to the emu*
ment of the crowd, a few of the items of recommendation
of gentlemen who sought ladit,:s with considerable for-
tunes, without requiring that they should be particularly
beautiful, asked the principal in the matrimonial mart
how long he was connected with the institution ?—Mr.
Rainton replied that he was in the concern since the
year 1839.

Sir P. LAURIE—And how many marriages may you
have caused to be perpetrated in that time ? Mr. Rain-
ton—Why three (laughter).
Sir P. I.AumE—What ! only three in in all that time ?
Then I suppose you get a per centage upon the cash
which the ladies bring? Mr. Rainton—Certainly I do—
(Great laughter). Oh, you may ridicule it, btit the con•
cern is in every respect honourable anti creditable. Why
should any man calumniale a business that is conducted
upon terms the most strictly honourable ?—(Laughter.)
Sir P. LAURIE—And do you get women %.ho are silly
enough to expose themselves to this sort of humbug ?
Mr. Rainton—l repeat that there is no humbug in it.
Sir P. LAURIE—WeII, I am very glad that you have
caught no more than three flats three years.-(Laugh-
ter). Mr. Rainton—l am not a sharp, however, Sir
Peter.

Sir P. LAURIE--You are certainly rather a flat for
coining here. I never sent for you; but as you are here
you had better let -us know all about it.—(Laughter.)
Mr. Rainton—l came here to complain of gross misre-
presentations, and to say that this institution is con-
ducted with undeniable propriety.
Sir P. LAURIE—Let me look into your book for the
history of these parties you coupled together.—(Great
laughter.) Mr. Raintou—(Withdrawing and closing his
book)—No, we never give information of that kind.
Sir P. LAURIE—WeII, then, do you know that I con-
sider all matrimonial agency rascally. I think it's very
like swindling.
Mr. Rainton—l assure you that some of the first
people are in my books. There is one who is a Deputy-
Lieutenant and u Magistrate of two counties.
Sir P. LAURIE—WeII, it is as creditable to him as it is
to you.
Mr. Rainton—Ob, Sir Peter, I have some in my books
who are connected with the first•rate clubs, and have one
here who belongs to your own club.—(Laughter.)
Sir P. LAURIE-.—Depend upon it, if he had been known
to be a customer of yours, he would have been well
blackballed. Rut let me know your object in coming to
me. Mr. Rainton—To contradict the statements you
have made. I may make you responsible for them in
another Court.—(Laughter.) -

Sir P. LAURIE—I WTI ready to defend myself any-
where. I feel great pleasure in exposing every piece of
humbug ; and I shall not hesitate in telling you that I
consider yours a very discreditable sort of occupation.
When I succeeded in knocking up the West Middlesex
Insurance Company, I cannot be afraid of concerns of
minor import.

Mr. Rainton—Mine is no West Middlesex Insurance
Company.
Mr. Hobler—No ; I suppose, however, you insure
the happiness of your couples ?—(Great laughter.)
Mr. Rainton—No ; I don't insure anything of the
kind.—(Laughter.)

Sir P. LAURIE-But as you only effect one marriage
per year, your profits upon the commission must be con-
siderable. Now, is it true that you charge each of your
patients 2/. 12s. 6d. ?—(Laughter.) Mr. Rainton—Not
at all. I charge no more altogether than eleven shil-
lings.—(Great laughter.)
Sir P. LAURIE—What No more than eleven shill-
ings for a lady with 1,0001. a year ? That's u. very small
iudeed. Zquw j 4o out reILL of couple-

making. I never knew any persons joined together in
consequence of a matrimonial advertisement except a
poor fellow in Fleet-street, who cut his own throat noun
after the knot was tied, and Corder, the murderer, for
whom a knot was tied in another way.
Mr. Rainton then withdrew amidst loud laughter,
which he bore with Christian fortitude.
CLERKENWELL.

Adolphus Conneskalb, a Prussian, about 34 years of
age, was re-examined on a charge of having robbed Mr.
Charles Nock, goldsmith and jeweller, of 24, Gerrard-
street, Soho. of property amounting to 1501., and with
having nearly murdered the policeman who took him
into custody.
It appeared that thy prisoner, who is a married man
with three.children, was in the employ of Mr. Nock, and
was on' terms of great intimacy with Mrs. Nock, w horn
he visited during her husband's absence. On Thursday
Mr. Nock went to Kensington, and was told, upon his
return, that his goods had been removed in a van to
Margaret-street, Cierkenwell ; his wife he fmind had left
her home with - his four children. Mr. Nock.then went
with a friend and a constable to 76, Margaret-street,
where he sound the prisoner ar.d his wilt and childre:•;.
His wife, on seeing him, ran 'down stairs and escaped over
the back wall, leaving her children. The constable told
the prisoner to consider himself in custody, but he re-
fused to. be taken, and imtnt,diatcly ussautted the police-
man with a candlestick, and knocked him doWn ; a vio-
lent struggle ensued, during - which the plict,inan was
dreadfully injured, and would have been murderetl by
the prisoner had nor assistance arrived. • The prisoner
was also very much cut about. Proof was ih a brought
that the prisoner had hired the apartments, and brought.
the goods (belonging to Mr. Nock) to the house in a
van, and had paid for their conveyance himseht
Mr. GREENWOOD considered the robbery had been
clearly proved, and fully committed the prisoner for trial.